They they turned to the Defendant Frank who was not competent for this matter at all, because at that time he was chief of the Army Ordnance Office, and he had nothing to do any more with the SS administration. However, in these days he was staying at the Berghaus at Bayrischzell. Since he happened to pay a visit there and since he was the officer with the seniority rating of all persons concerned, the officers turned to him and asked him to issue an order that this forced march was not to be carried out but that the inmates were to be turned over to the American troops. This concentration-camp inmate, Ernst Ruff, confirms in this affidavit that Frank issued this order, and consequently he saved thousands of inmates from this starvation march and probably from suffering death.
The next document is Document No. 25-A. This will become Exhibit No. 24. It also is an affidavit by Ruff, and here he makes some additions to his previous affidavit, in order to clarify the fact just why such a large number of inmates was concerned here whose lives were saved through Frank's intervention. When the document books were printed a number was left out under the No. 2 and several dots were put into that particular spot. Apparently the copies of the affidavit were made before Ruff had filled in the figure in the original document. The figure is 20. Therefore it should read here: "The branch commando at the SS Berghaus consisted only of approximately 20 prisoners." Then it goes on to say, "Frank's order to stop the prisoner transports to Tyrol has, however, also had consequences concerning the other branch commandos of the camp Dachau so that a total of several thousand prisoners has been saved from the march to Tyrol and by this saved their lives."
Your Honor, I place particular emphasis on these two documents, and that is why I want to point out to the Prosecution that if they should have any doubts on the correctness of this affidavit or the credibility of the affiant, Ruff, they can call him into cross-examine at any time.
He is a resident of Furth which is near Nurnberg and he can be called at any time.
The next document is Document 27, Exhibit No. 26. I must correct myself here. It will be document No. 26, Exhibit No. 25. This is an extract from the list of service seniority of the SS. Here it becomes evident that Frank, on the 9th of November, 1933, became a Sturmfuehrer, and on the 20th of April, 1934, he was promoted to Obersturmfuehrer. It is not of very great importance, but I will mention this fact in my final argument.
The last document in this book is Document No. 27 which will become Exhibit No. 26. It is an affidavit by Gerhard Maurer, and I have only submitted it by the way of precaution because in Document Book No. 16 in the defense of Klein, Herr Maurer has also given an affidavit. From this it might be assumed that Frank had been competent for the requests for inmates to perform work in the Berghaus at Sudelfeld. Maurer confirms here that this was an assumption on his part and that this statement is not correct. It was just an assumption on his part.
This concludes my presentation of documents on behalf of the Defendant Frank.
I only want to present one more document for Hans Loerner. This is Document No. 8, Exhibit No. 8 for Hans Loerner. It is an extract from the law decreeing the Unity of Party and State and the Implementation Regulations of that. It shows that the SS did not own any property, that the SS could not be a legal person, but only the NSDAP, since the SS was a part of it.
The document is important in connection with the question whether the SS could enrich itself as an organization.
I have now reached the conclusion of my presentation of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Rauschenbach, we have the chart of the last exhibit.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: That is in the second document book.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: How many more books do you have, Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, before - before the court recess I presented documents which are contained in Document Book No. 1. It the Tribunal please, I would now like to present documents which are located in Document Books II and III and in the supplement to that. I have been told that the documents were translated in the meantime.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: II and III and a supplement.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, if the Tribunal please, I am now coming to Document Book II for the Defendant Oswald Pohl. The documents in this document book belong together. I think it is necessary for me to make a short statement before. In the course of this trial evidence has been presented which referred to acts committed in the occupied territories, above all in the territory of the former Polish State. In order to rebut the statement of the Prosecution, which has also been made in Case No. I, before Military Tribunal I, to wit, that the decrees issued there by the German authorities were not really legally effective because they were issued as a result of an aggressive war, that is exactly why I want to submit these documents.
My first document will be document No. 20, which is an affidavit by Dr. Fredrich Gaus of the 15th of March, 1946, which will become Exhibit No. 19.
The next five documents belong together, and I want to give them the letters A, B, C, D, and E. That is, Document No. 21 will become Exhibit No. 20-A; Document No. 22 will become No. 20-B: Document No. 23 will become Exhibit 20-C; Document No. 24 will become Exhibit 20-D and Document No. 25 will become Exhibit No. 20-E.
Document No. 26 is a statement by the German Reich Government and the Government of the U. S. S. R. of the 28th of September, 1939. I want to submit it as Exhibit No. 21.
The next two documents are not contained in the document book before the Tribunal because they were not translated. I therefore shall not present them here.
I shall now turn directly to Document No. 29. This is an extract from the Declaration of Yalta of the 12th of February 1945, which I offer as Exhibit No. 22. That will conclude my presentation of documents which are contained in Document Book No. II.
If the Tribunal please, I now come to Volume III of the document books for Oswald Pohl. The first document, which is Document No. 30, is an affidavit by the attorney Dr. Schmidt-Klevenow of the 8th of August 1947. I want to offer it as Pohl Exhibit No. 23. Document No. 31 deals with the same subject. This is an affidavit by Dr. Gerhard Hoffmann, which I want to offer as Pohl Exhibit No. 24. Document No. 32 deals with the same question, and this is an affidavit by the attorney Hermann Korshenrich, which I offer as Pohl Exhibit No. 25. Pohl Document No. 33 apparently has not been included in the English translation; it is an extract from the transcript of Military Tribunal I, and it refers to the testimony of the witness Dr. Kogon. In view of the fact that I have already put this testimony to the witness Dr. Morgen, it does not appear necessary for me to submit this document now, and I therefore withdraw it.
I am now coming to Pohl Document No. 34, which is an affidavit by Dr. Karl Seefeldt. I want to offer it as Pohl Exhibit No. 26. Pohl Document No. 35 is an affidavit by Katharina Katzmayr, which I offer as Pohl Exhibit No. 27. Pohl Exhibit No. 28 will be Document No. 36. This is an affidavit by the notary Hermann Koepfer of the 11th of August 1947.
Pohl Exhibit No. 29 will be Pohl Document No. 37. This is an extract from the Directive No. 38 of the Allied Control Council for Germany. This will complete my presentation of documents which are contained in Document Book III for the defendant Pohl.
I am now coming to the supplement for the document books of Oswald Pohl. This supplement consists of three documents. I want to present Pohl Document No. 38 as Pohl Exhibit No. 30, In view of the importance of this document I would like to read the entire text, also because it only consists of very few sentences. This is the text of an order by the Reichsfuehrer-SS, dated the 3rd of March 1942, which has been mentioned so frequently in the course of this trial.
Up to now the prosecution has not presented it. We found this order in one of the boxes which were made available to us by the prosecution as a result of a ruling by the Tribunal, and I quote:
"The Chief of the SS-WVHA, Berlin, 13 March 1942. Order No. 10.
"The Reichsfuehrer-SS under the date of 3 March 1942 has ordered the following:" And I quote within the quotation:
"'Of greatest importance besides the Armed Forces are today the labor forces. If we realize with full responsibility what it means that Germany is waging this war, then we must consistently grasp every possibility to utilize even the last hour of work that can be gotten out of any man whatsoever for the purpose of victory.
'"I therefore order SS-Brigadefuehrer Gluecks with his entire staff to leave the SS-Operational Main Office and to be subordinated to the SS-Main Economic and Administrative Office.'" End of quotation. The Reichsfuehrer-SS, and then this order was also signed by Pohl, after it was pointed out that this order would become effective on the 16th of March 1942.
The prosecution has alleged that the contents of this document confirm exactly what the defendant Pohl has stated on the witness stand.
I am now coming to the next document.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you claim that this document shows for the defendant Pohl - this order of 13 March?
DR. SEIDL; I claim that this order confirms precisely what the defendant Pohl has testified here on the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: What is that?
DR. SEIDL: That the purpose of subordinating Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks to the defendant Pohl was to control the labor allocation at the ministerial level - that is, that the defendant Pohl could direct it centrally. Therefore, the reason for this was labor allocation. However, in connection with the defendant Pohl his responsibility was to be limited to the central direction of labor allocation.
However, it also was the duty of the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps and the other authorities to administer the concentration camps in a responsible manner, and that among the other authorities in particular there was the RSHA and the Secret State Police, the Gestapo.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the order also shows, does it not, that Gluecks, the Inspector of Concentration Camps, was by Pohl's order made subordinate to the WVHA?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, but only as far as the direction of labor allocation was concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: It doesn't say that in the order, does it? It doesn't say that?
DR. SEIDL: The defendant Pohl has testified to that in detail on the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know. The order doesn't say that.
DR. SEIDL: However, the order can be interpreted in that way, especially if you look at the development.
THE PRESIDENT: Answer my question. The order doesn't say that, does it?
DR. SEIDL: The order mentions the direction of the labor forces. The order does not mention with any word that the defendant Pohl was to take over the entire responsibility for the administration of the concentration camps.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, that's a kind of an answer anyway. Go ahead.
DR. SEIDL: May I continue, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The next document is an order by the defendant Pohl which deals with the establishment of an SS and Police Court, ZBV. I offer this document as Pohl Exhibit Number 31.
The last document in the supplement is an affidavit by the former secretary of the defendant Pohl, Maria Fauler, of the 19th of August 1947, which I offer as Pohl Exhibit Number 33.
Your Honor, I have now concluded my presentation of documents on behalf of the defendant Oswald Pohl.
DR. VON STAKELBERG (for the defendant Fanslau): Your Honor, I have a supplement for Document Book Number II. I have the English translations with me if the Tribunal should not have received their copies yet.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): Just one supplement?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Yes. It is a supplement which contains six affidavits. The first affidavit in the German copy in my supplement, Your Honor, is an affidavit by Hans Moser. However, on looking at the English copy, I found out that this document was listed in the index but not contained in the document book itself.
I have asked the translation department what happened to this document, and I hope that I can submit it later on. I therefore request that Defense Exhibit Fanslau Number 24 be reserved for this document for the time being.
My next document will become Defense Exhibit Fanslau Number 25, an affidavit by Frau Emmy Egle. This affidavit deals with the attitude of the defendant Fanslau toward atrocities in enemy territory. It becomes evident from this affidavit that the defendant Fanslau, when informed about the atrocities which happened at Lemberg and Tarnopol, voiced his indignation about them and stated that the civilian population during war time should be protected whenever possible. He also said that he would never have tolerated any inhumane acts being committed by his units, had they been committed.
My next document will be Fanslau Defense Exhibit Number 26, which is an affidavit by Hauptsturmfuehrer Walter Braunagel, who has been mentioned here so often. The witness Saur, who appeared here for the prosecution, when he described the incident at Shitomir, where allegedly Oberscharfuehrer Sirth shot six Jews, stated that Hauptsturmfuehrer Braunagel at that time certainly was also present at Shitomir. From this affidavit it becomes evident that on the second or the third day after the outbreak of hostilities -- and that day was the 21st of June 1941 -- he broke his ankle and so until early September was not with this unit anymore but at a field hospital at Lublin and later on at Ulm, Germany.
As my next document, Fanslau Exhibit Number 27, I want to offer an affidavit by Walter Nickel, which was also sent to me by Braunagel, and which confirms Braunagel's statement. My next document will be Fanslau Defense Exhibit Number 28. This is an affidavit by Felix Steiner, who has appeared here as a witness. This deals with the question of uniforms which were worn by the Division Wiking. This problem become very acute only after his examination so that I was not able to ask him that question directly at the time. I here want to rebut the statements by the witness Dr. Jollek and the witness Goldstein.
Both of these witnesses talked about the SS atrocities at Zclotzow and Tarnopol, and especially Dr. Jollek described the uniforms in detail. From this affidavit of the witness Steiner it becomes evident that the Division Wiking from the beginning of the Russian campaign wore green-brown camouflage nets over their steel helmets. They wore green-brown camouflage jackets. All insignia of rank and divisional insignia were taken off and the stripe at the sleeve reserved for the Division Wiking was not worn at the time because it was only issued in the fall of 1942. In particular all SS insignia were taken off in order to make it more difficult for the enemy to recognize the division in enemy territory.
My last document will be Fanslau Defense Exhibit Number 29. This is an affidavit by Willy Schaefer, who was also examined here as a witness. In this affidavit he confirms the same statements.
With the exception of Fanslau Defense Exhibit Number 24, Your Honor, I have now reached the end of my presentation of documents. The witness Martin Meyer had been approved for me. However, since we waited for such a long time for the witness Meyer, I have covered all the additional points through additional documents and also through the previous examination of witnesses. I am, therefore, of the opinion that I could only examine the witness Meyer in a cumulative manner. So in order to speed up the trial, I am willing to do without the witness.
DR. SCHMIDT(for the defendant Vogt): Your Honor, today I should like to submit the remainder of my documents. They are located in Supplemental Books Numbers II, III, IV, and V. In this connection I should like to point out that Numbers IV and V consist only of one document each. As to Supplements Numbers 2 and 3 I assume that the Tribunal has received the translation of these books. In any event, I have received the English translations of them.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): I have only Number II.
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?"