Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SCHMIDT: Dr. Schmidt for the defendant Josef Vogt?
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q Witness, do you know the defendant Josef Vogt?
A Yes.
Q Do you know that Vogt was in charge of the auditing department, A-4, of the WVHA?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us the personnel strength of that particular office at the beginning of the WVHA and later?
A I can only give you the highest personnel strength and the lowest personnel strength. That is, the highest personnel strength was in 1942 thirty-two to thirty-five leaders. How many sub-leaders there were, and how many civilian employees I can not tell you. The lowest personnel strength was during the simplication of the administrative department, that is to say, at the end of 1944, approximately four to five leaders, with the exception of Standartenfuehrer Vogt, V-O-G-T.
Q Do you know, witness, that Amt-D-IV in 1943 was transferred somewhere else, if so, where to?
A After heavy damage by air raids, Amt-A-IV was transferred to the region of Fuerstenberg, and a special spot or place had been selected for evacuation purposes.
Q Was Amt-A-IV the only Amt of the WVHA which carried out these evacuations?
A No, there were still the W-Amts, which were removed from the blocks in Unter Den Eichen, and transferred to other localities.
Q When did the evacuation of W-Amts take place?
A I no longer recall the exact date.
Q Witness, do you know if the Auditing Office A-IV, or rather do you know out of the Office A-IV of the Auditing Department several employees were transferred to the SS Economic Department, and if so, when was that?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I can no longer tell you about the exact date.
Q Do you know anything about the fact they were transferred?
A That is quite possible, that the leaders as auditors were transferred to the Economic Enterprise.
Q You do not have any exact knowledge about that?
A No. Amts-A-IV had constantly changed its leaders, and that was carried out by simply drawing from the so-called reserve. However, these people were transferred to the Economic Enterprise, and they resigned from that position with the Amt.
DR. SCHMIDT: No further questions.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
BY DR. STEIN (Counsel for defendant Eirenschmalz):
Q Witness, you mentioned Amtsgruppe C.
A Yes.
Q Do you know Eirenschmalz?
A Yes.
Q Did Eirenschmalz, as Kammler's deputy, ever discuss personnel questions with you at any time?
A As a representative of Kammler on personnel questions, Standartenfuehrer Schleif was the only one who was competent.
Q I mean the time before Standartenfuehrer Schleif appeared as Kammler's representative. I mean during that time before that, and I am now speaking of the time from January 1943 to May 1943. Did you at that time ever discuss personnel questions with Eirenschmalz, and that again as a representative of Kammler? Did you ever have any other discussions with him?
A I can not recall such a thing. I do not believe that I would have forgotten all about it if such a thing had occurred, if I had a conference with Eirenschmalz.
Q Did you receive in your hands a document which bore Eirenschmalz's signature as Kammler's representative?
A No.
Q When Professor Schleif was Kammler's representative, were there conferences with you very often about personnel questions?
A Well-
Q How often did they occur--every week or once a month?
A I can not give you any exact dates. Certainly there were often conferences with him, but I can not give you any exact dates.
Q Do you know that it occurred very seldom that Kammler spoke to you about various things?
A Would you repeat the question please?
Q I would like to know if Kammler ever had a discussion with you about personnel questions, and I want you to give approximate Court No. II, Case No. 4.statements if it occurred once a month that Kammler had official conferences with you.
A Kammler never had any conferences with me personally, but only with Brigadefuehrer Fanslau. I was there a few times, and I witnessed some of these conferences. They occurred about two or three times, as a total.
Q Do you know if there was any correspondence between Kammler and your office?
A Yes.
Q Do you know anything about the relationship between Eirenschmalz and Kammler?
A No, not from my official activity. However, I can recall that on the occasion of a private gathering Oberfuehrer Eirenschmalz said bitter words about his chief and stressed the point that he simply could not get along with him.
Q It is also known that Eirenschmalz at that time did not want to join the WVHA due to that reason and that he wanted to be transferred to an army unit.
A It is possible, but I could not confirm that of my own knowledge.
BY DR. BELZER (Counsel for defendant Karl Sommer):
Q Witness, do you know the defendant Karl Sommer?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us today when and for what reason you met the defendant Sommer?
A I saw Sommer a few times at the WVHA. On what occasion and on what date I could not tell you today. It might have been in the Kasino or in the mess, or it might have been in an official capacity. I don't know.
Q Do you know that in the WVHA there was a two or three day conference of the commanders which ended with a group dinner in the officers' mess?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I know of one such private party. I recall that when the commanders arrived with their vehicles, they drove up to the mess. That is all I can recall.
Q You did not participate in those dinners?
A No DR. BELZER: No further questions.BY DR. HEIM: (For defendant Vogt):Q Do you know the defendant Dr. Vogt?
A I saw Dr. Vogt only one time. I can't tell you where.
Q During the direct examination you stated that the identify of the concentration camp inmates and of those in Amtsgruppe D were in the personnel section of Amtsgruppe D. Is that statement correct, and does it apply to dentists, physicians, and pharmacists who had been transferred to Amtsgruppe D?
A That is beyond my knowledge. I can not assert that, that those were actually kept there.
Q Nor can you tell me where the personnel files were kept?
A I imagine that it was in the Medical Inspectorate.
Q You mean the Medical Inspectorate of the Waffen SS?
A I am not quite sure.
BY DR. GAWLIK (For defendant Volk):
Q Witness, when was it that the defendant Dr. Volk reported for front line duty?
A Dr. Volk saw me towards the end of 1944 and informed me of the fact that he had just volunteered for a front line assignment, and he told me at the same time that his transfer would be somewhat delayed because he still had to take care of an assignment which he had started. The transfer, according to my knowledge, took place in February 1945.
Q Is it correct that the defendant Dr. Volk was transferred to front line duty?
A Yes.
DR. GAWLIK: Thank you; no further questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:Q Witness, I have only a few questions.
Did you continue in your employment with WVHA up until the end of the war?
A Yes, with one interruption, and that was from May 1943 until March 1944. During that time I was a divisional administrative official with an SS Division.
Q Toward the end of the war, did you assist the WVHA in evacuating its offices?
A I did not understand the question. You mean when the WVHA was decentralized? I didn't get that.
Q Near the end of the war the WVHA moved certain of its offices out of Berlin. You told about that on direct examination. I am asking you if you assisted in that evacuation.
A I stated only that part of the offices were transferred and that was due to the damage that was caused to the building on Unter den Eichen. I myself went on a trip South only with the personnel files. Otherwise, I had nothing to do with the evacuation.
Q Did you take any part in the last days of the war in the destruction of the files and documents of the WVHA and Amtsgruppe A?
A Upon orders of the Main Office Chief, the personnel files were to be destroyed before anybody else could find them, and I carried out that order, and that refers only to the personnel files.
Q You participated in the destruction of no other files?
A No.
Q No other correspondence, no other documents?
A. The regular correspondence of the personnel office only. That is from my department, had already been destroyed at Berlin, because we could not possibly carry all that material along with us.
Q. Do you know about the destruction of any otter correspondence or files?
A. Well, I assume that the other departments proceeded in the same way as I did in my department, namely, that they took along the most important files, and the less important files were destroyed at Berlin.
Q. Are You in custody now, Witness?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Now, you told us something about the lecture that was given by Fanslau, and you referred to Document Book No. 2, Document NO-1016, which is Prosecution's Exhibit 46. You said that this lecture was given by Fanslau?
A. No.
Q. Who was it given by?
A. According to my knowledge the speech was given by Obersturmbannfuehrer Karius.
Q. You recall, do you not, that the speech or the lecture material was sent to Fanslau?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was submitted to Fanslau for the Defendant Vogt according to the cover letter. Now, did Fanslau turn this material over to the parson who gave the lecture?
A Yes.
Q. And do you know whether the material then, the lecture, reflected Fanslau's views?
A. Fanslau could not have an independent picture in that Amtsgruppe, because he had to rely on the chiefs of that Amtsgruppe. If the Amtsgruppe considered that important, then he had to assume it also.
Q. You tell us Fanslau was most interested in training the younger generation of SS men. I ask you, in this lecture material that Fanslau turned over, is this the kind of training which he gave to this younger generation? In this material he says that Himmler, in his capacity as Chief of the German Police, was confronted with the task of solving problems, namely, to get a hold of all anti-social elements which no longer had a right to live within the National Socialist State, and to turn their working strength to the benefit of the whole nation. This was effected in the concentration-camp matters, or similar questions. I ask you, did this explain Fanslau's views, anti-social elements were to be turned over and were not to be given a right to live in a social state?
A. The anti-social elements that were locked up in camps and jails were absolutely normal and usual, and the question never was that they had no right to live.
Q. This letter was written in July, 1944. You know very well what Fanslau meant in using the term "anti-social elements" don't you? He was talking about criminals; he was talking about Jews and Poles who had committed no crime at all. You know that, don't you?
A. No, that was not known to me, nor was it to be assumed.
Q. If it was not known to you at that time, it is certainly known to you today, isn't it?
A. Yes, today I know it from the documents which the Amer icans have shown us, namely that other people also had been locked up in concentration camps, not only anti-social elements.
Q. Well, you know today, don't you, that was the term that was used to cover Jews and Poles that were referred to as anti-social elements?
You didn't know that at that time?
A. No.
Q. You know the Defendant Frank in the dock here?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. About how often did you confer with Frank while you were employed with the WVHA?
A. In the WVHA I had no conferences whatsoever with Mr. Frank. I was his collaborator for two years in the administrative office of the Waffen-SS, which, however, was dissolved when the WVHA was recreated.
Q. Buy you had no contact with Frank at all while he was Chief of Amtsgruppe A?
A. No.
Q. You know, do you not, that that he left his position as Chief of Amtsgruppe A in September, 1943?
A. I cannot confirm that correct date because at that time I was not in the WVHA. All I know is that I was transferred from the group to the WVHA. Frank took over the administration of police.
Q. I suggest, Witness, that you can give much briefer answers. You know, also, don't you, that around May 1944, that Fanslau was charged with the operation of Amtsgruppe A?
A. Fanslau, only when he was promoted to a Brigade Leader in November, 1944, became officially chief of A.
Q. You are claiming to be an expert on the organization of Amtsgruppe A in the WVHA, is that right?
A. Yes, I know the conditions there.
Q. Fanslau says in his affidavit, which is in evidence in this case, that it was in May or June, 1944, when he was charged with the operation of that office. Well, I ask you during the period from September '43 until Fanslau was actually designated chief of the office, did Fanslau continue to act as deputy chief, or just what position did he hold, was he acting chief of deputy chief, or what was his position?
A. Fanslau was Deputy Amtsgruppe Chief up to November, 1944, and thus he only represented the former amtsgruppe chief in certain things, that is certain things of a representative nature, and he only begun that activity as Amtsgruppe Chief as of November, 1944.
Q. During that period when there was no chief of the office, was it possible for Fanslau, as Deputy Chief, to give orders or instructions to the offices under him, A-I II, and so forth?
A. No.
Q. He could give them no instructions whatever, is that your position?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. Now, you claim to be an expert on A. Perhaps you can tell us whether the Defendant Vogt of Amtsgruppe A-IV was charged with auditing the funds of Action Reinhardt in Lublin; do you know that he made a trip to Lublin for that purpose?
A. No.
Q. For your own information the proof on that is in the record, and Frank has given us the full details that he was sent to Lublin to do auditing work. Now, as an expert, perhaps you can tell us what Melmer in A-II had to do with Action Reinhardt; do you know that he was charged with the responsibility of carrying the valuables from the Action to the Reichsbank?
A. I have already stated before that up to this present moment, I didn't know anything about the Reinhardt Action.
Therefore, it was impossible for me to know that he dealt with such things.
Q. Do you think that it is really true that he did or that it is improbable?
A. No, if the evidence resulted in showing that he did, then it is probably correct.
Q. But you had no knowledge of it at that time?
A. No.
Q. Well, as an expert on Amtsgruppe A there seem to be a great many things you didn't know about. You tell us that you didn't know that the WVHA made personnel available to Globocnik. Is that just an assumption on your part, or do you know that from your own knowledge?
A. First I would like to correct one thing. I am not an expert on Amtsgruppe A. I only worked in the personnel section of Amtsgruppe A for a long period of time, and from my field of task I know quite a few connections. However, I do not know everything that occurred in Amtsgruppe A. I do know for sure that I myself -
Q. That is becoming increasingly clear. Just tell us, just answer my question about personnel with Globocnik
A. I know for sure that no leaders was transferred to Globocnik.
Q. You are absolutely certain of that; it is not just an assumption on your part; you know for a fact, from your own knowledge that WVHA made no one available to Globocnik?
A. I never transferred any loaders --
Q. I didn't ask you if you transferred. I asked you if you were sure that the WVHA had not transferred. Is it possible that someone else in the WVHA made the transfer without your knowing about it?
A. No, that is not possible.
Q. So you are saying that you are absolutely certain that there were no personnel made available?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. No, you have told us that you had no knowledge of what the men whom you transferred or assigned to the different amtsgruppen did after they were transferred to those amtsgruppen, is that correct?
A. I did not quite understand the question. Would you repeat it?
Q. You told us that your office made personnel available, administrative officers, for Amtsgruppe A and B and C, and other amtsgruppen, and you also said that your office received no knowledge whatever of their functions after they were so assigned, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct; that is what I said.
Q I ask you if it was the function of your office to make recommendations or assignments, and to keep the records on these people. How was it that you could tell whether a given individual was a good administrator or a bad administrator? Didn't you receive any kind of reports in the WVHA on what kind of job these people were doing?
A The judgement did not exactly deal in particular with the special fields of tasks that the leader dealt with. It only spoke - or rather it described - a man's character. But that judgment never did contain any statement about the activity in particular.
Q Well, suppose you assigned an administrative official to Amtsgruppe C, as you told us about. Who would make the reports on this official to your office, and what kind of reports would they be?
A The reports were not sent at all.
Q Then your office, your personnel office on these men, were supposed to keep the records on them? You had no kind of evidence whatever as to the kind of job they were doing in the office they were assigned to. Is that right?
AAbout the type of work we had no knowledge.
Q And about the quality of work, what about that?
A No, as I said before, the judgment about personnel did not contain any information about the activity.
Q I must say this is a very interesting personnel office that your department ran in the WVHA. I don't believe you told us what position you held in Office A-5-2. What was your title there?
A I was an expert.
Q You were not chief of the office?
A No.
Q How often did you confer with the defendant Fanslau?
A Well, when Brigadefuehrer Fanslau was present, then I had a conference about every day.
Q How often did you confer with the defendant Pohl.
AApproximately once or twice, when Fanslau was not present.
Q Once or twice during the entire - during your entire career with the WVHA?
A Yes, indeed.
Q How many times did you confer with Gluecks?
A I never conferred with Gluecks.
Q You told us that all personnel concerning Amtsgruppe D were handled in a conference between Pohl and Gluecks. You don't know that from your own knowledge, do you?
A Yes, I do.
Q You were there?
A No, I was not.
Q How do you know it?
A Sturmbannfuehrer Harborn told me about it.
Q Can you tell us who was the chief of Office A-5-1? Who was in charge of that office.
A The personnel strength I do not know. All I know is that Sturmbannfuehrer Buesseln was in charge of Amt-4.
Q A-5-1; who was in charge of that office.
AA-5-4; I said D-4. I understood you to say D-4. A-5-1 was being directed by Vogt.
Q A-5-1; who was in charge of that.
A Oberfuehrer Loerner.
Q You can not be hearing my question
A I am terribly sorry; I must have misunderstood it now. A-5-1: it was Sturmbannfuehrer Buesseln who was in charge of that. A-5-1 was being dealt with by Sturmbannfuehrer Buesseln. A-5-2 was my field of tasks, and A-5-3 Sturmbannfuehrer Schaefer.
Q And can you tell us whether your office chief, Fanslau, had any contact at all with Office A-5-4?
A No.
Q You can't tell us? Or you had no contacts. What do you mean?
A I stated before that Fanslau had no contacts....
Q Are you sure about that, or is that just an assumption.
A I am even quite sure about it.
Q Well, you know, don't you, that Fanslau in this office designated the administrative officers for the concentration camps; Frank has told us about that. He surely knows more about it than you do. That constitutes one kind of contact, doesn't it?
A I have also stated before that the administrative officers, that is, the administrative officers were transferred to Amtsgruppe D. However, that has nothing to do with the contact of A-5-4.
Q Well, if this wag handled - Oh, well. Will you see if you can give us some conceivable explanation as to why this office A-5-4 was placed in the organizational chart under Fanslau, and under Frank, if it had no contact whatever with him?
A I have already testified that that designation was only used for the files, and that was clearly stated that that department was still under Amtsgruppe D.
Q That is the best explanation you can give. Is that right? That it was a file reference?
A Yes, and also the best proof.
Q When did you join the SS, witness.
A I joined the SS in February, 1932.
Q You were a member of the Waffen SS?
A On the 17th of May, 1933, I resigned from that position and I went to the Special Task Group, Leibstandarte at the time, and it was also part of the Waffen-SS.
Q You were also a member of the General SS?
A From '32 to '33.
Q What was the highest rank that you were given in the SS.
A In the General SS I was SS-man; in the Waffen-SS I was Sturmbannfuehrer.
Q You were a member of the NSDAP?
A Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: No further questions.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG (Counsel for the defendant Fanslau):
Q Witness, I asked you a few questions because you were an expert in Amtsgruppe A. Can you tell me perhaps again and for sure, and give me the limits as to how far your expert knowledge went? This expert knowledge of yours did not only refer to your own fields of task?
A Yes; first of all on my own field of task, and then over the entire field of task of Amt A-5.
Q And also A-5, as you said; and did your expert knowledge also refer to the knowledge of certain organizational questions and files?
A Organizational questions? Yes. In any case because they were in close connection with the personnel transfer, and, as I know it, organizational questions I also know that keeping files was also necessary because I was attached to that myself. However, I do not know details from other fields of questions.
Q You don't know any more details about other fields of task in other offices. Are you an expert there?
A No.
Q In other words, we can not consider you an expert for the entire Amtsgruppe A, but only for those particular things that I mentioned before?
A Yes.
Q You stated before - I don't know if the question was quite clear to you or not. Did you know about the activity of the employees who had been transferred by you? Didn't you have any knowledge at all, or could you tell from an organizational chart what the outside frame was of the activities for those persons.
A Yes, of course I did know the outside frame.
Q Upon the question if you had any knowledge at all you said, No, you didn't have any knowledge. Was that a misunderstanding?
A Yes, that was a misunderstanding because the questions always referred to details and not to the general framework.
Q You wish to say that the outside framework was known to you?
A Yes, it was.
Q However, you didn't know any details about the fields of tasks?
A No, I didn't.
Q Then your own position doesn't seem quite clear to me. Within the Amtsgruppe you differentiate between various offices?
A Yes.
Q The offices are subordinated to the Amtsgruppe?
A Yes, correct.
Q Every office is sub-divided into departments? Or what?
A No, in various fields of tasks.
Q In other words the technical expression is Sachgebiete, fields?
A Yes, Hauptabteilung was used at first and Sachgebiete is being used now.
Q They were called Sachgebiete, and you were the chief of one of those Sachgebiete, or special fields?
A Yes.
Q In other words, you were not the chief of Office but you were the chief of your particular field?
A Yes.
Q And that was Office A-5?
A Yes.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Good, no further questions.
DR. SCHMIDT (Counsel for the defendant Josef Vogt):
Your Honor, I would like to refer to a certain mistake which occurred during the cross-examination between Prosecution and the witness. The Prosecution, while examining the witness about Exhibit 46 in Document Book No. 2, asked him if it was correct that the lecture of Fanslau about the SS at the time was put before Vogt- at least that is the way I understood it in the German translation. From the document, however, it can be seen that there is not the defendant Vogt, but rather V-o-l-k, Dr. Volk.
Maybe there is a mistake in hearing. I would appreciate it if the record contained the particular part of my statement.
BY DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for the defendant Dr. Volk):
Q Witness, I shall now show you this document, and I shall ask you can it be seen from this document that the defendant Dr. V-o-lk was not present at the time.
A. That can only be an absence for a short while.
Q. If it was an absence which lasted for a short while or not, it is in any case impossible that the Defendant Volk worked on that lecture?
A. Well, possibly Dr. Volk was not present, but I couldn't tell you that for sure.
Q. I t is possible then, or then it results from this document that it was not the defendant Dr. Volk, but only his representative that worked out this lecture without the knowledge of Volk?
A. That is possible.
DR. GAWLIK: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: How did it cone out? Who was there, neither Volk nor Vogt, but a representative of Volk, is that it?
MR. ROBBINS: That's right. Or, rather, I should say that is what the witness says.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Now, on redirect examination, witness, you said that you only know the outside frame of the activity of the offices other than A V. If that is true, then it is quite possible that Pohl sent personnel after Globocnik for Globocnki's assistance as Globocnik reported. Pohl could have done that without telling you about it or without conferring with you about it, could't he? He wouldn't have had to ask you about it, would he?
A. Well, formally, in order to execute the whole thing, it would have to be ordered by the personnel office. That is why I am sure that I know.
Q. Then why is it that you didn't know that Vogt was sent to Lublin?
A. There is a difference between a transfer and an official trip, which only lasts for a short time.
Q. Why is it that you didn't know that Melmer, who took a very considerable part in the activities out there, was not in Lublin?
A. Well, how an I to know? After all, I had nothing to do factually actually with Melmer.
Q. So it is quite possible, isn't it, that Pohl could have sent people to Lublin without your knowing about it?
A. That only for a short period of time. That is on an official trip. The transfers were to be carried out in a different manner, namely by order.
Q. You don't exclude the possibility that Pohl sent personnel for a short tine to Lublin to help Golbocnik?
A. No, if you are speaking about weeks, then there is such a possibility.
Q. It is also possible that Fanslau might have done that without you, knowing about it, speaking about weeks?
A. No, that is not possible.
MR. ROBBINS: That is all.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. FRITSCH (Counsel for Baier):
Q. Witness, you told us before about the activity of A-V, and among other things you mentioned that the personnel policy of offices W were possibly administered by then, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. You never did mention A V and you never did assign personnel to one of the offices W?
A. Yes, of course. I stated clearly that the personnel of the Amtsgruppe upon request or upon a request of the Amtsgruppe or of the offices or upon requests of Pohl, they were transferred to the offices.
Q. That applied to all Amtsgruppe in other words, also for W?
A Yes also for W.
Dr. FRITSCH: Thank you.