A I met Vogt when he entered the Administrative Office of the SS. That was before the war, approximately 1936.
Q Therefore, you did not know him before he came to the SS Administrative Office at Munich?
A No, I did not know him before.
Q The Defendant Vogt was Chief of Amt A-4 in the WVHA. Did you ever ask Vogt to an official conference in which matters pertaining to concentration camps were discussed?
A No.
Q Did you ever call him to a conference in which the labor allocation of prisoners was discussed?
A No, he had nothing to do with it.
Q Were matters pertaining to economic plants discussed?
A No.
Q Did you ever call him to a conference in which the Reinhardt Action was mentioned?
A No.
Q Witness, you know that Vogt has been charged by the prosecution with participating in the Action Reinhardt, because in June 1943 in connection with the auditing of the funds of the Waffen-SS in Lublin he also audited the account "R". In issuing the order to Vogt, did you ever clarify the Action Reinhardt to him?
A I sent Vogt to Lublin in order to have the treasury of the administration there audited. I did not give him any further orders and I did not give him any further clarification.
Q Was the order which you issued to Vogt at the time actually within the competence of Amt A-4?
A The auditing of funds was actually not the task of Amt-A4. However, since Standartenfuehrer Schellin had reported to me that Gruppenfuehrer Globocnic had opposed this audit in*, I sent the Chief of Office A-4 in person in order to make this aditing possible.
Q. After having carried out the auditing and after having returned to Berlin did Vogt make an oral report to you about the result of this auditing?
A. Vogt submitted a short written report to me.
Q. Can you remember what Vogt stated at the time and what he objected to in the auditing report and what the contents of this report were?
A. Vogt objected to the fact that all the valuable from the Action Reinhardt had been transferred to the treasury of the Garrison of Lublin which was a Reich Treasury within the Waffen-SS and that he had not found any documents for this but only delivery receipts from Globocnik.
Q. Were any figures mentioned at all in this auditing report about the funds which had been turned in or the valuables?
A. No. No figures were mentioned at all.
Q. Witness, in connection with the Prosecution Document 725, Document Book 18, I would like to ask you a few questions. This is your decree of 9 December 1943 concerning the administration of Jewish property. It has the file mark II3 Reinhardt and it says at the beginning I quote: "An enquiry of the Budgeting Office of the German Reich causes to point out the following." End of quote. Witness, can you remember what this enquiry of the Reich Budgeting Office was dealing with at the time?
A. No, I do not recall that anymore.
Q. Is it possible that this enquiry of the Audit Court at that time which caused you to issue your order on December 9, 1943, is in connection with the objections of auditing by the defendant Vogt which Vogt announced to the Commissioner of the Audit Court at that time?
A. That's possible.
Q. Now I refer to a letter which you wrote on 16 February 1944 to Globocnik and which has been submitted by the prosecution in the trial before the International Military Tribunal in connection with the Action Reinhardt as document PS-4024, Exhibit GB 550.
The letter is very brief and I would like to quote it here. It reads as follows:
"Headed secret, File No. A-II3 Reinhardt, NE-ME, Diary No. Secret 3544. Subject Discharge Reinhardt at Lublin." "Reference your letter of 5 January 1944, and auditing report of Amt A-4 of 7 January 1944 and AII3 Reinhardt of 4 February 1944".
Now comes the address:
"SS Obergruppenfuehrer Globocnik, Higher SS and Police Leader in the Operational Zone, Adriatic Coast Line Trieste."
Then comes the text:
"The audit reports which have been submitted by the administration "Special Tasks G" Lublin for the period 25 October 1942 to 31 March 1943 have been submitted to the Audit Court. After having taken knowledge of the auditing report and after SS Sturmbannfuehrer Wipper has clarified this matter I now discharge you for the period of time which has been mentioned here."
One more sentence:
"Further accounts from 1 April 1943 to 31 December 1943 are being audited at this time. You will be informed at the appropriate time about time result of the auditing."
Signed "The Chief of the SS, WVHA, Pohl."
Witness, can you recall this letter?
A. Yes.
Q. In composing this letter did the defendant Vogt as Chief of the Audit Court of Office A-4--did he participate in this in any manner?
A. The letter came from Office A-2. That was Melmer and therefore Vogt cannot have participated in this matter.
Q. In the first sentence of your letter it has been mentioned that the accounts were submitted to Amt A-4, as far as the period 25 October 1942 to 31 March 1943 is concerned.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know, witness, that the accounts which we have just mentioned were not at all submitted to the auditing office in Berlin or to the Evacuation place at Fuerstenberg where the Amt A-4 had been transferred at that time, since these accounts had already been audited by Vogt at Lublin?
A. Yes, the accounts on the first part of the auditing which Vogt had carried out at Lublin were not sent to Amt A-4, since the auditing was terminated, it was no longer necessary to send them to Fuerstonberg.
Q. Did Vogt have anything to do with the Agency A II3 Reinhardt?
A. No.
Q. In the second sentence of the letter under discussion you have discharged Globocnik for the period for which the account were submitted. Do you know, witness, that in order to issue such a discharge from responsibility according to legal provisions the Reich Audit Court would have been?
A. Yes, of course, by the Reich Audit Court on the basis of an agreement which Globocnik had reached with the Reich Minister of Finance by order of Himmler had already agreed our auditing was to be final and therefore I was able to issue this discharge from responsibility.
Q. In the last sentence of the letter which we are discussing right now the following is stated "that the accounts for the time after the first of April 1943 are going audited at this time." Do you know if these accounts for the time after the first of April 1943 were submitted to Amt A-4 for examination?
A. No.
Q. In an affidavit of 3 March 1947 Prosecution Document No2327, Document Book 3, the former commandant of Buchenwald Herman Pister has stated that on occasion of a conference of Commandants at Berlin he had seen Vogt in the WVHA. Witness, I now ask you do you know if Vogt over participated in a conference of Commandants at Berlin or any other place?
A. Vogt never participated in any such conferences.
Q. Did Vogt ever make an official trip together with you?
A. No.
A. Did you have any personal relationship with Vogt outside of your official contacts?
A. No.
Q. Witness, can you recall that at the beginning of 1945 it had been intended to dissolve Amt A-4 because the preliminary auditing work was considered as despensable?
A. Yes, that's correct. In the line of the general reduction of personnel which had been caused by the necessities of war, I also dissolved Amt A-4.
A. I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until 1:45.
( a recess was taken )
AFTERNOON SESSION (Hearing Reconvened at 1345 hours)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal. In view of the nature of the questions which defense counsel have asked since the Tribunal ruling on the matter of leading questions, I should like to have permission to briefly re-open the question, and to present the Prosecution's view on that. It seems to us that it is rather an important matter, and the manner in which the questions have been put will be seriously prejudicial to the prosecution. I should like briefly to state our view.
Our position is based on two points. First, that it is prejudicial to the case of the Prosecution, and, secondly, that in permitting such questions we are not getting the full story in the case. Referring to the first point, that it is prejudicial to the case of the Prosecution, I should like to point out just one example of the type of questions which have been asked. Counsel for the defendant Volk asked such a question: "Is it correct that the defendant Volk had nothing to do with such and such a letter, which was introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit before the International Military Tribunal, in which it was said that - -" and so on. In other words, it seems that the defense counsel are just, as it were, going down the Indictment and asking this witness, who is presumed to know more about the facts in the case than anybody else, if such and such defendants know anything about this; getting negative answers, and then going on to another point in the Indictment, which is designed obviously to whitewash each of the defendants in the dock without stating what the defendant knows about each particular defendant.
I should like to point out that the basis for the rule which concerns leading questions is based upon the emotional attitude of the witness. The witness in this instance is obviously not hostile to the defense, and, as a matter of fact he is jointly responsible with all the defendants in the dock for all of the acts of the defendants as Chief of the WVHA.
It is obviously to his interest to exculpate each of the defendants. Clearly it cannot be said that he is hostile to the defense questions. I certainly don't wish to strictly stick to technical rules of evidence, and sofar as I can remember, we have not raised the objection before, even when Dr. Seidl on direct examination put a great number of leading questions; but, here, I think the matter is quite different : Where leading questions are put for the purpose of saving time, or even suggesting a topic of examination, in such instances I think they are perfectly proper, but where it suggest the answer which the defense counsel wishes to get, not only suggest the answer but actually gives the answer in the question itself, it would seem that is objectionable.
I would point out that under American procedure even the prosecution can make a defense witness his own for the purpose of putting leading questions. That is to say, if after a defense witness takes the stand, and the prosecution starts to cross examine the witness, and the witness shows that he is emotionally biased in favor of the prosecution, then it is not permitted that the prosecution put leading questions, or lead the witness into his answers.
I am reluctant to quote from a treatwise on technical rules of evidence, but it seems that Witmore on Evidence, Section 774, states the policy of this rule quite clearly. He says; "Yet where the reason ceases, the rule ceases also. Thus, when an opponent's witness proves to be in fact biased in favor of the cross examiner, the danger of leading questions arises, and they may be forbidden."
To distinguish the question whether counsel may ask about the facts of his own case on cross examination, I should like to point out that defense counsel have gone beyond the scope of direct examination, and have gone into questions concerning their own case, and for the purposes of leading questions, I think, they have made the witness their own in going beyond the scope of direct examination.
Here again the question of making the witness one's own, and not being able to impeach him is a technical rule of evidence to which I would not urge the Court to adhere, and I would not suggest that the defense counsel could not attempt to impeach this witness.
I do think for the purpose of leading questions it must be considered that they have gone beyond the scope of direct examination, and as Wigmore says, the danger of leading questions is inherent.
I should like to quote one more point from Wigmore. He quotes from Judge French in the New York Court of Appeals, stating the law of New York. "A different rule would enable a party to develop his defense untrammeled by the rules which govern a direct examination and give him an advantage for which we can see no just reason. As to the new matter the witness becomes his own, and in substance and effect the cross-examination ceases." Wigmore says, "In other words, the policy of the prohibition turns soley upon the emotional attitude of the witness to the party in general."
In the second place, I think it is obvious that we are not getting a full and detailed story of the WVHA. The defense counsel are asking questions very conclusory in their character obviously designed for a negative answer, and that is what they get.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, it is difficult to make a categorical ruling which will cover future examination. Much of the testimony which has been brought out by cross-examination is objectionable, not because the questions are leading, but because the witness is asked to state what was in someone else's mind, or conclusions and opinions of his own rather than facts that he knows. Much testimony which is objectionable has been introduced along that line. I don't think there is anything to your second objection, Mr. Robbins, that the questions do not bring out the whole story. You have the opportunity on redirect examination to supplement the examination and to bring out the rest of the story by your own questions. We will proceed and meet each question as it is asked, and without your intervention we will try to control the cross-examination within its proper bounds.
MR. ROBBINS: Thank you, your Honor.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q Just before the noon recess you were testifying in regard to Document No. NO-059, in regard to the Defendant Vogt making an examination and report of Lublin, Operation Reinhardt. When did you send the Defendant Vogt to Lublin to make this examination?
A I sent Vogt in June, 1943, to Lublin for an examination.
Q How long did he stay when making this examination?
A It wasn't an examination. That was a checking, that is all.
Q A checking then, if you want to call it that.
A I couldn't tell you exactly how long he stayed there. I don't know how many days he stayed there.
Q About how long?
A I assume approximately two to three days.
Q. Then how soon after he came back did he make his report of his checking?
A Well, your Honor, all this was quite a while back, and I couldn't give you exact details about this. Perhaps in the course of the following eight days after his return, but I couldn't tell you for sure.
Q Anyway he stayed there long enough so that when he made his report, a preliminary report, this preliminary report was sufficient to become a final report?
A Yes.
Q. Was his task, among his tasks was it his duty to audit the books of the concentration camps?
A No, it wasn't. He was to check the treasury of the garrison administration of Lublin.
Q I know, but away from that, in his office was it his duty to check the treasuries of the various concentration camps?
A I believe that they had been checked prior to that also by Amt IV. It varied, your Honor. The books of the concentration camps were examined by the court of audits sometimes, and I believe that Office A-IV also did that, but that changed in the course of years, and I couldn't tell you for sure.
However, it used to be assumed that they also checked them. I couldn't make any further statement to that fact.
Q What were Vogt's duties after that in regard to the concentration camps under the WVHA?
A Whether or not Vogt had anything to do with the accounting of the concentration camps or checking the accounting of the concentration camps I couldn't tell you for sure. I do know that there was a preliminary checking by the court of audits in the concentration camps, but I do not know that it was not Vogt's office which did the preliminary examination.
BY DR. MUELLER-TORGAU (For Defendant Goerg Loerner):
Q Witness, when and how did you meet the Defendant Goerg Loerner?
A Loerner was already in the administrative office of the SS when I arrived there.
Q Witness, did Frank and Georg Loerner since the first of February, 1934, they work under you without interruption?
A Yes.
Q How was it that Frank, according to his rank, climbed much faster and was promoted much faster than Georg Loerner?
A He was the older, he had more important positions than him, and he was a little bit more active efficient than Georg Loerner.
Q How can it be explained then that Georg Loerner, after Frank withdrew from the WVHA, became your representative as main chief, why was it that the chief of Amtsgruppe D, Gluck did not take this position?
A Because I had to have a representative who was in the building Glucks, however, was in Oranienburg, and apart from that Gluecks was not a man who was an expert in administrative questions, and he did not know all these expert questions that arose in the WVHA.
Q Did you tell Georg Loerner when he took over, when he became your representative, that he did not have to worry about the other Amtsgruppe, particularly C and D, as before?
A My representatives generally speaking -
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, that is exactly the kind of question that the Prosecution objects to. It seems to me there is no basis whatever for allowing such questions. It is leading the witness. With giving an answer which he might not otherwise give.
THE PRESIDENT: You see the objection to this question is obvious. If you ask the witness, "What did you tell Georg Loerner about Amt C or D, "that would be all right, but you say to him, "Did you tell Georg Loerner," and then you put the words right in the mouth of the witness, and that is what is objectionable. It does not leave the witness free to give his own answer. Will you restate your question properly, please?
BY DR. MUELLER*TORGAU:
Q What did you tell Georg Loerner when he took over the represetativeship?
A I gave my representatives no particular order.
THE PRESIDENT: Now ask him, "Did you tell him anything about the chiefs of Amt C or D," or whatever you wish to know about. You may direct his attention to a particular subject without putting the words in his mouth.
Q Did Georg Loerner have to do more or less than Frank?
A They all had the same amount of work to do, and Frank had more to say because he was the elder.
Q Did Georg Loerner have the right to dispose over money?
A No.
Q In the field of the General SS, did he have anything to say?
A No.
DR. MUELLER-TORGOU (Counsel for the defendant Georg Loerner): I am sorry, Your Honors, if my questions will take a little longer than anticipated because I must remove the suggestive sting from some questions. (Loud laughter in Court) BY DR. MUELLER-TORGOU:
Q The witness Georg Loerner said that when you were not present he only had the right to issue small punishment orders and to represent you on public occasions. Is that correct?
A I can not go into such details. My department was so organized that I could really disappear for two or three days and that my representative did not have to worry about details. I did not therefore issue special orders in case I should be absent.
Q During the year and a half of the war during which time Georg Loerner was your representative, were you absent from Berlin quite often?
A I did not travel very much because I had quite a few official things to take care of in Berlin during the last year of the war, so I travelled very little.
Q How often were you absent on the average?
A Two days.
Q During your absence from the WVHA was there any connection between Berlin and you?
A Generally speaking, even during my absence I did not let the reins leave my hands. Generally speaking, I called up Berlin in the evening and I inquired about urgent natters.
Q Did Georg Loerner have the right during your absence to sign the reports to Himmler, even if you had agreed to the contents of the report before your departure, basically, that is?
A Due to the short period of time in which I was absent that did not arise.
Q I shall now turn to Georg Loerner's activity in economic fields of tasks. Georg Loerner, when the DWB was established, contributed to its establishment; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Was it intended at the time by that to let him work practically in the DWB or not?
A No. That was not intended. I usually only called upon him when we formed new enterprises - as a member of an enterprise.
Q Georg Loerner took a share in that particular business up to 10,000 Reichsmarks; is that correct?
A You mean in the DWB? Yes.
Q Did matters rest there?
A No, afterwards he transferred these shares to someone else because he only needed those in order to establish the firm.
Q What do you mean by "afterwards?"
AAfter the firm was established.
Q I see. You said yesterday, witness, that you were the only manager of the DWB. Do you recall the fact that, formally speaking, you were the first one and Georg Loerner was the second manager for the DWB?
A Yes, that is correct, but of the business manager, it was I who was the only one who was active.
Loerner was not very active in that.
Q Who was it that, formally speaking, issued orders in the name of the DWB?
A I did.
Q You said yesterday that the creation of the so-called Amtsgruppe W had a technical importance and was not to be compared with the Amtsgruppen A to C. When you took over this Amtsgruppe, as chief, did you assign Georg Loerner to serve as your representative also in that capacity? This power of attorney that Georg Loerner received, did that arrive from his position as second business manager of the DWB?
A I made Loerner my representative of Amtsgruppe W because, as a man who had a diploma in commerce, he seemed to be the best qualified man in the DWB to take over this job.
Q Did Georg Loerner, as your deputy, in your position as chief of Amtsgruppe W, did he ever make any decision?
A I made the decisions.
Q Do you recall your decree of the 8th of December 1942, whereby the W offices had to report to Leorg Loerner in all important matters?
A Yes.
Q Did that decree ever become reality?
A Shortly afterwards that decree was cancelled because it didn't work out. The Amts-chiefs who came from the outside first saw him and then often missed their connections with me so that he had to come to me a day or two after. That was the reason why I eliminated this procedure and they had to report directly and exclusively to me.
Q Georg Loerner, when new firms were established, was also called upon and had to buy certain shares. Was it intended here that he was to work in one of those enterprises himself in some position?
A No, I only used him as a second shareholder during the establishment.
Q Was it the same with the establishment of the OSTI G.m.b.H.?
A I think so, I don't know for sure.
Q I believe that you said before that in establishing Osti you wanted to clear up the somewhat confused armament conditions in the Eastern territories and to put all the enterprises under a central direction. Did you think about the exploitation of Jewish labor and if so did you tell anything about it to Georg Loerner?
A Jewish labor was being used prior to the establishment of the OSTI in the various enterprises. That was one of the reasons but it was not the primary reason. I do not believe that I discussed this matter with Loerner.
Q Did Georg Loerner for the activities just mentioned receive any remuneration?
A No.
Q Witness, what was the actual field of tasks of Loerner's?
A Chief of Amtsgruppe B - Group Economy.
Q Why was it that Georg Loerner when the WVHA was established received the position as chief of Amtsgruppe B?
A Because it had something to do with economic matters which he, as a businessman, could cope with best.
Q Witness, during the first day of your examination you told us about the most important field of tasks of Amtsgruppe B. When discussing the tasks of Amtsgruppe B-1, that had to deal with food, you said that the food rations for concentration camp inmates had been arranged by the Reichs Ministry for Food. Did Georg Loerner when determining these quotas, in any way have anything to do with that?
A No.
Q Was Georg Loerner responsible for the supply of food to the concentration camps and for the distribution of food rations to the individual inmates? Did he have anything to do in a supervisory capacity?
A No.
Q Was the food inspector of the Waffen-SS subordinate to Prof. Schenk? Was he subordinate to the chief of Amtsgruppe B or was he only assigned to that Amtsgruppe in order to have a position in the WVHA.
A The food inspector was subordinate to me personally and directly, although he had his planning office in Amtsgruppe B.
Q Did Georg Loerner have the right to issue orders to the food inspector? Any orders of any kind?
A He received his orders from me.
Q Did you ever discuss the matter with Georg Loerner about experiments with food on concentration camp inmates?
A No.
Q Witness, I shall now turn to a few questions which deal with the clothing industry. Did Georg Loerner, in his ministerial instance have anything to do with clothing of the inmates in concentration camps?
A The administration of the concentration camps were competent for that.
Q And in a supervisory instance?
A In the supervisory instance the Amt D-IV was competent.
Q In your opinion, did Georg Loerner, on the basis of the raw material situation which was becoming worse and worse during the war - did he do whatever was in his power to obtain the necessary raw materials? Do you recall, for instance, the request of Burger, with Amt D-IV? Do you recall that Georg Loerner had a report sent to Himmler in which he refers to the impossibility to comply with the requests of Amtsgruppe D fully?
A I can recall the report, however, I no longer remember if it came from Burger.
Q Document Book No. 7 contains the Document NO-287. That is on page 99 of the German Document Book and on page 250 of the English Document Book. This deals with the letter of Obersturmbannfuehrer Brandt, from Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler's personal staff, to you, in which he asks you to send a report - or rather an order - to the Clothes Ministry in order to put experimental clothes at the disposal of Dachau. Do you recall that Georg Loerner in this connection had done anything about it?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A. No, I can no longer recall this incident today.
Q In other words, you don't know either if Georg Loerner ever had any knowledge of this letter?
A No, I cannot recall this incident.
Q The prosecution, by introducing Document NO-519, in Document 19, page 44 in the German Document Book and in the English Document Book on page 41, and so forth, brought Georg Loerner into connection with the taking over of the Ghetto and Litzmannstadt. That is when the Ghetto and Litzmannstadt was changed into a concentration camp. This complex was discussed today, this morning. From the entire correspondence that was submitted, only one single letter was sent to Georg Loerner, for information. I would like to read this letter. It comes, I assume, from you. There is no name here and it is addressed to Gauleiter Greiser in Posen.
"Dear Gauleiter:
"I thank you for your letter of the 15th of February, 1944, File Note 386-44. I am very glad that with your conversation with the Reichsfuehrer SS the question of the Ghetto in Litzmannstadt has been cleared up for good. I note with pleasure that the SS-WVHA has no longer anything to do with the matter. As far as a share is concerned in our French wine shipment, I shall write you within the next few days."
Why was it that this letter was sent to the Defendant Georg Loerner contrary to all other letters which were not sent him. Why was it sent to him for informational purposes?
A The last sentence was a personal request of the Gauleiter, and Loerner was to take care of that. It has nothing to do with the balance of the letter.
Q Did Georg Loerner at any time participate in the Friday conversations and conferences which you mentioned the other day with Gluecks and Mauer?
A No.
Q Did Georg Loerner have any official connections with the con Court No. II, Case No. 4.centration camp commandants or did he participate in the conference in Oranienburg at any time?