The witness will be excused.
Dr. von Stakelberg, you will have Maier tomorrow, you think?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I hope, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I hope so.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: It depends on whether the witness will arrive.
THE PRESIDENT: You have plenty of documents, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: All my documents are ready.
THE PRESIDENT: But they haven't been introduced?
MR. ROBBINS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Were there still defense documents to be introduced?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I am afraid of.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, I myself have three affidavits. One has been dispatched, but it hasn't been returned yet. The two other affidavits I have, however, are very brief affidavits, but they haven't been translated.
DR. HAENSEL: (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT GEORG LOERNER): I have one document book and a trial letter which have not been translated yet. The trial latter will arrive tomorrow. However the last document books have not been completed yet, as far as we have been informed so far.
DR. FROESCHMANN (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT MUMMENTHEY): I have two more document books. They have been completed as far as the translation is concerned and I would be able to present them tomorrow. I also have two supplements which are still being translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we'll take all the testimony we can tomorrow and if we are not able to finish all the documents, we will have to deal with it later, but not the next day. We plan to recess tomorrow night until the 16th of September and if all the documents are not admitted tomorrow, we'll have to take some of them on the 15th or 16th, but we want to get all that we can in tomorrow.
MR. ROBBINS: I ask you if it would be a good idea to convene at nine o'clock in the morning instead of 9:30 in order to get in a little more time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's all right, isn't it? Well, all right, we will convene at nine o'clock and adjourn at "X" hours. There is no guarantee as to when we will adjourn tomorrow night. We will adjourn new until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 4 September 1947 at 0900 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 4 September 1947, at 0900 hours, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. 2 Military Tribunal No. 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
MR. ROBBINS: If it please the Tribunal, I should like to continue with the presentation of rebuttal documents beginning with Book XXIX. I think there are about six documents in this book.
THE PRESIDENT: XXIX, did you say?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Mr. Robbins.
MR. ROBBINS: The first document is NO-3925 and it will be Prosecution Exhibit 670. These first three documents are offered to rebut the proposition of the defense that the SS enterprises -- or the industries under Amtsgruppe W are not SS industries. In the first document, Exhibit 670, Hohberg writes that the WHVA has a dual position performing Party and Reich functions, and he says "Within the Party sector, administrative matters are dealt with. Administrative matters include the supervision of the Economic Enterprises of the SS," and just below, page 3 of the original, he says that Office W-IV in supervising the inmates accomplishes a task of the Reich and in administering the enterprises in performs a task of the Party.
THE PRESIDENT: What paragraph is that, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: That is just immediately below page 3 on the second of the English copy -- see in parentheses on page 3 of the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that the first paragraph?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor. I have just read from both the paragraphs above the parentheses and just under the parentheses and on the last page of that document he say that all concerns of the Party are con cerns of the community and that the legal sphere of the party centers in an autonomous law which originally is not dereved from the State.
That is just below page 5 of the original.
The document I have just referred to is NO-3925 and it is Exhibit 697. I made a mistake in numbering.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number?
MR. ROBBINS: Exhibit 697.
The next document, NO-3798, will be Exhibit 698, This is a letter signed by Pohl to the Reich Commissioner for Price Control. On the first page, fourth paragraph, he states that the Fuehrer Prinzip which is strictly handled with within the SS has also been applied in the SS Enterprises, and on the next page, first full paragraph, he says "The liaison between the parent corporation and the subsidiary is so close that as regards economy, on cannot regard it operation of independent enterprises, but in some way branch departments of the parent corporation. In the last sentence of the last paragraph he says, "To the person not concerned; it might appear as if all these enterprises were not connected with one another, However, that is not the case."
DR. GAWLIK: (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT DR. VOLK AND BOBERMIN): If the Tribunal please, we have just had the translation, "Liaison between the Party and the subsidiary Company is so close," but in our copy it says. "The liaison between parent company and subsidiary is so close."
THE PRESIDENT: That is what it says in the English copy, in the English translation,
DR. GAWLIK: I see. I only wanted to draw attention to this mistake in the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: It is right in the document, anyway.
MR. ROBBINS: The next document, NO-1918, will be Exhibit 699, and this is the letter by Learner-- this is Georg Learner -- and initialed by Dr. Volk and it is to the Reich Minister of Justice concerning exem ption of certain SS industries from payment of court fees and expenses and it refers to the DAW and the Textile Manufacturing Company and the Experimental Station for Food, and in the fourth paragraph he says, " All of the employees of these three plants are prisoners, and, like the DEST, they are headed by SS officers as managers who are strictly firm to observe the instructions of the Reichfuehrer SS in their business affairs."
And the last sentence in that paragraph, "The Three plants mentioned therefore are actual establishments of the SS, like the DEST."
DR. GAWLIK: (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS VOLK AND BOBERMIN): I would be grateful if the prosecution could tell us what statement is to be rebutted by this document.
MR. ROBBINS: The testimony of Dr. Volk and, as I remember it, other of the defendants, the Defendant Pohl, for instance, who testified just a few days ago, that the industries under Amtsgruppe W are not SS enterprises.
The next document, 4161, will be Prosecution Exhibit 700. This is a letter of recommended promote on signed by Pohl and on the second page he is referring to Defendant Baier. He states in the second sentence in the second paragraph that Baier has furnished those who have attended his school with such a good theoretical and practical foundation that they are ready to take over the duties of SS Special Service Troops and the SS Death Head Units." The defendant Baier testified that they were not -- that the students in his school were not trained to become SS Death Head Officers, and Pohl's statement here is offered to rebut that testimony.
The next document, 4088, will be Exhibit 701, and it is offered to show the connection of the Defendant Georg Loerner with the establishment of the concentration camp Stutthof. Other documents have been offered to show the connection of four or five or six of the other defendants, and this document is offered to show the connection of the Defendant Georg Loerner.
THE PRESIDENT: Who signed it?
MR: ROBBINS: This is signed by the Defendant Georg Loerner, I believe will you let me see that document?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's apparent from the first line of the document.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, that is correct. It appears to be his initials at the bottom.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you claim by this.
MR. ROBBINS: That is shows the connection of one additional defendant with the operation of the concentration camp Stutthof, with the establishment of it.
The next document.-
THE PRESIDENT: Wait just a minute. What is the connection of the Institution of Aged People.
MR. ROBBINS: That was party of the property, as the Defendant Volk testified --that was purchased.
THE PRESIDENT: To be acquired for Stutthof.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor.
The next document, 4441, NO, will be Prosecution Exhibit 702. The Defendant Hohberg commented on this on the stand yesterday. The first line refers to the Chief of Staff W, Auditor Hohberg, and refers to a promise of increase in salary signed Dr. Volk and Dr. Wiener.
THE PRESIDENT: It is just to show that Hohberg was Chief of Staff W?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor.
The next document, 3773-NO will be Prosecution Exhibit 703, a letter signed by Mummenthey to Staff W referring to the clearing found for prisoner allocation at various concentration camp works. This is offered to show that Staff--
THE PRESIDENT: Our document is in German, so, if you will explain it, it will help.
Judge Musmanno had noe in English.
MR. ROBBINS: It is offered to show that Staff W did in fact handle the clearing fund for the prisoner allocation. That was a proposition that was denied by the Defendant Baier that the so-called clearing fund for inmate labor was a part of Staff W. It is a letter signed by Mummenthey and addressed to Staff W.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What dOes the 10% represent:
MR. ROBBINS: Beg Pardon?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: That does the 10% represent?
MR. ROBBINS: I don't know what the 10% is.
DR. FRITSCH (Attorney for the Defendant Baier): May it please the Tribunal unfortunately, I did not hear very well Mr. Robbins has said just now.
MR. ROBBINS: In the memorandum of unfinished business that was signed by Hohberg, it was stated that a clearing fund for the allocation of prison labor would be set up under Staff W. Then Defendant Baier testified that that was not a part of the work of Staff W and this document, which is dated 1944, is offered to prove that that was a function of Staff W.
DR. FRITSCH (Attorney for the Defendant Baier): May it please the court, I believe I can put in a correction here. Perhaps Mr. Robbins would be kind enough to show me the record there. As I remember it, Defendant Baier said that it had not been his personal duties. He simply passed it on to the person in charge of these things. The clearing fund in this list of Dr. Hohberg has been mentioned in these details, but, as I see it, when Baier was on the witness stand, he explained that from among the payments which were paid out to the inmates -- I am sorry, I must correct myself here -- from among these payments which were paid to the Reich, 10% was paid into a clearing fund in order to be used for damages or certain compensations. Unfortunately, at the moment, I do not nave the transcript of Baier's testimony here. If I had it, I am sure I could prove it.
MR. ROBBINS: Well, if it isn't disputed that this was a part of the functions of Staff W, I don't think that the document does any damage to the defense. My recollection is very clear that I asked Baier if this was not a part of the duties of Staff W and he said it was not.
DR. FRITSCH: I have no objection to the admission of this document. All I felt was that Judge Musmanno wanted to be enlightened about the 10%. That is why I made the explanation just now.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's true that the industries could claim damages if prisoners were not furnished then according to the agreement. In fact, one industry did claim damages, because prisoners were not furnished during an epidemic.
DR. FRITSCH: That is quite correct, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The 10% is a reserve to cover such claims for damages, I think.
DR. FRITSCH: Well, perhaps, this is putting it too extensively. This clearing fund was to pay for insurances for all sorts of damages, and one of the companies believed I suppose that such damage which they had suffered by not obtaining sufficient inmates was to be paid by that clearing fund, but, as a matter of fact, that was turned down.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but it's to provide a fund for the payment of any claims for damages which could be proved.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes, certainly.
MR. ROBBINS: We come next then to Document Book XXX. I believe there are only five or six documents in this book.
The first document in Book XXX is 4243 and is a recommendation for the promotion of Gluecks and is forwarded by the WVHA and the first page is signed by the Defendant Pohl. The first line on that third page states that Gluecks has been Chief of Amtsgruppe D of the WVHA for two years and in this capacity he is in charge of all matters concerned with concentration camps.
It is to show that Gluecks of Amtsgruppe D was in charge of all matters of the concentration camps. I think that was a proposition that the Defendant Pohl denied at first. I think when he took the stand the second time he more or less agreed to it that the Chief of Amtsgruppe D in that capacity was in charge of all matters of concentration camps. You see, at first, he argued that Gluecks had two capacities and in his capacity as Chief of D he was only in charge of labor allocation and that under the RSHA he had certain other duties connected with the concentration camps. This statement is offered to prove that in the capacity as Chief of D he was in charge of all matters of the concentration camps.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, I notice here in the second paragraph on the last page that Pohl states that Gluecks had the direction, the military direction, of the 40,000 men who worked in the guard units of the concentration camps. Isn't that new? Have we had any proof to that effect before, that Gluecks had any supervision or control over the guard?
MR. ROBBINS: I believe that that is new, Your Honor.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I understood it before that the Guard units were entirely separate and distinct from all control or supervision of the WVHA.
MR. ROBBINS: That is what the defendant Pohl testified to.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the defendant Oswald Pohl. If it please the Court, I am unable to see this contradiction between the testimony and the document, which the Prosecution claims to have found. The defendant Pohl never denied as is suggested in this document, namely, that Obergruppenfuehrer Gluecks was responsible for all matters which were connected with concentration camp matters. Pohl's testimony was in contrast to this statement only in as much, as he was Chief of the Main Office, and was given the responsible management of labor allocation, and that testimony of Pohl is not contradicted by this document. As regards the 40,000 men of the Guards Unit, Defendant Pohl stated that the military directions, so far as training and similar things were concerned were task of the SS Main Operational Office. These Guards were entirely headed by the Inspector of the Camp, who was Gluecks. I do not think that we have here any divergence between the testimony of the defendant Pohl and the contents of this document.
MR. ROBBINS: It appears, Your Honor, that the defendant Pohl approved the statement, and passed it on to the Personnel Office in recommending Gluecks for appointment. Pohl's signature appears on the first page of the recommendation for the promotion.
DR. SEIDL: If the Tribunal please, I think that is rather an important point to which I should draw Your Honor's attention. The defendant Pohl has only signed the first page. Page 3 was signed by a man called Burgdorf, who was a General of the Infantry, and Chief of the Army Personnel Office, and for which the "PA" stands, Army Personnel Office. The document was, therefore, passed on by an agent there which was not connected with the WVHA, but with the OKH; that a general of the infantry had not and could not have had precise knowledge of the competencies should be regarded as highly probable.
THE PRESIDENT: What probably happened was that Pohl procured this letter-recommendation from Burgdorf, and sent it on with his request for promotion.
MR. ROBBINS: I think that appears from the document, as I understand Dr. Seidl's statement to be that the defendant Oswald Pohl has conceded that the Guard Units were under Gluecks in an administrative sense. The second sentence of this paragraph goes further than that and says that Gluecks did not only have to supervise the military direction of the Guard Units, but also there is that statement that the Guard Units were under Gluecks militarily, and in an administrative sense.
THE COURT: Oh, no. If you finish the sentence you will see it says he is also responsible for the military order and conduct.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, I think that refers to military discipline as well as just supplying their administrative needs.
THE COURT: Well, isn't that the situation--isn't it a fact that the Guards were selected by the Main Office of Berlin, and assigned to the concentration camp; and there placed under the command of Gluecks, who had to supply them, assign them to their tasks, and keep them in order.
MR. ROBBINS: That is My understanding. Is that the understanding of Dr. Seildl? Dr. Seildl: If the Tribunal please, I should like to say one thing about that the Court has said just now. The defendant Pohl has just told me or has just written me a note, and what he said seems to coincide then with the two documents, in that the recommendation of Dr. Burgdorf was drawn up after Oswald Pohl's letter of 13 January 1945 had already been sent. In other words, Oswald Pohl's letter of 11 January 1945 had already been sent. In other words, Oswald Pohl did not know the contents of Burgdorf's letter. The contents of which letter he only learned here in this court. So far as the other point is concerned, namely, who was responsible for the military conduct of the Guard Units, I would like to say, as regards the difficulty of limiting the competencies, I do not want to say anything in fact as defense counsel.
I would leave it open for the Court to Question Oswald Pohl briefly on this point.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
MR. ROBBINS: The next document 4243, will be Prosecution's Exhibit No. 705.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Burgdorf's letter?
MR. ROBBINS: No, that is still a part of the first exhibit, Your honor. Burgdorf's letter is a part of 704.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not 4243. The next document is 4251.
MR ROBBINS: That is what I intended to say, Your Honor.
DR. SEIDL: If the Court please, one of my colleagues has just told me that Document NO-4243 had nothing to do with each other. That General Burgdorf's recommendation has no factual connection with the letter of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl of 13 January 1345. The two letters concerned two entirely different matters. This becomes clear from the contents of the documents. In Oswald Pohl's letter of 13 January 1945, which shows at the bottom it says that the Reichsfuehrer-SS has approved all of the recommendations, "and what we are concern with here is the awarding of war service cross first class with swords. This becomes clear from the heading of the document; in a contrast to this it says in the last paragraph of the General Burgdorf's letter, "The amount of this contribution justifies the award of the German Cross in Silver." Therefore, we have to entirely different decorations here, which were to be awarded to Obergruppenfuehrer Gluecks. The first document concerns the war Service Cross, and the second one concerns the German Cross in Silver. Where are two different decorations.
MR. PRESIDENT: Not according to the translation, they both refer to the German Silver Cross, in the translation.
DR. SEIDL: According to the German text, there can be no doubt that they are two different decorations. It is becoming more and more complicated, Your Honor. Mr Robbins has just shown me the original, and the original now shows that on the first page the words, "War Service Cross" has been crossed out, and above that in typewriting are the words "German Cross in Silver," but this does not coincide with the copy of the German text. I, therefore, withdraw my objection.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think it makes a bit of difference which decoration he got. We are not concerned with that, and the statement of Burgdorf seems to be in accord with Pohl's testimony. I don't see much dispute here. Pohl himself said that concentration camp guards were assigned by the Main Office, detailed to the concentration camp, and there came under the control administratively of Gluecks. This is all this says.
MR. ROBBINS: The next two documents are offered to show the early connection of the defendant Pohl with the concentration camps there, from the year of 1938. The first one, No. 2521, will be Exhibit 705, and the second one - - this is all one document, I am sorry. No. 2521 will be Exhibit 705. The first letter is from a person by the name of Kriebs to Himmler, and he tells Himmler that he has heard that Germans are working in uranium mines, and suggest that the concentration camp inmates be used for this dangerous work.
THE PRESIDENT: He said that political criminals be used for this work.
MR. ROBBINS: What did he say?
THE PRESIDENT: He said political criminals be used for this work.
MR. ROBBINS: In the first sentence he said he has talked to Growitz about the concentration camp inmates, and apparently Germans in the German concentration camps have been given a job of working in the uranium mines, and he suggest that political criminals be given this task. Then, if Your Honor please, the second letter signed by Gruppenfuehrer Karl Wolf, of Himmler's Staff, replying to Kriebs' letter, says that he considers the idea very good, and he asked him to make arrangements for carrying out of this plan in cooperation with the Chief of Verwaltungsamt-SS, Pohl and the leader of the concentration camp, Eicke, and he says that Himmler intends to place the worst criminals at the disposal of the ranium mines. This is offered to show that at this stage, 1938, Pohl was concerned with the allocation of prisoner labor.
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the defendant Oswald Pohl. Your Honor, in connection with the conclusion which the Prosecution has drawn from this document. I want to say that the assignment was never carried out, secondly, the defendant Pohl and his office were merely to lock after the administrative side of the whole affair, but this document does not show that he had any connection with the allocation. The document does not show anything about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's not argue about that.
MR. ROBBINS: The next document, I am sorry to say, the exhibit is lost, therefore, I am not able to offer it, which is 3654.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it has been previously offered, anyway.
MR. ROBBINS: I was not able to find it in the documents which had been already offered. Your Honor may be right, however. The next document 2367, is Exhibit 706, and it is offered simply to rebut the testimony of several defense witnesses that it was only in the latter part of the war that conditions in the concentration camps became real bad.
This letter and the next letter are from July 1941, and the last paragraph in the first letter states that in conclusion it can be said that the state of health of Dachau prisoner, that not a single prisoner is fully fit for labor duty, and that also in the near future only a very small percentage will be fully fit for labor duty. And the second letter in the third paragraph states that the larger part of the prisoners transferred are sick persons, and cripples who are absolutely unfit for labor duty.
The next document, 3169, is Exhibit 707, I believe that this document is the one that Dr. Seidl has asked for several times. It appears to be the order for the transfer of authority of the concentration camp to the WVHA, and it is offered as such a document.
The next document, 3980, will be Exhibit 708. It is connected with the next document 3990, which is 709. It shows that the defendant Pohl was sufficiently concerned with small details in the concentration camps to determine the number of inmates in the concentration camp with German sounding names.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he was ordered to do that.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes. The next document, 4181, will be Exhibit 710. And I believe that this document is the one that the defendant Sommer has asked the Prosecution to produce. That is the only one that fits the description which his counsel has given, which we can find concerning the allocation of prisoners as assigned by the defendant Sommer.
THE PRESIDENT: 709.
MR. ROBBINS: I beg your pardon?
THE PRESIDENT: 709?
MR. ROBBINS: 710.
DR. BELZER: Dr. Belzer for the defendant Sommer. If the Court please, I want to object to the offer of this document in this manner.
How this document was drawn up does not become clear from the document. and the accompanying letter should be submitted as well. This request for a compensation for inmate labor from concentration camp labor was dated from the months of July to October. It says in the left hand portion -- hand written -- the left bottom corner, "Received 11 January 1945," and it seems to come from Staufenbiel, the official in charge of D-II 3. At that time the concentration camp of Lublin no longer existed at all. Therefore, no connection can be constructed from this document between Office D-II 3 and the concentration camp of Lublin. It is quite obvious from the document, which shows the contents of the two letters, concerning the request, and additionally for the request of smac which was lost when Lublin was evacuated, and they were the parts in D-II for purely administrative purposes concerning the list of allocation of inmates, which it shows on the back of this document. And merely the correctness of this has been confirmed by Sommer, but this otherwise has nothing to do with what Office D-II did, and this would become clear from the accompanying letter, if they would be submitted, but it does not become clear from this document. Probably it would be a good idea if the Court would interrogate Sommer briefly on how this signature came about.
MR. ROBBINS: These documents are signed by the defendant Sommer, and as I said the main purpose for which I have offered them here, it is at the request of the defense counsel. If he does not care for them I am willing to withdraw them. Do you have any such desire?
DR. BELZER: I have asked for unentirely different documents at the time which I have not received, although I was promised them daily. The document for which I have put in a request, is a teletype letter of the defendant Sommer to the concentration camp of Auschwitz, where the monthly or bi-monthly lists of inmates which were to be sent to Office D-II was wrong, and some were purely a protest, but I did not receive the document which I had requested.
MR. ROBBINS: Well, I don't think this document has any particular probative value. I was told that this was a document the defense counsel was looking for and this is the only one we could find that fit the description which gave us, and I will withdraw the offer of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think it is important to show the manner in which they were assigned?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, I believe that it is. Since he is signing here for the Chief of D-II. If the Court please, I will enter this as Exhibit 710.
THE PRESIDENT: And it will be admitted in evidence.
MR. ROBBINS: The next document book is No. 31, which contains, I believe, about six documents. The first one is rather a large one, 1595, which will be Prosecution's Exhibit No. 711, At page 3 of the document is a statement and a recommendation for promotion, showing that Frank has since 25 March 1933 been in charge of the administration in Dachau concentration camp, and this goes back many years before the date that Frank gave on the stand as his first connection with concentration camp affairs. The entire document is the Personnel 201 File of the defendant Frank.
MR. ROBBINS: Another important point in this document, I believe, is on Pages 13 and 14 of the personnel file, which fixes the exact date when Frank was transferred from the WVHA. And the statement on Page 16 is to the effect that he maintained his regular position as Chief of Amtagruppe A, that is, up until he was actually transferred. This is dated the 16th of September 1943. On Page 13 it is stated that on the 27th of September he is relieved of his duties in the WVHA.
The next document is missing from the English Document Book, 4062, and I will therefore not offer it. The next document, 4061? will be Prosecution Exhibit 712. This is from the personnel file of the defendant Vogt; and on the second page is a statement signed by Pohl that Vogt has been occupied since October 1936 as a chief accountant with the checking of the accounts of the special duty units, the Death Head formation, and concentration camps. That was a preposition that Vogt denied during the course of his testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean he denied performing those duties?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, he denied that he had ever been in charge of auditing in the concentration camps. The next document is still a part of the personnel file of Vogt, is 4063, and will be Prosecution Exhibit 713. A statement at the bottom of the page is on the employment in the Party from 1920 to 1923. It is stated that he is chief of a local group of the SA, and the defendant Vogt denied on the stand that he had ever been a member of the SA.
The next document, 4436, is still part of his file and will be Exhibit 714. The same statement is contained on the second page of that document, "employed in the Party as local group leader at Degeldorf."
THE PRESIDENT: Where does it say that, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: On the second page of Document 4436. On the fourth page of that same document another statement by the defendant Pohl, that since the 1st of October 1936 Vogt has been in charge of the accounts of the concentration camps and the auditing of the accounts.
THE PRESIDENT: Did he deny that?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, your Honor, he denied that during the period of the Verwaltungsamt SS, which was during the year of 1936, he had anything to do with auditing the concentration camps.
The next document is 1599 and will be Exhibit 715. This is still part of his file; and the last page of that document contains a handwritten statement in Vogt's own handwriting. In the last paragraph he says, "I joined the Party in April 1920." On the stand -- I've forgotten the exact date that he gave -- but it was a very much later date, some time in 1930, I believe. And he says at the beginning of 1021 he founded a local group in Degelsdorf. There is also the statement in the last sentence that in 1933 he entered the SA, which he denied on the stand. The rest of the documents in this book, I believe, are orders signed by the defendant Fanslau, concerning concentration camp commanders.
DR. VON STAKELBERG (for the defendant Fanslau): May it please the Court. I object to the presentation of these documents in this seperated form. These documents, as far as their contents are concerned, belong together with two other documents which have been submitted in other books, documents which would make the connection unequivocally clear. I might refer, for instance, to documents in Book IV, NO-1994, Exhibit 88. In this Exhibit 88, defendant Pohl passed on to recommendations for the transfer of commandants of concentration camps to Himmler. There the various transfers are quoted in detail. These orders of transfer which are now being submitted in Book XXXI are merely the technical execution of the orders which had been decreed by the Personnel Main Office, If you submit these transfer orders in Book XXXI separately, the impression might be gained that Fanslau could give orders to commandants of concentration camps, which was not the case.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that he just carried out the order?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Yes.