It will also be impossible to determine this in any other way, since Ministerial Councillor Knebel died in 1946. The principle was to waive the preliminary audit by the office A IV of field offices mainly in such cases where the Auditing Controlling Court itself carried out the auditing locally, that is to say at the seat of the particular office rendering its accounts. But in spite of all simplifications, the auditing on the spot by the office A IV became more and more complicated under the force of circumstances. In the course of time it became so insufficient that an actual preliminary auditing of any importance did no longer exist. It was therefore nothing but a natural development when during the last months of the war the preliminary auditing was entirely abolished."
I then continue to read another document on the subject, and I want to read the affidavit of a former auditor who worked under Vogt. It is a certain August Schaper. His affidavit is contained in the appendix to the document book; that is, Document Number 18. It will become Exhibit Number 11. In this affidavit Schaper gives the following statement: First, paragraph 1:
"Before the WVHA was established I had been employed at the pre-auditing office of Amt 1/1 attached to the Main Office for Budgets and Buildings. With the establishment of the WVHA on 1/2/1943, I was transferred, after the dissolution of the Main Office for Budgets and Buildings, to the Auditing Office A/IV, of which the defendant Josef Vogt was the director. There I was employed as an auditor. As such, I had to carry out preliminary examinations of the accounts, rendered by the competent account offices of the Waffen-SS, in the various military districts. As a rule, I carried out these preliminary examinations at the auditing office itself. The respective offices sent their bills there. Only insofar as it seemed necessary were preliminary examinations carried out on the spot. As during the course of the war, the personnel of the auditing office greatly decreased in number, preliminary examinations could no longer be carried out to the extent hitherto practiced. Preliminary examination were then limited to examine the submitted bills on the spot.
"2. I never carried out preliminary examinations of the Concentration Camp Dachau administration, which belonged to my district, neither in Dachau itself nor at the auditing office. This can be explained by the fact that for reasons of economy, only the garrison finance office was left to operate in garrisons with several SS-offices, where's the other finance offices were converted into pay offices.
Consequently, accounts were only rendered by the garrison finance office. Since, however, there were so many SS agencies in Dachau and therefore a great many bills had accumulated, the chief of the Amtsgruppe A, ordered them to be kept at the office of the garrison administration to be audited locally. I have never carried out such a local audit. As far as I can remember, the Auditing Court reserved for itself the auditing of the administrative offices in Dachau.
"3. If objections resulted from a pre-auditing of bills, then the auditor in question would make notes in writing. These were then submitted to the 'Amtschef' for his information and signature. In special cases, especially if there were reasons for suspecting punishable acts, that is, embezzlements on the part of the office, rendering the accounts, the auditing documents were submitted to the 'Amtschef' who in turn would report this fact to the Chief of Office group.
"4. Vogt frequently conferred with his auditors concerning the manner in which these preliminary examinations were carrier out. In the course of these conferences, Vogt would again and again point out to his coworkers that any infractions of the law were to be dealt with ruthlessly, and regardless of the person concerned. I have carried out my auditing duties in accordance with Vogt's severe, but just instructions. I remember two instances, where I found discrepancies in the settlement of the accounts of two highly placed SS-officers. In these cases, Vogt fell in with my objections and supported me, and subsequently forwarded them to Chief of the Main Office for further consideration, or, in the one case, directly to the administrative office to which the SS-general in question was subordinated.
"5. All those pay offices of these departments of the Waffen-SS" -
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Is it necessary to read this entire affidavit? Can't you summarize in a few words, what it tells, and then we have the affidavit and we can read it ourselves. If there is one particular sentence or paragraph which you think is of great vital importance, then it would be in order to read it, but to spend time reading what we have already heard from the witness seems to me an unnecessary expenditure of time.
DR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, I was of the opinion that the statements contained in this affidavit would be of special importance in the case of Vogt because this auditor who has given this affidavit, Schaper, is the only witness whom I could obtain for his testimony, and he happened to be working in the office of the defendant. However, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that it would be sufficient to present this affidavit and that it would take judicial notice of it, then of course, I agree with the opinion of the Tribunal Q: (By Dr. Schmidt) Witness, in your affidavit of the 16th of January 1947 to which I have already referred several times, you have also mentioned this man Schaper, who was an auditor.
You mentioned him in connection with the auditing of the bills of Amtsgruppe D. Can you still remember that? will you please answer my question with yes or no?
A: Yes.
Q: In what connection and in what manner did you mention Schaper with regard to the examination of Amtsgruppe D?
A: This statement was a mistake on my part. In the interrogation I just happened to recall this name without considering that he was not even dealing with this particular field of work in that region. Schaper could not possibly audit Amtsgruppe D because he was not dealing at all with this sphere of work.
DR. SCHMIDT: With regard to this statement made by the witness I would like to point out in particular -- paragraph 6 of the Schaper affidavit which I have just read. In this paragraph 6 the witness Schaper states that he actually never audited the expenditures of Amtsgruppe D. Amtsgruppe D was located at Oranienburg as is known.
However, Oranienburg did not belong to the region in which Schaper carried out his auditing work. In concluding the question of the preliminary auditing, I want to submit another document. This is an excerpt from some literature which is called Financial Legal Questions of Our Time. This document is contained in Document Book 1 and it is Document Number 8. It is on page 27 of the German text. This essay was written by the former Minister of State and President of the Auditing Court, Dr. Saemisch.
Court No. II, Case No. IV
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 12?
DR. SCHMIDT: Yes, Your Honor. It is Exhibit No. 12. This literature shows the difference between preliminary auditing and final auditing, and it describes in detail the nature of preliminary auditing. In order to save time I shall not read this document.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Schmidt, please don't think that I am trying to interfere with the manner in which you desire to present your case, but I would like to point out -- and I am speaking only for myself in this instance -- that I gain the impression you are endeavoring to establish that Vogt was a good auditor; he lived up to the laws of auditing; that he was efficient and that he ran his office smoothly, but that isn't what is before the Tribunal for determination. He is charged with participating in a criminal conspiracy of knowing that criminal things occurred and he didn't lift a hand to prevent their occurrence.
Now you haven't told us about the fact that he went to Lublin, that he saw what took place in the concentration camp. He saw the ill-gotten returns of the Reinhardt action. What did he do about that? That is what I would like to know about, not whether he followed subparagraph C of law 13 passed by the Reich with regard to auditing.
DR. SCHMIDT: Yes, Your Honor. I now intend to go into these points. Of course, we understand that the Tribunal has placed the greatest emphasis on these particular points. I, therefore, shall go over to the count of the conspiracy, and I shall ask the witness questions on that particular subject.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q Witness, from the statements of the Prosecution you know that in the question of the conspiracy the establishment of the WVHA and membership in that office has played a very considerable part. I, therefore, want to ask you the following question. At the time when the WVHA was established, did you become director of the auditing office voluntarily or by order? That was office A-IV.
A I was ordered to take over this office.
Q With regard to the conspiracy count, it is also of importance whether your fields of tasks were so closely connected with the other offices and agencies of the WVHA that from this we could conclude a coordination between the activities of your office and the activities of the remaining offices in the WVHA. Will you please give us your point of view on that subject?
A I have already stated that my office worked as a preliminary auditing agency for the auditing courts. It had no influence on the administrative activity of the other offices in the WVHA. I could only exercise a subsequent control of the income and expenditures. However, I could not exercise any administrative control. That the preliminary auditing was not included in the administration in any way is already shown by the fact that my office at the end of the War, as I have already mentioned, was dissolved and it was classified as being dispensable.
Q During your membership in the WVHA did you ever attend any official conferences which dealt with other tasks and assignments than preliminary auditing?
A My discussions with the chief of Amtsgruppe-A only dealt with my activity in the auditing work, and with the official connections which I had with the representatives of the auditing court. I never attended any other conferences about other fields of tasks and assignments.
My official contact with the other offices of the WVHA was limited only to the things which were of the utmost necessity. With the chief of the Main Office Pohl, during my entire membership in the SS I only had three conferences, and they were of an official nature. The first conference took place in the year 1937. That was on the occasion of my introduction when I joined the SS. The second conference took place in the year 1943 when Pohl ordered me to audit the Treasury of Globocnik because Pohl had received a letter in which it was alleged that embezzle ments had taken place.
The third conference took place after my evacuation to Fuerstenberg. In the course of this conference Pohl ordered me to establish a post office at Fuerstenberg for my mail and not to route my mail anymore through the mail-receiving point or the WVHA at Berlin.
Q You have just talked about the evacuation of your office? When did this evacuation take place?
A That was in the middle or the end of June, 1943.
Q Witness, didn't you ever participate in conferences which, for example, dealt with the financing of the Waffen-SS, with the preparation of the establishment of budgets or which dealt with reports of personnel strength or the financial suppliesor things of that nature?
A No; this was not part of my field of tasks.
Q Did you ever participate in any conference which dealt with the so--called final solution of the Jewish problem?
A No.
Q Did you know what was meant by "final solution of the Jewish question"?
A In the final solution of the Jewish question I saw the settlement of the way of life of the Jews in Germany, That this solution would be carried out by force as Hitler wanted to carry it out and in which he has carried it out, I did not have any knowledge.
Q Were you ever consulted for conferences with other office groups?
A No.
Q Did you ever discuss with other office chiefs or chiefs of the office groups of the WVHA or with Pohl himself, or did you make any official trips with him?
A No.
Q Did you have with the SS leaders in the WVHA or any of the abovementioned persons any close personal contact?
A No. I didn't have any close contact with the chief of the Main Office, nor did I have any with the SS officers outside of my official contact with I had with them.
I never knew them socially. I socially only was in contact with circles which were outside of the SS.
Q In Count I of the indictment the Prosecution alleges that the Defendants had not only conspired with each other but that they had also conspired with other persons. I, therefore, ask you did you ever meet officers from other SS Main Offices and did you have any conferences with them which, for example, referred to the war crimes which are meant in the indictment or crimes against humanity?
A No.
Q Witness, you know that on the first of April, 1942, the agency of the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps was incorporated into the WVHA as Amtsgruppe-D. As a result of this did anything change in your field of tasks?
A The change was only of a very minor nature. The increase in the number of treasuries by taking in the concentration camps only amounted up to only about four percent.
Q Did you in any manner participate in the conferences which proceeded the incorporation of the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps into the WVHA?
A No.
Q Did you deal with any other tasks of the administration of the concentration camps in connection with Amtsgruppe-D?
A No. I have already stated that my control of the income and expenditures had nothing to do with an administrative control of the agency which rendered the bills.
Q Did you ever participate in a meeting of the concentration camp commanders?
A No.
DR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, in this connection I would like to present an affidavit by Hermann Pister who was the concentration camp commander of Buchenwald. It is listed in Document Book I, and it is Court No. II, Case No. IV Document No. 12, and it will become Exhibit No. 13.
I shall not read this affidavit, but I only want to state that Pister has declared that Vogt did not participate in a meeting of the concentration camp commanders at that time, but that he only saw him at the dinner which was held in the officers' mess of the WVHA at Berlin after the conference had already taken place.
Your Honor, with this, would it now be suitable for you to call a recess?
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1350 hours, 16 June 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Take your seat, please.
Tribunal No. II is again in session.
JOSEF VOGT- Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION(Continued)
DR. SCHMIDT: About the indictment of the conspiracy, I would like to ask a few small questions to the defendant.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q. Witness, did you have any thing to do with the medical experiments or with the euthanasia program which is being charged against you by the Prosecution?
A. No.
Q. The Prosecution introduced as Document 1919-PS, Exhibit 49, in Document Book No. III an excerpt from Himmler's Posen speech of the 4th of October, 1942, in which Himmler at the time spoke about the extermination of the Jews. I ask you now, Witness, were you a participant in that meeting or did you only find out about the contents of the speech at a later date?
A. Neither did I participate in that meeting nor did I hear anything about this speech at a later date. It was only by the introduction of the documents here in this trial that I learned about that speech.
Q. The Prosecution repeatedly also mentioned Himmler's speech at Cracowicze of April,- 1943, in which Himmler at the time also dealt with the Jews, and he compared the Jews with lice. Did you have any knowledge about that speech, or did you gain knowledge of that speech at a later date?
A. No, the same applies to that. As I said before, I learned about it from the documents introduced in this court.
Q. Before I deal with the complex of questions, namely, the Reinhard Action question, I would appreciate it if the Tribunal would permit that I introduce two additional documents which are contained in my document book.
One document is an affidavit by a Josef Spacil. That is Document Vogt No. 10, which is contained in Document Book No. I, Pages 33 and the following numbers in the German copy. The document deals with SS economists and with the installation of preliminary checking agencies with those SS economists.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that 13, Dr. Schmidt?
DR. SCHMIDT: This document is exhibit 14, Exhibit 13 was document No. 12. Please permit me to read this document which is rather short and I shall quote it. There are the preliminary statements there and after that it says, ", Josef Spacil, "From August 1942 until the retreat of the German Army from my official district in the fall of 1943 I was SS-Economic Administrator in Russia-South with headquarters in Kiev.
My sphere of jurisdiction coincided with that of the higher SS- and Police leader Russia-South. The duties of the SS-Economic Administrator were stipulated in a decree of the SS-Economics and Administrative Main Office. Berlin of 23 July, 1942, I have carried out my duties in accordance with this decree. Document No. 2122 from Document Book XVIII which has been shown to me represents that decree."
I shall add, it deals with the Prosecution Exhibit 331.
"I was administratively responsible for all the SS-offices which were located in my jurisdictional sphere. There were no concentration camps in my district. I also had a preliminary auditing office for the preliminary auditing of the accounts of all SS-offices in my district. Thus the preliminary auditing had been taken out of the hands of the office A IV of the Economics and Administrative Main Office. The accounting was dome by my office directly at the financial Controlling Court. The office A IV was not included in this procedure." End of quote.
Q Witness, I would like to ask you about this. Did your office, compared with these preliminary checking offices installed with the Economic Administrators, have any supervisory capacity?
A No, I had nothing to do on an official basis with the Economic Administrators.
Q Is it correct to say then that the SS Administrative agencies located in the district of the SS Economists had been withdrawn from the preliminary checking by your office A-IV?
A Yes, all SS agencies in the occupied territories were under the supervision of the SS Economic Administrators.
BY DR. SCHMIDT: As a further document, I would like to introduce in addition an affidavit by Will Burger who has already been mentioned here previously this is document Josef Vogt. No. 19. in the Appendix. It will become Exhibit 15. This affidavit by Will Burger, former chief of offfice, D.IV deals with the relation of office A.IV with Amtsgruppe D and corroborates, in general the statements which were made by the defendant in the witness dock. Therefore, I believe I will not have to read this affidavit and I would appreciate it if the Tribunal will take judicial notice of this affidavit.
Q Witness, I shall now come to one of the point: of the indictment which is rather important for you and this is the Reinhardt action. You know that the prosecution is bringing you into connection with that action because you, in July, 1943, carried out an auditing task in Lublin, I ask you for the time being witness, that auditing which you carried out was that within the frame work of your office as a preliminary checking office of the court of audits?
A No, this checking was special order which I had been assigned by the main office chief Amtsgruppe A, throughout Amtsgruppe A; it deals with the checking of the Garrison treasuries of the Waffen-SS Lublin, I did not have an order, however to check on Globocniks' account there.
Q The treasury of the Garrison of Lublin, was it under the supervision of the WVHA administratively?
A No, this treasury was under the SS-Economic at Cracow and the chief was Standartenfuehrer Schellin.
Q You told us before that at the time you received that special order through the Amtsgruppe A, that order was it directed only to the effect that you should check the Garrison treasury or when you received your order was the Account R, also mentioned then?
A The order said that I was to check the Garrison Treasury. The term Account R, was unknown at the time, only in the course of the examination this term came up and became known to me.
Q You tell me in the course of the examination, - can you explain this in detail?
A When taking up the cash of the treasury at Lublin I was also shown foreign exchange in bank notes and coins. When I asked the chief of the Garrison there Sturmbannfuehrer Wippern where all this foreign exchange came from, he told that was money which originated from the confiscation carried out by SS police leader Globocnik, when I as the chief of Wippern.
Q Excuse me witness, if I interrupt you said when do you mean by this that Wippern as had this question, or that you asked that question to Wippern where the foreign exchange came from?
A No, it was a question from me to Wippern.
Q I see. Go on.
A Furthermore, I was told that this foreign exchange had come from the Jews who were interned in the labor camp near Lublin. The entry about those confiscated goods, was contained in one of the books of the Treasury at Lublin.
Q Those entries, were they marked in any particular way?
A Yes, they were marked with account R".
Q This foreign exchange which you just mentioned - was it contained in the balance sheet of your books, in the account or cash account.
(For the interpreter, I would like to point out the term has also come up in the document book and was translated with certificate about the "balance in hand.")
A The certificate about the balance or cash in hand had a special sheet of paper attached there explained where all those foreign bank notes came from, furthermore their origin and their value during the cormal rate of exchange.
Q Witness, from your affidavit which was mentioned several time, in Document Book No. 1567. Exhibit No. 8, it results that during your preexamination you were show a document and that was Document No. 061, this document is contained in Document Book XVIII and it was introduced as Exhibit 475 by the prosecution.
Q I ask you now, witness, that certificate about the cash on hand which you just mentioned and which was shown to you at the time when you were auditing at Lublin -- is that identical with the document which was shown to you during your present examination, in NO-061?
I would like to point out to the Tribunal that Document NO-061contains the evaluation, after the third of February 1942, I believe, of the various things and effects that belonged to Jews, it is stated: "Lublin, 27 February, 1943." And it is signed by "SS Sturmbannfuehrer Wippern," who was already mentioned by the defendant a few minutes ago.
My question, witness, therefore, is to the effect: Is this document identical with the one that was shown to you during your preliminary examination in Lublin?
A No. This Document, NO-061 shows the number of goods and valuables delivered up to the third of February 1943, namely, the foreign exchange and other valuables; and it is dated the 27th of February 1943. This list which was shown to me when I was counting the cash in the treasury looked about the same from the outside. That is, all the bank notes were listed according to their place of origin and value. However, in its contents it contained foreign exchange which was actually in the cashbox on the day of the checking. In other words, not something that was in the cash box at an earlier date and had disappeared by then; but only those amounts and that foreign exchange which was in the cash box on the day of the checking.
The document NO-061, however, does not only contain foreign exchange and coins, but it contains also valuables, precious ore and other valuables. However, they were in no way connected with the examination of the treasury.
Q I have to put it to you, witness, that in the affidavit which was mentioned by me several times and which, on the 16th of February 1947, you gave Mr. Ortmann, who was your examiner, you mentioned the fact that you know document NO-061, and that it was shown to you when you carried out the examination of the treasury at Lublin? Now, how can you explain this contradiction on your part?
That is, your statements today compared with those during the examination, or, rather, after the 16th of January 1947, the date of your affidavit?
A During the examination the Document NO-061 was shown to me for a very short while -- and that only the first page. As I was not wearing any glasses, I could not read the figures. According to outside appearances it looked like that particular document that was shown to me when I was carrying out the examination at Lublin; the same list, but with different contents. If the document had been given to me, if I would have been able to hold it in my hand, and if I would have looked at pages 3, 4 and 5 instead of just one and two...and if I would have had any possibility whatsoever to acquaint myself with the contents of the documents -- then I would have had to tell the examiner that I didn't know that document.
Q Witness, was this document shown to you once more either after the signing, or prior to your signature.
A This document was not shown to me -- the last page of the document was shown to me so that I could recognize the signature of Wippern. When the affidavit was shown to me in its completed form, I didn't see that document again.
Q Well, now, I shall put this to you. You state in your affidavit, "Nor do I object to the computation of the values which are contained on page 4 of this document, NO-061, and shows a total amount of 100,047,983 "Reichsmark." You said before that you saw the signature of Wippern, if I understood you correctly. I must put it to you -didn't you see this total amount of 100,000,000 and some thousands of Reichsmark? Didn't you notice that at the time?
A No, the examiner only showed me the name and he covered up the remaining contents of the letter. I couldn't see the total amount, and he told me the total amount later on.
Q Is it customary that the man carrying out the examination of the treasury is shown the certificate about the cash on hand?
A Not only was it customary, but there was a regulation covering that. When we took down the cash on hand we had to set up a certificate about the cash on hand with reference to the various banknotes contained therein, which list was supposed to give information about all the banknotes contained in the cashbox. That regulation is covered by paragraph 80 of the Reich Treasury Code.
DR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, May I point out that the Reich Treasury Code was introduced by me as Exhibit No. 4.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q Witness, at the time did you carry out the checking of the treasury of the garrison of Lublin personally, or did you let the examiner do that?
A The checking up on the cash on hand, -- I believe this was covered by paragraph 89 of the Reich Treasury Code was my personal task. I delegated the auditing of the books and vouchers to my auditor Hauptsturmfuehrer Hahnefuss. I myself dealt with the auditing of the garrison treasury itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schmidt, just two short questions that I am not sure about. Did the defendant count the securities that were in the "R" Fund.
DR. SCHMIDT: I didn't quite understand the question in the translation. Would you mind repeating your question, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Did the defendant count the securities and the foreign exchange that were in the "R" Fund at Lublin himself?
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q Witness, would you like to answer that question?
A The foreign exchange which was shown to me was contained in that list, and it was on the basis of that list that the foreign exchange was counted.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Well, did you count it? Did you count it yourself?
A The foreign exchange was placed and counted on the table, and I compared the figures with the ones on the list.
Q You checked the money against the list?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Did you make up the list? Or was it already made up for you?
A The list had already been set up for me.
Q So you didn't compile -- you didn't make up the list yourself? The exchange and the list were put down in front of you, and you verified it?
A Yes, indeed.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q Did you, witness, when carrying out the examination which we are just mentioning, also check up on the jewels in hand, furs, valuable stones, and things?
A No. The checking of the treasury had nothing to do with those things because that was a matter for itself which had nothing to do with the foreign exchange, really, because in those accounts no jewels had been entered.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q I see in your affidavit here the following, "I need also precious metals which I saw in a trunk in the big safe. Upon my questioning I was told that these were to be delivered to the Reichs Bank. It was not only gold but a great amount of precious metals whose value I could not appraise."
Well, now, didn't you say that in your affidavit?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Yes, indeed, your Honor, I did. May I go into detail about it, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: It appears that in Judge Phillips' mind there is a contradiction here, Dr. Schmidt. Can you clear it up?
DR. SCHMIDT: Well, your Honor, I wanted to ask a question, and put the same question to the witness right now.
A Those jewels and precious metals were not within the vault itself nor in the cash box either. They were contained in another safe which was outside of the vault. One or two days, or, rather, I believe it was on the second day after the auditing Wippern told me, "I just prepared a load of valuables for the Reichsbank. Do you want to take a look at it?" Whereupon I said, "Yes". He showed me those things for a short while and locked up the safe again and the whole matter was over.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q Was it your task to appraise those valuables?
A No, it was absolutely impossible to do so. I don't even believe that the Reichsbank was able to do that.
Q Why was it impossible, would you say?
A Because I couldn't have appraised that. I only saw it for a very short time. I was not interested in it because it was not part of my task.
Q How large was that suitcase which you saw in that safe; that is, that trunk that was filled with jewels and precious stones?
A You could compare it with a week-end trunk. Apparently special things were contained in there that he wanted to give to the Reichsbank. The trunk had already been locked up, and it was ready for delivery. Perhaps he just showed it to me in order to interest me in the matter. I didn't ask him anything about it because I didn't know anything about the whole thing.
Q At the time when you saw those objects, did you have any idea as to where these things could have come from?