Take the Frank Exhibit I which I introduced yesterday. Take a look at the Frank Exhibit No. I and tell this Tribunal on the basis of the red and blue lines above by whom and to whom the orders about the arrest and the release of inmates, etc. were issued. And who ordered the executions. And explain to us now in how far Amtsgruppe A had anything to do with it.
A. As I have already stated before, the RSHA, in its channels of command, was entirely independent from the WVHA. It had a direct influence on Amtsgruppe D and on the concentration camps. An official or an employee of the RSHA could also carry out arrests if he had the authority to do so. The other channel to Amtsgruppe D went through the chief of the WVHA, particularly as far as labor allocation and administrative matters were concerned. Amtsgruppe A was only in a loose connection with the concentration camps as far as financial matters were concerned.
Q. Was Amtsgruppe A in a position to exercise any influence on the arrest, release, and treatment of the inmates?
A. No.
Q. How about you personally?
A. You mean the person who represented me, because as Chief of the Amtsgruppe it was quite clear. However, even when I deputized for Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, I could not represent him in concentration camp matters, because that was not in my own field of tasks and they constituted decisions in labor assignment questions which had to be so important that the Chief of Amt-D-II could not carry them out himself. Therefore, I couldn't do it either, because otherwise I would have had to continuously present at those conferences. I would have had to be in contact with all the things which were in connection with labor assignment and then, possibly, I would have been able to intervene while representing Pohl.
Q. Witness, do you wish to say by that that you had nothing to do with the question of arrect and the further treatment of the inmates and that your opinion which you expressed to this Tribunal bout the political arrests, ets., really is nothing but an opinion and could not possibly have been evidenced on your part?
A. What I told the Tribunal was my own personal humane interpretation of those facts which had nothing to do with my position as Chief of an Amtsgruppe. As far as the arrests, were concerned, Pohl couldn't have arrested anybody either. He did not have any more power than I did in having people arrested. A small secretary of the Gestapo, a criminal secretary of the Gestapo, had much more to say in those matters than an SS-Obergruppenfuehrer in the WVHA.
Q. However, as SS Obergruppenfuehrer, didn't you have any influence on the organization of the system? That is to say that you in some way, together with the other leading personalities of the SS, could sort of change this system, the shape of the system of the arrest of political prisoners--could't you possibly change it?
A. In order to exercise some sort of an influence in this particular point on Himmler, in order to be able to have such an influence over him, it would have been necessary that Himmler with his Obergruppenfuehrer should have had a conference periodically, during which conference an open criticism and an open discussion could be possible.
However no such thing ever happened as long as I was a Gruppenfuehrer and Obergruppenfuehrer. Acriticism at that time would have meant the same thing as certain death. However, that Himmler during individual conferences was highly influenced by many of his generals and that in an good sense, particularly in 1944, can be concluded from the fact that he, in September 1944, finally gave the order, to cease the killing of Jews. I heard this through Oberstrumbannfuehrer Becher who had that particular order in his hands. This Oberstrumbannfuehrer Hecher had the order to exchanbe Jews for vital raw materials. As crazy as this deal night possibly sound, it was true and was put into effect. I knew that this was the reason why Becker came to see me several times. As one says, he was attacked many times, because he did that. He kept on writing to Himmler. He transferred one prominent Jew after another to Switzerland and hundreds of Jews with their families and brought nothing back in return. Becher's life was in danger at the time because he did that.
Q. Witness, that is sufficient about this subject. I applied for Obersturmbannfuehrer Becher as a witness some time ago. However, I have not received any answer as yet from the Tribunal. I wanted to call Becher as a witness in this trial.
THB PRESIDENT: All applications for defense witnesses have been passed on by the Tribunal. They are always passed on within at the most within 1/2 day after I receive them. It is wandering around Defense Information Center somewhere. I can't tell you what the decision was. I think it was granted.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Thank you very much, Your Honor. I shall inquire about it.
Q. Witness, you said that Himmler had no common conferences with the Higher SS leaders.
Would it be correct to say that he tried to separate all his main offices and all his unterfuehrers and not to let the one know that the other one was doing?
A. Yes, as a matter of fact, he incited then against each other. I know that through my own personal experience, that he incited one against the other by telling him something that the other one didn't like. That was one of Himmler's systems, which I myself recongized during the last few years when I held and important and high grade.
Q. In other words, he did not tolerate any conspiracy against hinself and he did not tolerate any conspiracies against one of the SS systems. Is that the way we can put it?
A. That is a very, very difficult question.
Q. I am asking you if he let every Higher SS Leader work in his own field of tasks and did he avoid a close connection between these various offices in order to separate the activities and secrets of the RSHA were?
A. No, that was impossible. Not even Pohl knew that. It was absolutely impossible, for instance, that the Chief of the Operational Main Office, knew what Himmler had told Pohl, and SS Main Office Chief Berger, did not know what Himmler said to Juettner, who was Chief of the Operational Main Office. I believe that Himmler during the last year and a half in particular understood very clearly that his position as Chief of the Gestapo brought him into an absolute contradiction with his generals of the units, because it was apparent to us all that things were going on during the last year, which were not worthy of the Waffen SS and Himmler could only carry out those things because he incited his Higher Leaders against each other and as I said before, and because he never had a common commanders conference where everybody could have voiced hes complaints and his misgivings as it is done in a democratic system It could not be thought of at any time. One could not think. One just had to obey or perish. There was nothing else.
DR. RAUSCENBACH: Thank you; that is sufficient, Witness, I have completed the direct examination of the Defendant Frank. Would it be convenient to have a recess at the present moment?
THE PRESIDENT: In this the N S DAP here, where no one trusted anybody else?
WITNESS: Your Honor, the NS DAP is not Himmler, Himmler is nothing but a part of the N SDAP.
THE PRESIDENT: O, but what a part.
WITNESS: A very beautiful part indeed. Himmler had the entire Waffen-SS behind him and therefore, he was a rather important part of the Reich, of the State machinery, because after all there were approximately three to four million determined men behind him.
THE PRESIDENT: Hoe many ahead of him, two, perhaps three?
THE WITNESS: Above him? The Fuehrer only, just Hitler.
THE PRESIDENT: I still stand by what I said.
We will take a recess.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal will be in recess for 15 minutes.
( A recess was taken )
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Had you finished your examination, Dr. Rauschenbach?
******USCHENBACH: I have concluded the direct examination of the defendant Frank.
THE PRESIDENT: Cross-examination by other counsel?
EXAMINATION BY DR. VON STA**LBERG (Counsel for the defendant Fanslau):
Q Witness, when did the defendant Fanslau enter the WVHA?
A On the 1st of February 1942, when the main office was established.
Q Was he ordered to do so?
A Yes, he was given orders to join the WVHA.
Q Did the defendant Fanslau play any part in the preliminary work for the establishment of the WVHA?
A I suppose he was unable to do that because he was not even there.
Q What office did the defendant Fanslau obtain?
A He was given Amt A-V, the personnel office. That was the most important office in Amtsgruppe A, and it required a person with special humane characteristics because it was the office which dealt with the administration of people.
Q Did you discuss the reasons with the defendant Fanslau which caused the WVHA to be established?
A No. This question surprises me to some extent; I believe none of us knew the exact reasons. I believe the main reason was that we wanted to clarify this confusion which existed in the Main Office of Economy and Administration, the Main Office of Construction and Buildings, and the Administrative Office of the Waffen SS. We finally wanted to stop all this confusion and establish some sort of a clearly organized system.
Q. Was the WVHA based on any political plan which you could recognize?
A. No, there were only the reasons for this establishment which I have already mentioned just now.
Q. Did you have a plan come to your knowledge later on or did you recognize any such plan?
A. No.
Q. According to your opinion, was the WVHA a state authority or was it a Party political agency?
A. I cannot answer this question in the affirmative or in the negative. Amtsgruppe A, B, C, and later on the Amtsgruppe D, were part of clear Reich system. Amtsgruppe W dealt with economic matters. Amtsgruppe A also dealt with the Party finances which however during the war reached a lower and lower extent.
Q. You said that the tasks and the orders which were turned over to the defendant Fanslau were limited to working on personnel matters. Financial questions were dealt with in other offices.
A. Yes, that is quite correct. Fanslau only dealt with personnel matters of the administrative officers of the Waffen-SS.
Q. Were these assignments of a purely military nature?
A. Yes, they were 100 per cent of a military nature.
Q. You were later on chief of the army administrative office. You therefore are able to make a comparison between the tasks of the personnel chief of the army administrative office. Did this work correspond to the task of the defendant Franslau in the Waffen-SS?
A. Yes. Fundamentally, of course, with regard to the size, Fanslau had to take care of 4,000 administrative offices in the Waffen-SS; in the Army, he had to take care of 40,000.
Q. However, the type of the work was the same?
A. Yes, it was exactly the same.
Q. Did the incorporation of the inspectorate of the concentration camps change anything in the work of the Office A-V?
A. The personnel files of the offices in the concentration camps had already been previously handled by a personnel expert and the same procedure was followed afterwards.
Q. You said the personnel expert with the inspector for the concentration camps. Did that office have its own personnel department?
A. Yes. As far as I know, this was a personal union with the adjutant of the inspector; that is to say, this adjutant at the same time carried out personnel policies.
Q. From the documents which have been presented by the prosecution, in particular the organizational chart which has been submitted, it becomes evident that this department had a file mark A-V-4. Does this file not establish any contact with the office A-V?
A. I don't know that. I didn't know that the personnel expert with the inspector of the concentration camps used the reference mark A-V-4.
Q. Do you mean by that you did not have any contact at all with this personnel office?
A. Yes, I must say that because otherwise as chief of the Amtsgruppe I would have been informed about the fact if this had been a part of Amtsgruppe A. If he had belonged to Amtsgruppe A, of course he would have been part of Amtsgruppe A.
Q. In this case he did not have that position?
A. No.
Q. What task did the defendant Fanslau have as deputy chief of the Amtsgruppe?
A. Well, these tasks were very small and of minor nature. It was more of an honorary title to be the deputy chief of the Amtsgruppe. I cannot remember that Fanslau in this capacity ever made his appearance at all. It was the usual procedure that the chief of the offices used to come and see me whenever I was not there, and they either waited until I returned or they made their own decisions, because, after all the decisions of Amtstgruppe A concerned only money or other economic matters, and it did not hurt to postpone them for several days.
Q. Therefore the defendant Fanslau did not have any special authority?
A. No. On this occasion, I would like to say something briefly with regard to the question of the deputizing. In the WVHA, the deputizing from the highest to the lowest level was not regulated like, for example, in the Reich Ministries. There, for example, the State Secretary was the deputy of the minister. The ministerial director was the deputy of the state secretary, and the ministerial dirigent was the deputy of the ministerial director. Thus every one of the deputies knew all the tasks of his superiors. That was a completely different situation than existed with us. This already becomes evident from the position of the person concerned. There was only one state secretary or there were at the most two of them who knew exactly of the tasks of the ministry and divided these tasks amongst each other. In that field of work, they had exactly as much knowledge as the minister himself. The same thing applied to the ministerial dirigent and that is why these were special positions, their importance ranged with their responsibility and they were paid accordingly.
While in the WVHA, all the chiefs of the Amtsgruppe had the same grade or could reach that grade. The chiefs of the offices could reach a maximum grade. Therefore, no special grade was provided for a deputy. I believe it was necessary for me to point out this fact.
Q. Therefore, it is a fact that the deputizing did not mean that the deputy would be completely informed of the tasks and the field of work of his chief?
A. No, he did not have that knowledge. That is something which an outsider cannot understand without a further explanation. However, since during the war we had such an overload of work it was not possible to constantly consult a deputy for all the conferences because I can only consider a deputy to be a man who reads every letter which his chief receives for whom he has to deputize and who attends all conferences and who is informed about all things, and that was not the case in the WVHA.
Q. Therefore it seems to me that the deputizing in your office was only of a normal nature?
A. Yes, it was only of a formal and representative nature.
Q. In your affidavit of the 17th of January 1947, Exhibit 4, you stated that the defendant Fanslau until the 31st of August 1943 was your deputy and chief of the Amtsgruppe. You further stated that on the 9th of November 1944, he was appointed chief of the Amtsgruppe. Just what was his status in the meantime? Was there a vacancy in the position or was the defendant Fanslau already at an earlier period of time entrusted with the direction of the office?
A. No. This position had a vacancy and was not filled at the time.
Q. The defendant Fanslau, however, at an earlier period of time on the 9th of November 1944 was in charge of the direction of The Amtsgruppe?
A. It is possible, but I did not know that anymore when I gave the affidavit.
Q. The defendant Fanslau himself states that this had been in June or July of 1944.
A. That may be. It's probably correct.
Q. You have stated in your direct examination that during this time personnel and finance questions were discussed with the senior expert in the office. Does this mean that you also discussed these matters with the defendant Fanslau? These were finance questions.
A. No, I was unable to do that because he knew very little of finance questions because he had not occupied himself with them for more than a year. Of course, I discussed the finance questions with my comrade Hans Loerner Just how many of these discussions took place, I cannot recall any more today. They probably were questions which still came from the time when I held the office and they were only questions with regard to the financing of the units.
***at the time when you were chief of the Amtsgruppe, did you have *****ferences with the office chiefs, with the individual office assistants and representatives to give a lecture and orientation?
A Yes, I used to call my office chiefs from time to time; however, this was not in order to have every one of them give me a lecture because then the others present would have been bored, those who were not concerned with these matters. We used to discuss the increase in the membership of the Waffen SS and discuss the problems arising from that; and then we used to sit down and have a glass of beer. This happened about every two to three months. Official matters which concerned only one Amtsgruppe were discussed in private conferences, in order to save time.
Q During the time that you were chief of the Amtsgruppen, were there any regular conferences held between the chiefs of the individual Amtsgruppen - let us say with Pohl?
A No.
Q Was it the same case with the office chiefs did the defendant Fanslau have the authority within Amtsgruppe B, C, D, and * to direct the personnel there and to initiate transfer *** *** assignments, promotions, etc.?
A No, he was unable to do that; that was the task for the main office chief.
Q Could he do this with the administrative officers of the replacement units and the units in the field?
A Yes, as far as I can remember up to the staff officers; from staff officers up, he was unable to do that.
Q Witness, it has repeatedly been difficult for us to convince ourselves of the fact that the holders of high grades in the SS, and the occupants of high positions in the SS did not have any knowledge of the crimes which are being charged here; or that they had only a very limited knowledge of them. I therefore would like to direct a few questions to you with regard to the secrecy. I have an order of the Fuehrer and supreme commander of the Wehrmacht of the 11th of January, 1940 before me.
I shall read it to you, and please tell me, if you can recall this decree. "Fundamental Order. 1. No one, no agency, no officer, is to obtain knowledge of a secret matter if it is not imperative for him to have knowledge because of official reasons. 2. No agency, and no officer is to obtain more knowledge of any matter which is to be kept secret than is necessary for the execution of their tasks. 3. No agency and no officer is to obtain any knowledge of any secret matter at an earlier period of time than is necessary for the execution of their tasks. 4. The careless passing on of orders whose secrecy is of decisive importance, by means of any general distribution, channels, is prohibited." Do you remember this order?
A Yes, naturally. The order was posted in every office, and it was posted at a prominent place where it would be seen easily, and thousands of copies of this order were distributed; and we had to certify every three-quarters of a year, with our own signature, that all members of this office had been informed of this order.
Q. Therefore, this order also applied to within the Waffen SS just like within the Wehrmacht?
A It applied to every member of the German Wehrmacht and consequently to all members of the Waffen SS.
Q And was this order complied with?
A Yes, I know from my activities as administrative chief of the army that severe penalties were handed out for non-compliance with this order. I believe that a death sentence was imposed on one occasion.
Q We have already heard here that there were various categories of secrecy; for the documents which were to be kept secret, were there any special regulations with regard to keeping them in strongboxes etc., and with regard to the use of classifying them?
A Yes. There were extensive regulations. The regulations themselves were classified according to the various categories. There was a difference if it was to be classified secret or top secret, or as state secret.
The difference between top secret and state secret was only that the military agencies and the military commanders used the term top secret, and that the civilian agencies used the term state secret, which also means top secret. Then we had the classification of confidential, only for leaders, that is to say, only for officers; and we had very extensive regulations for secrecy. In any case, it was mandatory that they were announced repeatedly.
Q Did also special regulations exist with regard to the safekeeping in a certain manner, in certain safes or in certain strongboxes?
A Yes, that was very strictly observed. I can recall one case where in the army at night, the secret field police examined the locks and examined the desks; they even broke open the desks in order to determine whether in an ordinary desk a top secret document was kept which should have been placed into the safe. Whenever such a case was discovered, then the culprit could count on receiving an extraordinarily severe penalty; he was immediately placed before a courts martial.
Q And for the mailing of such secret or top secret matter, was there also a special regulation?
A Yes, this was also part of the secrecy regulation.
Q Were these documents registered especially?
A Yes, the regulation required that the documents be given a number and a special registration; and these documents caused people to be rather nervous in general; there was much annoyance and difficulty because of them for the chiefs.
Q Well, so much for the fundamental question. Did you ever discuss the Reinhardt Action with the defendant Fanslau or the order which you signed; or did you give the defendant Fanslau any knowledge of it?
A No. This was a typical example, that he was not allowed to gain any knowledge of it, because I did not sign this document as chief of the Amtsgruppe, but as a deputy. He, therefore, was not allowed to gain any knowledge of it; he was not at all concerned with the matter and it was none of his business.
Q In your direct examination you stated today that you had tried to get a transfer from Amtsgruppe A because of its close relations with concentration camps in which Amtsgruppe A was involved. Did I understand you correctly to that effect? Do you want to make that statement?
A No, that is completely wrong. I would never have wanted to leave Amtsgruppe A because I really liked the work there. I was an enthusiastic Tropp Administrative Officer and liked the work with all my heart. However, I had had enough of the atmosphere with which the concentration camps were surrounded, and some of my closer comrades had the misfortune by virtue of their position to stay there to work on these matters, like for example my comrades in Amtsgruppe D. This, of course, could not be changed. However, as it is said in Germany, I had become fed up to the gills with the whole atmosphere and I was trying as much as I could to get transferred. It was not because I knew that one person or another had been killed or murdered, but the whole system was just not the right thing for a soldier. All of us and the comrades in Amtsgruppe A were shocked when Amtsgruppe D became a part of the WVHA. I do not want to throw any stones at my comrades in Amtsgruppe D - that they had the misfortune to be assigned to this Amtsgruppe was just a matter of fate in my opinion - just as it was a matter of fate in my case that I was brought into a connection with the Action Reinhardt.
Q Therefore, if I understood you correctly, you maintain that the work of Amtsgruppe A was not at all affected by the incorporation of Amtsgruppe D.
A No, the task of Amtsgruppe A was the same as that of an administrator or an assistant of the American or the English or any other army; soldiers had to be taken care of, and that was a matter which is done in every army, and all of us liked to do this work, including myself.
Q Witness, now I have a final question to you. For many years you were a chief of the defendant Fanslau. Can you tell me anything about his personality and his character. In his character was he a politician or was he a politically unbiased soldier.
A. It is always very difficult to give a judgment about any human being, especially when I an confronted by him. In the case of Ganslau it is not very difficult for me. I have already stated that the Office A-V required special character and personality, and that Fanslau had these characteristics. It is shown by the fact that I myself gave him that position. Fanslau was an old party member, and he was an old member in the SS. However, during the last years of the war he felt exactly the same as I did, and like many thousands of other SS officers who were disappointed, and we did not see the fulfillment of what we had expected.
DR. STAKELBERG: Your Honor, for the time being I have not any further questions.
BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH (For Hans Loerner):
Q. Witness, what do you know about the activity of the Defendant Hans Loerner in the administration of the General SS before the war?
A. Hans Loerner, as far as I can recall, joined the administrative service of the General SS in 1934. For several years, I believe until the outbreak of the war, he was Chief of the Administrative Office of the Allgemeine-SS, the General-SS, of the Chief Sector Nurnberg.
Q. Is it correct that Hans Loerner in the year 1940 did not like the activity on the staff of Pohl, and on the 1st of May, 1940, he was assigned by you to the troop administration Office of the SS?
A. Yes, that is correct. Hans Loerner was an old soldier. He was an officer on the First World War, and he also was longing to work in troop administration. At that time I assigned him to my office for that reason.
Q. What was his task at the time?
A. He had to solve the budgetary questions together with me. He furthermore carried out finance tasks for the party.
Q. What were his duties when he became Chief of the Office A-I in the WVHA?
A. He was export for budgetary matters for the entire Waffen-SS.
Q. Do you know anything about the fact that the Defendant Hans Loerner was charged with the execution of the new order of payment of the NS DAP?
A. Yes, I know of it. In the middle of the was the NSDAP ordered a new payment plan, and Hans Loerner was charged with the task to carry it out for the sector of the SS.
Q. Did he have very much work in this case?
A. Yes, because there was a lot of paper work to be done.
Q. Did you ever discuss the utilization of the Jewish property with him or did you ever discuss the Reinhardt Action with him, and was Office A-I included in this matter at all?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever discuss with Hans Loerner the medical experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A. I couldn't do that because I myself did not know anything about them.
Q. Was the Office A-I included in the loan from the Reinhardt Fund to the economy?
A. No, the treasury was doing this work directly. It received the order to carry out payments from me, and by means of this order the funds were issued.
Q. Did you ever give any orders about participation of the office chiefs of Amtsgruppe A in official conferences of Amtsgruppe D, or of conferences of the concentration-camp commanders?
A. No. I myself did not participate in them, and I has no business whatsoever in them.
Q. You see the organizational chart. Is that the same chart which you drafted in the course of an interrogation as the original?
A. Yes, unfortunately.
Q. In this chart which you sketched for Amtsgruppe A, the Defen dant Hans Loerner has been described as Chief of the Office A-II from 1943 to 1945, is that correct?
A. No. I overlooked this and made a mistake. I really made a bad mistake here. Only from 1944 on, as he told me himself, was he charged with the leadership, or rather the supervision. However, I have never seen any order to that effect. This was also a type of deputizing, because the task of the Amtsgruppen, with the continuation of the war, became less and less, and more and more improvisations had to be made, and the war in its entirety required work to be carried out so quickly that these regulations could not be observed any more.
DR. RAUCHENBACH: I thank you. That is sufficient. Your Honors, I have not further questions.
BY DR. SCHMIDT (For Defendant Joseph Vogt):
Q. Witness, as Chief of Amtsgruppe A you were the superior of the Defendant Vogt. When did you come into contact for the first time with Vogt?
A. I think I made Vogt's acquaintance in the Administrative Office of the SS at Munich. I believe it was in 1937.
Q. In the years 1939 to 1942, that is to say until the establishment of the WVHA, you were Chief of the Office KI, which later on was the Administrative Office of the Waffen-SS?
A. Yes.
Q. In what department did Vogt work at the time in this office?
A. It was the main department for the auditing office.
Q. Can you tell us of what his sphere of work consisted at the time?
A. He had to audit the troop treasury. That is to say he had to supervise, and he had to see whether the funds which were turned over to the Administrative Offices were spent properly, and that complete accounts were given for these funds. Otherwise it could have happened that an administrative officer could have taken 50,000 marks and only listed 30,000, and he could have embezzled 20,000 marks right there.
Therefore, he had to exercise a control whether the 50,000 marks were actually listed in the books. This was done with the aid of the monthly accounts which had to be submitted.
Q. Witness, was this a preliminary auditing, or was this just an examination of the treasury? I am referring to the activity which you have just mentioned.
A. It was an examination of the treasury.
Q. Besides examining the treasury did he also have to make preliminary examinations of the bills?
A. His auditing work was recognized as being the regular auditing by the auditing court. Already, for the reason that an additional agency would not have to be included for preliminary auditing, already at that time he worked for the treasury court as a preliminary examining auditor.
Q. Did this activity, the examination and auditing of Vogt in the Office KI, which later on became the administrative Office of the WaffenSS, did this activity also extend to the accounts which were given for funds spent by the concentration camps?
A. No, he was unable to carry out this work, because as I have stated the Office KI, which is an abbreviation for Corps Administrative Office had nothing to do with the concentration camps.
Q. Is it therefore correct that the auditing activity of Vogt at the time extended exclusively to the troop treasury of the Waffen-SS?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. With the establishment of the WVHA you again became the superior of the Defendant Vogt. At the time of the establishment of the WVHA did the sphere of work of Vogt change in any way as compared to his activity in the former Corps Administrative Office or the administrative office of the Waffen-SS?
A. Yes, it changed insofar as A-IV was the only preliminary auditing agency for the German auditing court on the field of the entire Waffen-SS. Only the auditing of building-technical matters was exempted. The auditing court of the German Reich was the highest auditing agency, and it was directly subordinated to the Fuehrer. It therefore was independent, even from decisions by the Reich Ministers. It was already the usual procedure before 1933. The president of the auditing court at the time was only responsible to the Reichstag. The auditing court therefore was a completely independent auditing agency. Because this institute could not examine every agency and in order to do that it would have required thousands of officials, it had established in the individual government offices or agencies a so-called preliminary auditing agency, and thus Vogt had exactly two superiors, namely myself as Chief of the Amtsgruppe in his official contacts, while in his preliminary auditing activity he was directly responsible toward the president of the Reich auditing court.
Q. Witness, I take it from your answer that Vogt's field of auditing was enlarged by the establishment of the WVHA on the 1st of February, 1942. Now, was there a change in Vogt's preliminary auditing field of work at the time of the incorporation of Amtsgruppe D into the WVHA? At the time of the incorporation did Vogt's field of work change at all?