DR. SCHMIDT: From Supplement Book Number II I want to offer Documents Numbers 21, 22, and 23. I want to add that the first twentyexhibits for Vogt have already been presented by me in the course of the examination of the defendant on the witness stand. These first three documents from Supplement Number II a re extracts from the transcript of pre-trial interrogations of the defendant on the 7th and the 9th of December 1946. The pre-trial interrogations were carried out by the interrogator Ortmann by request of the prosecution. With these extracts from interrogations I want to show that the affidavit of the defendant on the 16th of January 1947, which was put to the defendant for his signature, and which the prosecution has offered as NO-1567, Exhibit 8, in Document Beck Number I, in various points incriminates the defendant and contains certain formulations which do not originate with the defendant but which literally resulted from leading questions of the interrogator. The defendant already referred to this fact when he was on the witness stand.
In order to save time, I do not want to quote the particular portions in the affidavit Document NO-1567 and from the extracts I just submitted. A comparison between these statements of the interrogation and the contents of the affidavit will show that they agree in the major incriminating points, because the text of the sentences in the pre-trial interrogation and in the affidavit in part agree literally.
I want to give you one brief example in order to clarify this matter completely to the Tribunal. In the affidavit the following statement is found. This is in Document NO-1567, Document Book I, Page 7, and I quote: "However, according to the way in which Globocnik did his work, I presumed it to be quite certain that cases of death must have occurred." Now in the interrogation I come to the corresponding section, contained in Document Number 22:
"Nr. 142. Q. How many were killed, approximately?
A. I do not know that.
Nr. 143. Q. Do you think that there were people killed?
A. Well, I suppose so.
Nr. 144. Q. But you accept it was rather certain, do you not, judging by the way and manner Globocnik went to work, it can be taken for granted, can't it?
A. Yes.
This is only a very brief example, and I could give at least five or six examples of that kind by using the excerpts from interrogation transcripts which I have presented here. However, I shall do that in my final arguments. In connection with the affidavit whose probative value I challenged, of the 16th of January 1947, we have three further documents. They are Vogt Documents Numbers 37, 38 and 39. Documents Number 39 is contained in Supplement Number III. These documents will become Exhibits Numbers 24, 25, and 26. These are three medical certificates about the physical condition of the defendant Vogt during the time of his imprisonment from July 1946 until the beginning of this trial. The certificates show that Vogt during this period of time when the interrogations took place, on the 7th and the 9th of December 1946, and when he signed the affidavit on the 16th of January 1946, was a very bad physical and mental condition.
I then want to go on and offer Documents Vogt Number 24 and Number 25, both of which are contained in Supplement Number II, and the Vogt Document Number 40, which is contained in Supplement Number III. These three documents will receive Exhibit numbers 27, 28, and 29. They are affidavits by former collaborators of Vogt. They are to serve the purpose of rebuttal of the statements made by the witness Morgen in his affidavit which was Prosecution document NO-1907, Exhibit Number 554. There is a charge raised against Vogt here that he enriched himself personally.
At the same time, these are character references with regard to Vogt, with the exception of Document Number 25.
In this connection I want to present Documents Number 35 and 36 which are contained in Supplement Number 2. They will become Exhibits Numbers 30 and 31. They are affidavits by the former disciplinary expert at the SS Court by the name of Hinderfeld and the former court officer of the WVHA, Dr. Schmidt-Klevenew. They are the rebut the testimony given by the witness Dr. Morgen in his affidavit and the accusation raised there against the defendant Vogt stating that he had favored corruption. At the same time they also give us a character reference of the personality of the defendant Vogt.
My next document will be Document Number 26, which is contained in Supplement Number II, and which will become Vogt Exhibit Number 32. This is an affidavit by Dr. Gustav Exner. He was in charge of the administrative and supply offices of the SS and Police. The affidavit shows that Vogt even at the outbreak of the war tried to obtain a position in the supply office and that in February 1945 a procedure for his retirement by virtue of an order of release by the Personnel Main Office was initiated.
My next document will be Vogt Exhibit Number 27. This is an extract from the SS seniority list. Here in this document we find the Party membership number of the defendant. From that figure we can also determine the date when the defendant joined the Party. This document will become Vogt Exhibit Number 33.
The next document, Number 28, is an affidavit by the Pastor Hans Schaller, who in the years 1918 to 1928 was active at Deggendorf and who testifies that during this period of time Vogt did not take any active political part at Deggendorf. This affidavit will became Vogt Exhibit Number 34. In connection with this we have a document to which I gave the number 42 and which I received only two days ago.
I don't think that the Tribunal has received a translation yet because I turned it in only today to be translated. However, it is a very short affidavit which amounts to only half a typewritten page. I therefore believe and consider it appropriate to have this affidavit read into the transcript by the interpreter. I shall hand a German copy to the interpreter.
DR. SCHMIDT: The affidavit has the following text:
"Deggendorf, 12 September 1947. Affidavit by Franz Weber, born on 23 July 1885 at Hengersberg, District of Deggendorf. A resident in Deggendorf-Schaching 28 1/7, wood manufacturer as profession. It has been pointed out to me that I shall render myself liable to punishment if I depose a false affidavit. I certify in lieu of an oath that my statement corresponds to the truth and that I give it so that it can be submitted to the Military Tribunal in the Palace of Justice, Nurnberg, Germany.
"1. Since November 1918 I have permanently resided in Deggendorf, and I am correctly informed about all the events here.
"2. The NSDAP, Ortsgruppe Deggendorf was founded approximately towards the end of 1922 by Gregor Strasser my brother in law, who was shot during the Roehm revolt in the year 1934. The father of Gregor Strasser, the Chancellor Councillor Peter Strasser, at Deggendorf was the first Ortsgruppenleiter of the Ortsgruppe and remained in this position until the NSDAP was prohibited at the end of 1923. Signed Franz Weber."
Then comes the certificate for the signature. This affidavit is connected with a document which the prosecution presented, in Document Book No. 31. It was Exhibit 715, Document NO-1599. In order to rebut the statement of the defendant who, when on the witness stand, said only in 1937 he had entered the NSDAP. The affidavit is to serve the purpose to show that the statements of the defendant on the witness stand are correct and to rebut the conclusion which could be drawn from the rebuttal document of the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: What statement of the prosecution are you seeking to rebut by this affidavit?
DR. SCHMIDT: The Prosecution in Document Book No. 31 presented a document, Document NO-1599, Exhibit No. 715. In this document there is also a recommendation for promotion from the year 1937, attached to the curriculum vitae of the defendant.
At that time the defendant wrote it himself and he passed it on to the superior office agency. In this curriculum vitae he wrote that early in 1921 he had founded the Ortsgruppe at Deggendorf and that he was in charge of it up to November 1923. This statement, however, in the curriculum vitae is a contradiction of what the defendant has testified to under oath here. In the cross examination at the time his former statement from his curriculum vitae was put to him and he stated then that at the time he only was a member of the League Bavaria and Reich and that this activity served the purpose of making a better impression with this SS agency. That is why he converted that into an activity for the NSDAP, as far as his curriculum vitae was concerned. I have introduced a document which shows that the brother-in-law of the affiant of this affidavit; that is Gregor Strasser, a local Rational Socialist who was shot in the year 1934, founded the Ortsgruppe at Deggendorf in the year of 1922. Therefore, Vogt could not have founded it. That is the conclusion which a rises from this. Shall I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean in his own affidavit he was just puffing himself up a little bit? He was bragging a little, making himself big?
DR. SCHMIDT: Yes. In the Curriculum vitae which he wrote at the time he described himself as having been active politically although he wasn't an active member of the party itself but for a completely different league. That was the League called the Bavaria and the Reich. It was a small deceit which he practiced at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: He wasn't the leader? His brother-in-law was the leader? The founder?
DR. SCHMIDT: The founder of this local party group was Gregor Strasser, the brother-in-law of this Franz Weber. He wasn't the brother in-law of the defendant. This was a brother-in-law of the affiant Franz Weber who gave this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: That's right.
DR. SCHMIDT: Franz Weber is a brother-in-law of Gregor Strasser who founded the Ortsgruppe.
I now shall go on to offer the document Nos. 29, 30 ,31, 32, 33 and 34. These six documents refer to Document NO-4123 which was presented by the prosecution as Exhibit No. 637. My colleague Rauschenbach referred to it and it's the organizational chart of the Administrative SS Office in Munich. It deals with the years 1936 to 1938. On this chart which mentioned Vogt next to Moecke as a department Chief of the Auditing Department. All the affiants of the six affidavits which I submit today, with the exception of one, that is, Moser, themselves gave and compiled this chart and they now tell us in this affidavit that the entry Vogt is not correct. This point has been discussed here and the witness who was found, has been heard here...He was one of the persons who compiled the affidavit and he has testified here before the Tribunal that he wanted to correct the statements which he made in his affidavit. I offer these documents as Vogt Exhibit Nos. 36,37, 38, 39,40 and 41.
I am now coming to the last document and this document is not contained in Supplement II and III.
THE PRESIDENT: What about your Exhibit 35? That was the--
DR. SCHMIDT: Exhibit 35 or Document No. 35?
THE PRESIDENT: Is Document 42 Exhibit 35? The affidavit of Frank?
DR. SCHMIDT: The Frank Affidavit is Exhibit No. 35. The last document which I want to present has not been translated yet. It's also an affidavit which is not very long and I ask the Tribunal to permit me to read the text of this affidavit in order to have it translated by the interpreter so that it will be contained in the transcript. The next document is Vogt Document No. 41. It will become Exhibit No. 42. It's an affidavit by the former collaborator for the defendant, August Schaper, and this affidavit shows that Vogt in contradiction to the testimony of Dr. Morgen at that time did not himself examine the Treasuries at Buchenwald but that three of his auditing officials carried out this examination.
The document has the following text and I quote:
"Nurnberg, 23 August 1947."
THE PRESIDENT: Don't read the first paragraph. Leave that out.
DR. SCHMIDT: Yes. Very well. The first-paragraph is the customary introduction to the affidavit. However, I want to give the dates of the affiant.
His name is August Schaper, born 11 February 1889. He was an Obersturmbannfuehrer in the Waffen-SS and a Major of the Police, retired. At present in Court prison at Nurnberg. He makes the following statement and I quote:
"I was an auditor in the auditing office A-4 in the WVHA and worked under Bogt. I can recall quite clearly that after the arrest of the Commander of Camp Buchenwald by the name of Koch I was ordered by my superior Vogt together with two other auditors by the name of Mueller and Lange to examine the so-called illegal treasuries at Buchenwald which Koch had established and because of which he was arrested. In order to receive further instructions about the extent of the auditing work we again returned to Berlin and I gave a report to Vogt and also the Chief of the Office Group Frank. Frank ordered that this auditing work was to be carried out on a large scale and that Vogt himself was to go along with us. I then went back to Weimar-Buchenwald together with Vogt. The two of us went first of all to the administrative building which was located within the protective custody camp in order to talk to the administrative official, Weichseldorfer. Immediately after our entry Weichseldorfer was arrested by an SD official and he was taken into the prison at Weimar. Vogt then went to Weimar in order to hear further details about the arrest. Vogt didn't personally participate in the further auditing of the treasury. His stay in the administrative building only lasted several minutes. After the arrest of Weichseldorfer we left Mueller in Buchenwald in order to carry out the work.
Vogt and I returned in a motor vehicle to Berlin. Lange returned by railway. An auditing report in writing was submitted as a result of the investigation and was signed by Vogt."
This affidavit is signed by August Schaper. That's the end of the quotation and now we have the customary certificate. I have just found out in the German copies there's a mistake. It's stated there "we went into the administrative building which was outside of the protective custody camp. " In the German copy it was shown to me and it stated here that this was located within the protective custody camp. That's a mistake in the German copy. I have concluded my presentation of the documents for the defendant Vogt.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, will take a short recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. VON STAKELBERG (Attorney for the Defendant Fanslau): Your Honor, the Translation Department has told me just now that the translation of the document, which I want to introduce as Fanslau Exhibit 24 cannot be found. It will probably take quite a while before it can be found again. I have given a copy of it to the interpreter and I would appreciate it if I could possibly read it into the record.
This affidavit is by Hans Moser, at present in the jail in Nuremberg, here in the Palace of Justice. I shall not read the introduction. Paragraph 1 of the statement reads as follows:
"As of February, 1938, or March, 1938, the Main Department V-I was the Administrative Central Office for the SS Verfuegungstruppe. It is started here, "Administrative Main Office." In the original it is just "Administrative Office."
"For the administrative tasks of the General SS from that time on, a new special Main Department had been established.
"2. The former SS Obersturmfuehrer Fanslau, as of the 1st of March, 1938 was the man in charge of the Main Department V-1. Therefore, be was only active for the SS-Verfuegungstruppe."
Unfortunately another error has occurred here. It should not be "SS-Obersturmfuehrer Fanslau", but "Obersturmbannfuehrer."
"3. As of June 1938, the administration of the SS-Verfuegungstruppe that is to say, the Main Department V-1, was detached from the Administrative Office of the SS and from its personnel the Administrative Headquarters for the SS-Verfuegungstruppe was formed. This administrative headquarters in the Month of October, 1938, was transferred to Berlin. Obersturmbannfuehrer Fanslau became the Administrative officer of the SS-Verfuegungstruppe, and I was put in charge of budgetary matters. The personnel strength of the branch of the SS-Verfuegungstruppe until the beginning of the war was approximately the same as the personnel strength of a division?"
Your Honor, I only wanted to explain the activity of the Defendant Fanslau in the Administrative Office of the SS with this document introduced now, namely, in 1938, and I would like to correct with this the testimony as given by the Witness Carl, who at the time stated in his organizational chart that the Main Department V-I administered concentration camps and Death Head Units. From the affidavit as given by Moser for the Defendant Frank, and which was introduced as Defense Exhibit Frank No. 17, it can be seen that the economic administration of the Death Head Units and the concentration camps when Kaindl left was transferred to the inspectorate of the Concentration Camps and that was, at the latest in 1937, and from this, it can also be seen that the economic administration of the General SS was dealt with independently, so that the Defendant Fanslau only had to take care of the economic administration of the SS-Verfuegungstruppe in the Main Office of the SS.
This document is introduced as Defense Exhibit Fanslau No. 24, and I have now finished the introduction of my documents.
DR. HAENSEL (Attorney for the Defendant Georg Loerner): Document Book No. II and one supplement for Georg Loerner. I have already introduced Document No. 1. I would appreciate it if Your Honors would permit me to supplement the introduction of documents with Document Book No. II. The document begins with Document Georg Loerner No. 18. I took the liberty of numbering those documents according to their sequence as they appear, and I shall read then and introduce them as they are in the document book, namely, Document No. 18 will become Exhibit 16, which also begins with 16 and continues currently, Documents 18, 19, 20, 21 will become therefore Exhibits 16, 17, 18 and 19. They are affidavits concerning the character of Georg Loerner, as a supplement to what has been introduced so far.
Document Georg Loerner No. 22, Exhibit No. 20, is an affidavit by Opperbeck and it deals with Pohl's ordinance, according to which Loerner was appointed his deputy and he had to report to the office chiefs and it also confirms that the ordinance was cancelled a short while after that.
The next document, namely Document 23, will become Exhibit 21. It is a document by Riecke, which is very interesting in this case. Riecke was State Secretary of the Reich Food Ministry and he was the chief expert for the allocation of food. He is in Nuremberg now. In the course of his activities in the Reich Food Ministry he had to fix the food rations for the concentration camps.
The next document, which is Document No. 25, which will become Defense Exhibit No. 22, is an affidavit of Dr. Kurt Schmidt-Klevenow and it shows that Loerner was nothing but a formal representative in Pohl's office. Schmidt-Klevenow can tell us best about it from his activity as one of Pohl's judges.
The next document, namely, Document No. 26, Exhibit 23, is a decree which is important for the position of the State Police and it is an important supplement to the material introduced by my colleagues at the same time. It shows the committment and the release of the inmates as being the job of the State Police. Nobody else had any choice in that.
The next document, which is Document 27, will become Defense Exhibit 24, it is a copy of a statement, by Wisliceny, who was one of Eichmann's collaborators concerning the rigorous secrecy which had to be observed.
The next document, Exhibit 25, which is Document 28, is a correspondence between Himmler and Lammers. It contains important figures about the personnel strength in the concentration camps and also about the percentage of criminals and those who were in security confinement. It also contains information about their release on Himmler's birthday.
The next document, No. 29, which is Exhibit No. 26, is an affidavit by Wilhelm Burger. It deals with the question of how far Loerner tried to get clothing for the inmates and, particularly, it also deals with the report which went through Pohl to Himmler, where it is pointed out that there is a lack in the stocks of clothing.
The next document, which is Document No. 30, Exhibit 27, is an excerpt from the IMT Verdict regarding the subject of Sauckel. It shows that Sauckel early in the Spring of 1942 received the assignment to take over the labor allocation and that Loerner received that job a long time after Department I/5 took it over.
Document No. 31, which is Exhibit 28, is an affidavit by Phillip Grimm. Grimm was one of the people of Department I/5, and I shall come back to that when I make my final plea.
Document No. 32 will become Exhibit 29. It is an affidavit by Fritz Lechler. Lechler according to the organizational chart was Chief of Department B-II. I asked him here about the clothing and also about the handling of the goods in connection with that and he gives quite a lengthy statement here. I believe it was only due to the fact that he was ill that he is not sitting here in the defendants dock.
Document 34 will become Exhibit 30. It is an affidavit by Andreas Weggel. Statistically it shows that in order to equip one single division with clothing and equipment 91 or 92 railroad carriages were necessary. I shall come back to that figure later on in order to show how a figure of several hundred railroad carriages worked in Department B-II when one division alone needed 92 carriages.
Document No. 35, which will become Defense Exhibit 31, is an affidavit by Dr. Hermann Karoli, which shows that the deputizing position of Loerner was nothing but a formal one in the economic field.
Document No. 36 will become Exhibit 32. It is an affidavit by Franz Josef Pister concerning the supplementary food and it also interpolates into the Tschentscher case and deals with his problems.
Document No. 37 will become Exhibit 33. It is an affidavit by Otto Barnewald and it also deals with clothing questions and it throws a certain light on that matter. I shall come back to that in my final briefs.
The following two affidavits, namely, Document 38, as Exhibit 34 and Document 39, as Exhibit 35, are excerpts from the SS Rules of Conduct and also Excerpts from the Mittelbrische Zeitung, Regensburger Umschau. They are documents which I am introducing here in order to orient the Tribunal on things to which I will come back in my final pleas, and I shall use them in my arguments.
The last document 40 is an affidavit by Gerhard Hoffmann. This will become Exhibit 36.
It is an affidavit which also shows that Loerner only played a formal part in the establishment of Department V.
I have thus finished the introduction of documents.
DR. KURAUSS. Dr. Krauss for Tschentscher.
Document Book No. III, Tschentscher.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Did you say that was No. III?
DR. KRAUSS: Yes, indeed, Your honor, it is No. III.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I have No. II.
DR. KRAUSS: No. II only contained two documents which referred to food experiments and which were not introduced. Document Book No. III contains four documents which a would like to introduce now.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I only have No. II for Tschentscher and do not have No. III.
DR. KRAUSS: Then I would appreciate it if this Tribunal would rule what I should do now. The documents have been turned in to the Translation Department a long time ago, and I am at aloss. Your Honor, possibly I could simply limit myself to telling you what all those documents contain and then I could see to it that the Tribunal gets those documents as soon as possible, as soon as they are translated.
THE PRESIDENT: You have introduced No. I?
DR. KRAUSS: Would you repeat, Your Honor, please?
THE PRESIDENT: You have introduced the documents in Book I?
DR. KRAUSS: Your Honor, Document Book No. I has been introduced a long time ago. Document Book No. II contains two documents which deal with alleged food experiments. Those two documents will not be introduced because the Tribunal declared that it did not want to hear any rebuttal evidence on those matters.
Document Book No.III which I would like to introduce now contains four documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead with the documents in Book No. III.
DR. KRAUSS: Dr. Krauss for the Defendant Tschentscher.
Your Honors, with the permission of this Tribunal I would like to introduce four documents which are contained in Document Book No. III, Tschentscher.
They deal with the charges which were raised during the last few days of this trial against the Defendant Tschentscher as a soldier. These four affidavits will be used in order to rebut Saur's testimony, and they will also support the testimony given by the witnesses, Schaefer, Mueller and Staminger. The first of these four documents is Tschentscher Document No. 21 which will become Exhibit No. 19. That is an affidavit by Otto Kleber. Kleber was a driver with the Witness Schaefer who was examined here. He witnessed the entire advance with the supply battalion and he states that the incidents as reported by the witness Saur and seen by the Witness Saur never did occur.
The second document is an affidavit by Anton Kleyen. This is Tschentscher Document No. 22, and it will become Tschentscher Exhibit No. 20. The witness was a meat examiner with the butchers company of the supply battalion. I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention first of all to the testimony that the food office of the supply battalion, contrary to the testimony given by the Witness Saur at the time was not in Zhitomir, but, as the Defendant Tschentscher stated over and over again, billeted outside of this town. He furthermore states that the alleged shooting of six Jews by Suert apparently did not take place because he, as a member of the butcher's company, according to the circumstances, would have had to know about it.
The third document, Document Tschentscher No. 23, will become Tschentscher Exhibit 21. It is an affidavit by Willibald Jackl who, from the month of February, 1941, until the end of the war, was also a member of the butchers' company, as a chief butcher. He also confirms that he never heard of anything to the effect that Suert in Zhitomir had killed six Jews. I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention, however, to the following fact, namely, that that witness also personally knew the SS-man Kirsch who has been mentioned here several times. The witness confirms that Kirsch, had he received the alleged order by Tschentscher to shoot a Jew, would have told him about it or sure, particularly on the basis of their personal friendship, and that therefore he believes that this testimony by Saur is a confirmation of his own, namely Saur's.The last of the documents which is Tschentscher's No. 24 and which will become Tschentscher's Exhibit No. 22 is an affidavit by Reinhold Schlenkrich.
This man, Schlenkrich, was working with the Army Post Office. He was assigned to the Viking Division, together with the Army Post Office, and he was not an SS member himself. He participated in the advance together with the Viking Division. At all times he was quite close to Tschentscher or in his immediate vicinity, and he testifies that he knew nothing of all the incidents alleged here, that he hadn't seen anything of them nor had he heard anything of them. However, he states that he would have undoubtedly known about those things had they really occurred.
This, Your Honor, concludes my introduction of documents for the Defendant Tschentscher.
DR. VON STEIN: Dr. von Stein for Eirenschmalz/.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Dr. Von Stein, you have one more book, No. II?
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I already introduced one book here, and today I have Document Book No. III, and I also have Document Book III which contains two documents, and an additional supplement with one document. So far I have only received the translations for Document Books I and II. I have already introduced Document Book No. I. I have No. III here with me, but I don't know whether the translation is ready.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: We have No. I. That is all we have.
DR. VON STEIN: However, I only want to introduce two documents only from Document Book No. III. I could give one of the German copies to the interpreters. Maybe it would help some. Now, I should like to read from Document Book No. II for Eirenschmalz. It contains Documents 21 to 26. They are numbered currently and they shall receive the same exhibit numbers, namely 21 to 26.
Document No. 21 is a document by Oswald Pohl. Oswald Pohl in this document talks about Eirenschmalz's activity in the Administrative Office of the SS, and it also contains something about Karl's testimony. Document No. 22 is an affidavit by Bernhard Kuiper who from 1934 to 1937 was a construction engineer in the concentration camps of Esterwegen and Sachsenhausen. He states that he was subordinated to Gruppenfuehrer Eicke and he said that he received his instructions from Piefke from the Ministry of the Interior. During all that time he had no official contact whatsoever with Eirenschmalz. Riedel was his successor. He was also appointed by Eicke. However, he never heard that Eirenschmalz ever had anything to do with construction matters in the concentration camps.
Document No. 23 is a document by Otto Bestle, an affidavit namely, which I drew up with the Prosecution's permission. Bestle, as a result of NO-4008, Exhibit No. 573, gave an affidavit which the Prosecution introduced here. He corrected that affidavit and he is stating here that in the construction balance which he has referred to concerning '38 and '39 it is nothing but a collective balance. With regard to construction balances concerning the concentration camp Dachau, he said that they were not contained in that total balance.
This balance has already been audited in 1940 by the Auditing Court. As there were certain discrepancies Eirenschmalz was directed by the Court of Audits to investigate the statements as given by Bestle. In the affidavit introduced by the Prosecution concerning construction maintenance and corrected in the affidavit now, he is describing the construction work there and the activities of C-VI. Bestle knows from his own knowledge about the garrison administration at Ravensbrueck, that no material allocations were neccesary, and particularly that no material was furnished by Office C-VI.
Concerning the camp wall and the sewer system as contained in the first affidavit issued by Bestle he corrected it again to the effect that those maintenance constructions were constructed by the Construction Inspectorate without the activity of Office C-VI. Furthermore, Bestle is testifying about the fact that certain appropriations for funds for construction maintenance were no longer necessary during the war.
Document No. 24 is an affidavit by Hellmut Kiener. He states there that Eirenschmalz in the Administrative Office of the SS did not deal with concentration camp T.V. tasks. He only dealt with construction tasks of the SS-Verfuegungstruppe. He can tell us about the fact that the man incharge of the Construction Expert Office was Riedel who was in charge of the T.V. and concentration-camp matters, and he was subordinated to the Concentration-Camp Inspectorate.
Document No. 25 is another affidavit by Hellmut Kiener and it deals with the organizational charts of the Administrative Office of the SS for 1936 to 1938. This was introduced by the Prosecution as Exhibit No. 637.
Document No. 26 is an affidavit by Hans Eichele. Eichele states in that document that Eirenschmalz in 1942 tried to have a concentrationcamp inmate, Schnabel, released and employed as a second works manager of the long distance heating system until the end of the war.
In document Book No. III, we only have two documents. I assume that the Tribunal does not have that document book, Therefore, I shall give a brief description of the contents of the documents.