Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A No, I didn't have to have any idea beyond the fact that they came from Jews. However, that I did have misgivings of my own about it is natural, and it was more of a psychological thing for me to think that these people had been robbed of their property in the camps.
Q Were you of the opinion at the time that those objects came from concentration camp inmates who had been killed?
A I couldn't possibly have that thought because I only saw the trunk. I didn't know where it came from nor how it originated, nor was I told anything more specific about the whole thing.
Q I shall now come back to your affidavit again, Witness. It said in there that you also saw large quantities of textile. How about that now?
A I and Wippern a few days after the checking of the treasury were going to visit one of Globocnik's factories. That's what we called them-Globocnik's factories. We were walking right through the city. We passed a house where a sentry was posted. I asked him what this meant; and Wippern told me, "It's here that I have stocked the clothes for our Germans, and those clothes came from the confiscations. Would you like to take a look at it?" I walked into the house with him. There were three rooms in there, approximately the size of this courtroom here, which were filled with clothes of all kinds.
Q Excuse me, Witness, if I interrupt you here. You are speaking of three rooms about the size of this courtroom here. Do you mean to say that every one of these three rooms was the size of this particular courtroom here, or do you mean that the three rooms together amounted only to the size of this courtroom?
A Well, maybe these three rooms together were about one-third additional, one-third of the size of this courtroom, including the size of this courtroom. I can't recall all that because the clothes were hanging there. It was there that those clothes had been hung in an orderly manner on hangers. They were placed on those wooden shelves.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
There were shoes, too, and a part of them were still packed. In other words, they came from a camp apparently. They were apparently taken from a stock, rather; and most of them locked almost now. They probably also came from a storage room. The underwear was pressed properly and had been placed in closets. What I saw in those ten minutes while I was there gave me an orderly impression.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO):
Q Gave you what kind of an impression? I didn't catch that.
THE INTERPRETER: A tidy impression, your Honor, an orderly impression.
Q Witness, you knew that the clothing and the valuables came from dead people, did you not?
A No, your Honor. One couldn't see that from just seeing the clothes. Everything was neat and had been hung properly; and most of the clothes looked new and apparently came from some sort of a storage room, from a warehouse. It wasn't just a big pile of clothes; but they had been hung up properly.
Q Then let me call your attention to your affidavit. I don't quite catch the meaning here if you didn't know they were dead. On page 36 of Document Book Number I, in your affidavit, I read this: "Almost without exception they were used clothing which had been taken from the people. I was told that the properties that the people had brought along had to be given up. However, after the manner and the way Globocnik had worked, I am pretty certain that they were dead."
A Your Honor, this statement in my affidavit is not what I said myself because I couldn't possibly know it. The examiner put these words before me and said, "Don't you believe that those clothes originated from dead people?" Then I said, "Well, it could be, of course."
Q On page 8 of your affidavit appears this paragraph. "I have read the above declaration consisting of eight pages in the German Court No. II, Case No. 4.language and declare that according to the best of my knowledge and belief it is the full truth.
I have had an opportunity to effect changes and corrections in the above declaration."
A Yes, indeed, your Honor, that's correct. However, at the time, your Honor, due to my undernourished physical condition, I was in such a state that I didn't know what was put in front of me. I didn't want to sign the affidavit, and I wanted to have some time to discuss the thing with the counsel. However, Mr. Ortmann, who was my interrogator, really urged me to sign it. Dr. Schmidt, who is my personal defense counsel, as a witness of my physical condition at the time. I was brought here from my camp in an undernourished condition; and I only recuperated under the treatment of the jail physician. I weighed 105 pounds.
Q Very well. You made this statement on January 16, 1947. Five months have passed since that time. Did you ever in any way formally repudiate this affidavit or declare that there were statements in it which you had not voluntarily made?
A Yes, indeed, your Honor. My counsel made a request that the record be shown to us in order subsequently to be able to see what I said and what was told me during the interrogation. However, that request was denied then.
Q You've been on the stand now for a whole day. You began on Friday afternoon and you've been on until the present moment, which is 2:45. I've heard nothing which would suggest that this affidavit was incorrect. It wasn't until I read that sentence to you that you began to entertain some doubts about its authenticity.
A Your Honor, I have discussed all those things with my defense counsel; and he also intended to ask me certain questions to that effect, particularly in connection with this affidavit, because this affidavit contains those things which were mentioned by me. Furthermore, it contains sentences which were inserted by the interrogator, and within the context they show a different meaning.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
DR. SCHMIDT: Your Honors, I should like to add to the statement of this defendant that it was my intention to ask the defendant about the same statements from his affidavit which the Tribunal just mentioned and that in a justified manner.
Q Let's find out the truth right now. You went to Lublin and you saw all this property. You saw the valuables and you saw the money. You counted the money. That is true, isn't it?
A Yes, that's correct. I did see the money.
Q Yes, and were you told where the money came from?
A I was told by Globocnik that the money came from the confiscated property; the confiscated property of the Jews who were interned there.
Q Did you ever have any doubt about that in your mind? Did you accept that at its face value, the expression which was made to you?
A Yes, because after all I only saw the money in the treasury. I didn't see anything else; and I didn't hear anything else.
Q You never in your mind wondered whether this property did not come from individuals who had perished in some action by the SS against the Jews?
A Your Honor, that particular Jewish action which was being carried out by Globocnik out there was not at all known to me at the time. I came to Lublin and didn't know about anything of what was going on in Lublin. I didn't know a thing about it.
Q After you returned home, did you reflect on what you had seen?
A Yes, indeed, your Honor. I had misgivings about it.
Q What conclusion did you come to at home when you were separated from this place as to where this property originated?
A Well, at the time I figured that those were things which probably were in connection with the action in Warsaw or with the destruction of the ghettoes, although I wasn't told that on the spot. How Court No. II, Case No. 4.ever, I did have to figure my own opinion about that because those were big valuables.
There were many internees. But the only way I could possibly think about it was by judging from my own opinion.
Q So there did come a time shortly after that visit that you concluded that these valuables and all this clothing had come as the result of a criminal action in Warsaw?
A Well, the Warsaw action was explained to us as an action carried out by the police and the Wehrmacht.
Q Did you know that Jews had been killed?
A That was in the papers. Whatever was published in the papers was known to me, Your Honor.
Q You knew then that this clothing and the valuables had come from these dead Jews?
A Your Honor, whatever was there I couldn't know. I couldn't know that the clothes which I saw there had come from Jews who had died because it was not a big pile, as I told you before. Those clothes were hanging there neatly and tidily. However, it wasn't the amount which is contained in the document here, not 1900 carloads. There word possibly four to five or ton loads; but there weren't 1900 of them.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): You may proceed, Dr. Schmidt. I'm through with my examination.
DR. SCHMIDT: May it please your Honors, I should like to come back again to what the witness already stated here and in that connection to the questions asked by the judge. On the 8th of May 1947 I have made a written application and in this written application asked that the prosecution give me those various records about the preliminary interrogations which preceded the signature of the affidavit so that I could find out what the defendant actually had said during the preliminary interrogation and what is really contained in the affidavits before this Tribunal now, and is only due to the formulation of the interrogator.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
The prosecution in a memorandum of the 20th of may 1947 told me that they refused to show those records. I'm very sorry about the opinion of the prosecution and their attitude because according to my opinion it does not contribute to finding out what the actual incident was at Lublin when the checking of the treasury was carried out. The only eye-witness there, who is at my disposal, is the man whose name has been repeatedly mentioned by the defendant, Johannes Hahnefeld, who was an auditor. That witness was granted me by this Tribunal. I have already spoken with that witness, who is here in the jail at Nurnberg. I have tried to find out from the witness by asking him questions what happened at Lublin at the time. However, I'm afraid that I have to say that the witness mentally speaking is not in a position to answer even as little as one question in that connection. According to a physician's tests, he is suffering from some sort of a nervous disease. He calls it himself a polyneuritis. That disease results in a mental incapacity to think. The witness also looks from the outside as though he were very tired and disintegrated. It is impossible for us to use him here as evidence.
In order to clarify that point which is extremely important for my client, I can only refer to whatever this defendant here testifies as a witness in his own behalf. However, in order to facilitate the tasks of this Tribunal in finding out what is true and what is not true of those statements, it is necessary, according to my opinion, to know what the defendant said at the time when all these questions were put before him for the first time. Then the prosecution just points to the contents of the affidavit. That affidavit, however, in my opinion-
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): Dr. Schmidt, is this in the nature of an argument or are you going to ask that we call some witness? I don't quite understand what you are driving at.
DR. SCHMIDT: Your Honors, all I wanted to do was repeat my application for the introduction of the records of the interrogation Court No. II, Case No. 4.of this defendant.
I wanted to justify it before this Tribunal and repeat it. I should appreciate it if the prosecutor would make a statement about this question before your Honors. It could be possible perhaps that the prosecution in this particular case here makes an exception from its attitude; and perhaps the prosecution would be ready for the finding of facts to show us the records of the interrogations. For my part I myself without even knowing the defendant at the time and without knowing the entire complex of the questions here was called by Dr. Ortmann to attend this interrogation, although I didn't know a thing about it. I was shocked by the condition in which this defendant was at the time. He was crying like a baby.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS):
Q What caused his condition to be that way?
A My nervous condition. You see, I came from a camp and I was being treated there for undernourishment. I weighed from 102 to 105 pounds.
Q What camp were you in?
A I was in Ludwigsburg. From Dachau I was sent to Ludwigsburg. I had already been treated in Dachau for undernourishment.
Q Why did you get in that condition of undernourishment? Where were you?
A I was in Dachau.
Q After the Allies took over Dachau?
A In June 1946 I was transferred from Auerbach to Dachau.
Q Where is Auerbach? Where is that?
AAuerbach is in Upper Palatinate. I was a prisoner of war at the time, you see.
Q Who didn't give you food after you were a prisoner of war? Whom are you accusing of under nourishing you?
A Well, in Dachau for weeks and weeks we had only potato soup. In the morning, at noon, and in the evening. At Auerbach it Court No. II, Case No. 4.was more or less good.
But from there I was transferred to Dachau; and at Dachau I was in the camp for wounded, so that we didn't have to work. In Ludwigsburg I was immediately taken and placed upon a diet by that physician there. I stayed on it as long as I was in Ludwigsburg, in other words, approximately five weeks. I was undernourished there and on a diet. I was weighed here in Nurnberg naked and weighed 102 pounds.
Q You never have answered my question. Who failed to feed you while you were a prisoner of war? That's what I want to know.
A In the camp of Dachau?
Q Yes, Dachau.
A That was under the Americans' supervision.
Q Dachau, that is what you said?
A Yes. The food was distributed by the German administration of the camp, and there we had to take the food which I just mentioned.
Q When were you put in Dachau?
A June of 1946.
Q June of last year?
A Yes.
Q And they starved you there until you got down to weigh 102 to 106 pounds? The Americans did that.
A Yes.
BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO):
Q Just one question, Witness. This affidavit is eight pages long. I'd like to have you tell us right now which parts of the affidavit you now state are untrue. I want you to look at the affidavit right now and tell us.
A It says here in my affidavit on page 4, "It was already known to me at the time that that foreign exchange was stolen property. That is to say, that they had been confiscated from those inmates." I did not really want this sentence the way it is. It was told me and I repeated, "Yes, it could be." Then further down I was told I had those Court No. II, Case No. 4.books sent to Berlin where they were rechecked.
Q Just a minute. Wait till I find that, please. What page of the affidavit is that?
A. It is on Page 5.
DR. SCHMIDT: Your Honors, in my German copy which I have it is on Page 4. It is just about in the middle of Page 4.
BY JUDGE MUSHMANNO:
Q. Now, that part which you say you do not accept as being true, read that again.
A. It was known to me already at the time, that that foreign exchange was stolon property, that is to say, that the foreign exchange had been taken from the inmates.
Q. Very well. All right. Anything else?
A. Then on Page 6 it says there, "However, according to the way in which Herr Globocnik worked, I assumed it to be quite sure that there were people who had died." It wasn't I who actually wanted to have that sentence put that way. The interrogator told me.---
Q. All right. Anything else?
A. Then the following sentence there: "I hadn't been informed about the Warsaw Action either. However, I assume that there was bloodshed." That sentence also was actually read to me by the interrogator and I just nodded.
Q. You nodded. Well, when you nodded -
A. Yes.
Q. You nodded?
A. He showed me that part there and I said, "that could be -- could be."
Q. "Could be" -
A. "And then, furthermore, that Wippern, Hahnefeld and myself"-- that is on Page 7 here someplace -- "that Hahnefeld, Wippern and myself carried out the estimate. We only guessed however. There is also a sentence which I didn't coin myself because there was no way of carrying out a guessing.
Q. Let me have that again, please. What was the name of that individual?
A. The names were -- Wippern, Hahnefeld and myself carried out the checking.
Q. And you say now that you did not put it that way?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you put it?
A. Well, he asked me approximately the following question: "Did you guess that or what?" And I said, "It isn't possible to guess. I am not a merchant. I couldn't guess. We just spoke about it.
Q. All right. Anything else in the affidavit?
A. Then there is a mistake on Page 6. I said there that I had visited the three labor camps and the labor assignment in the economic enterprises. I said that the economic enterprises which I saw were a brick factory -an agricultural plant, and so to a carpenter's shop. That was mixed up by the interrogator because there was no brick factory. What they were, a plant, manufacturing tiles, furthermore, a workshop manufacturing airplane parts.
Q. You want to eliminate the reference to the brick kilns?
A. Yes, because, you see, your Honor, it wasn't a brick factory.
Q. All right. Anything else?
DR. SCHMIDT: Now, your Honor, I believe that the witness started reading a sentence in his affidavit, which to object to, and he said, "In the affidavit" -- it is on Page 5 of the German copy -- "I had the books sent to Berlin where they were resubmitted to an examination."
I believe that the witness wanted to read that passage there. However, he was interrupted. I wanted to point out that that passage also had to be changed because it should not say that the books were submitted, but they submitted.
JUDGE MUSHMANNO: That the books should have been submitted, rather than that they were submitted?
THE WITNESS: Yes,; quite so.
JUDGE MUSHMANNO: Very well. Anything else?
THE WITNESS: No.
JUDGE MUSHMANNO: The rest of it is correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A brief recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SCHMIDT: May it please the Tribunal, before I continue in my examination of the defendant, I should like to refer once more to the request which I made before the recess, and I am going to repeat it once more.
I should be very grateful if the Prosecutor would express his point of view with respect to the request which I made today orally with regard to the presentation of the pre-trial records of interrogations and if he would make a statement now before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us understand exactly what you want, Dr. Schmidt. The Prosecution interrogated the witness before the trial commenced, and you want the Prosecution to produce the transcript of that interrogation?
DR. SCHMIDT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to be heard, Mr. Robbins, at this time or tomorrow morning?
MR. ROBBINS: I should only like to say, Your Honor, that i filed the brief which was given to Counsel for the Defense -- about four or five pages in length -- which stated in detail the attitude of the Prosecution, not only in this case, but in all of the cases before the Military Tribunals. One of the main points, it seems to me, is that such a transcript does not have any probative value to confirm the truth of the statements made by the defendant. I do not know of any rule or law that says that prior consistent statements prove the veracity of the witness' statement. There may, of course be some -- undoubtedly there are -- consistent statements with what he says on the stand. On the otherhand, there may be inconsistent statements. I think all of these were incorporated into the affidavit upon which he has been questioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Schmidt, do you wish to show by this interrogation that this defendant made the same statement before that he is making today?
DR. SCHMIDT: The defendant Josef Vogt claims that in various points which are contained in the affidavit of 16 January 1947 -- that is, in the pre-trial interrogation -- he has given different testimony from what he is giving today, and that the formulation which had been given to these points in the affidavit was not based on his own testimony but was made by the interrogator, and that this disagrees with his actual statements that he made at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: The situation is a little unusual, Mr. Robbins. Dr. Schmidt wishes to show a prior contradictory statement in the interrogation in support of his claim that the affidavit was not drawn in accordance with his statements but contained the interpretations of the interrogator, which were put into his mouth.
DR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: I don't think that Counsel for Defense is referring to the interrogation during which this affidavit was signed, are you?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't think he is either. He is talking about the preliminary interrogation before this affidavit was drafted.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, even if the defendant said some things in a prior interrogation which are inconsistent with this affidavit, I do not see how that refutes this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: It would't except for his added statement that the affidavit as presented to him in German did not contain accurately his own statements but merely his concurrence, and a qualified concurrence, with some statements made by the interrogator.
MR. ROBBINS: Well, the defendant has said that he had an opportunity to make any corrections in the affidavit. The affidavit seems to state his attitude on 16 January 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will take your request under advisement, Dr. Schmidt, and rule on it in ample time for you to protect yourself.
JOSEF VOGT -- Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION -- Continued BY DR. SCHMIDT:Q.- Witness, in your affidavit you also referred to an inspection of three labor camps at Lublin.
I now want to ask you the following question: For what purpose did you inspect the three labor camps at the time?
A.- When auditing the accounts. The auditing official pointed out to me that a large number of machines and tools had been procured and which represented a great value. In order to convince myself that these machines and other equipment were actually on hand, I told Wippern that he should give me the opportunity to convince myself personally of the presence of this equipment. Of an afternoon -- it was on the second or third day -- we took a trip to three camps which were located just at the border of the city limits of Lublin.
I only inspected the workshops in the camp and not the living quarters of the inmates. We had workshops here where roofing paper was being manufactured. Then we had a big aircraft hangar where repairs were being carried out on aircraft and spare-parts for manufactured and then we visited a workshop where furs were being manufactured. The inspection of all the plants took up approximately one hour. After I had convinced myself of the existence of the equipment which was mentioned in the accounts I again left.
Q. On the occasion of that visit did you observe that the inmates of these workshops were being mal-treated or that they were wearing unferior clothing and that they were ill-fed?
A. As I have already said, I did not visit the livingquarters but I only visited the workshops. The inmates who were working there did not make a very bad or deteriorated impression on me at all. They were relatively well-dressed and they were relatively well-fed as far as I could form any judgment within the short period of time that I was there. What did draw my attention was that in this camp, in the workshops, the supervision was not carried out by SS men but rather by the ranks of the inmates. Guards were only stationed at the entrance.
Q. Is it correct that at the time you also visited economic enterprises of Globocnik?
A. Yes. A difference must be made here between the economic enterprises in the labor camps which I have already described and economic enterprises which were subordinated directly to Globocnik. The latter consisted of an agricultural plant, the carpentry and a brick works.
Q. Witness, I want to refer once more to Document NO-061 which I have already quoted.
This document is located in Document Book 18. It is prosecution Exhibit 475. In this document which is a list of the valuables belonging to Jews which were delivered up to 3 February 1943 and in paragraph 5 of this list the following objects are listed among other things; pencils, fountain-pens, eye glasses, wrist-watches, cuff-links, flashlights, alarm clicks, thermometers, etc. At the time when you carried out your audit at Lublin did you see the objects which I have just quoted?
A. I did not see any such objects. I only saw foreign exchange and I saw a container filled with jewels and the clothing which I have already described.
Q. Witness, I want to refer once more to your affidavit on page 6 of the German text of the affidavit. You are referring to Document NO-060 and in connection with this document you make the following statement in your affidavit and I quote: "The signature on the document which you have presented to me is known to me -- "That is No. NO-060 ---" it is the signature of Globocnik. I do not deny that it is a true signature. The document itself his not been submitted to me. However, I know its contents on the basis of the examination." The Document is NO-060and is located in Document Book 18 of the prosecution and it was submitted as Exhibit 474. It also deals with the objects which were turned in from the Action Reinhardt. I now want to ask you the following question: Witness, what can you tell us today about this matter?
A. The document which is described here was shown to me and on the back of this document I had to identify the signature of Globocnik. I don't know whether the amount which has been mentioned here is correct.
It was only named to me by the pre-trial interrogator. I was unable to observe in the speed in which the interrogation was carried out, whether the amount agreed with my findings on that day I carried out the examination. In no case was the amount located in the treasury at that time because of the 100,00,00RM as the document shows -- within the 100,000,000 RM also other valuables are included. They included all of the valuables which had been turned in up until 3 February 1943. However, this document may have been confused with something else because I can still recall that the interrogator showed me Document NO-059.
Q. Excuse me; I want to interrupt you at this time and I want to point out to the Tribunal that Document NO -059 to which you have just referred is located in Document Book 19 and it was presented as Prosecution Exhibit 488. That is Globocnik's report about the administrative execution of the Action Reinhardt.
A. I can recall this document particularly because my name was mentioned on the front page in a report of Globocnik to the Reichsfuehrer and because my name was underlined with pencil.
Q. I would like to interrupt you once more in this case. In what connection was your name mentioned in this document? Do you have this document before you now?
A. The document contains the following sentence and I quote: "The preliminary examining up to 1 April 1943 by Vogt from the SS-WVHA had already taken place and it has been shown that audit existed." This sentence is underlined with pencil. The interrogator showed me the last page of this document. While covering up the the text above the signature that shows "Globocnik" and said that I did not doubt that this was the true signature of Globocnik.
I believe that Document NO-060 is being confused with the Document NO-059.
Q. Could the Document NO-059 have been submitted to you when you carried out your examination at Lublin? Please take a close look at the document.
A. Document NO-059 was only compiled at a later period of time. It is an enclosure to a report of Globocnik to the Reichsfuehrer in which he gives the total balance which resulted from the Action Reinhardt. That is to say, it was compiled at a much later time. So be sure, on 15 September 1943.
Q. Is this shown by the document itself? Will you please look at the second paragraph of the first page of this document?
A. "The use and the utilization of the valuables were carried out according to orders of the Reichsfuehrer SS..."
Q. I am now referring to this paragraph and will you please continue to read?
A. "...In the course of the Action of 26 June 1942 and the 9 December 1943.--"
Q. That's the spot which I was referring to. This document refers to an order of the SS-WVHA dated 9 December 1943 while your examination was carried out in July 1943?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. I would like to ask you now, did you conclude your auditing at Lublin at the time and to be sure, the examination of the treasury?
A. The examination of the treasury which was carried out in order to determine whether any embezzlement had taken place or whether any money had been illegally removed or spent for illegal purposes was carried out by me through "on-the-spot" checks. The examination of the "Account R" was likewise carried out as far as the vouchers could be compared with the books and it was likewise carried out in that manner.