One document is an affidavit by a Josef Spacil. That is Document Vogt No. 10, which is contained in Document Book No. I, Pages 33 and the following numbers in the German copy. The document deals with SS economists and with the installation of preliminary checking agencies with those SS economists.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that 13, Dr. Schmidt?
DR. SCHMIDT: This document is exhibit 14, Exhibit 13 was document No. 12. Please permit me to read this document which is rather short and I shall quote it. There are the preliminary statements there and after that it says, ", Josef Spacil, "From August 1942 until the retreat of the German Army from my official district in the fall of 1943 I was SS-Economic Administrator in Russia-South with headquarters in Kiev.
My sphere of jurisdiction coincided with that of the higher SS- and Police leader Russia-South. The duties of the SS-Economic Administrator were stipulated in a decree of the SS-Economics and Administrative Main Office. Berlin of 23 July, 1942, I have carried out my duties in accordance with this decree. Document No. 2122 from Document Book XVIII which has been shown to me represents that decree."
I shall add, it deals with the Prosecution Exhibit 331.
"I was administratively responsible for all the SS-offices which were located in my jurisdictional sphere. There were no concentration camps in my district. I also had a preliminary auditing office for the preliminary auditing of the accounts of all SS-offices in my district. Thus the preliminary auditing had been taken out of the hands of the office A IV of the Economics and Administrative Main Office. The accounting was dome by my office directly at the financial Controlling Court. The office A IV was not included in this procedure." End of quote.
Q Witness, I would like to ask you about this. Did your office, compared with these preliminary checking offices installed with the Economic Administrators, have any supervisory capacity?
A No, I had nothing to do on an official basis with the Economic Administrators.
Q Is it correct to say then that the SS Administrative agencies located in the district of the SS Economists had been withdrawn from the preliminary checking by your office A-IV?
A Yes, all SS agencies in the occupied territories were under the supervision of the SS Economic Administrators.
BY DR. SCHMIDT: As a further document, I would like to introduce in addition an affidavit by Will Burger who has already been mentioned here previously this is document Josef Vogt. No. 19. in the Appendix. It will become Exhibit 15. This affidavit by Will Burger, former chief of offfice, D.IV deals with the relation of office A.IV with Amtsgruppe D and corroborates, in general the statements which were made by the defendant in the witness dock. Therefore, I believe I will not have to read this affidavit and I would appreciate it if the Tribunal will take judicial notice of this affidavit.
Q Witness, I shall now come to one of the point: of the indictment which is rather important for you and this is the Reinhardt action. You know that the prosecution is bringing you into connection with that action because you, in July, 1943, carried out an auditing task in Lublin, I ask you for the time being witness, that auditing which you carried out was that within the frame work of your office as a preliminary checking office of the court of audits?
A No, this checking was special order which I had been assigned by the main office chief Amtsgruppe A, throughout Amtsgruppe A; it deals with the checking of the Garrison treasuries of the Waffen-SS Lublin, I did not have an order, however to check on Globocniks' account there.
Q The treasury of the Garrison of Lublin, was it under the supervision of the WVHA administratively?
A No, this treasury was under the SS-Economic at Cracow and the chief was Standartenfuehrer Schellin.
Q You told us before that at the time you received that special order through the Amtsgruppe A, that order was it directed only to the effect that you should check the Garrison treasury or when you received your order was the Account R, also mentioned then?
A The order said that I was to check the Garrison Treasury. The term Account R, was unknown at the time, only in the course of the examination this term came up and became known to me.
Q You tell me in the course of the examination, - can you explain this in detail?
A When taking up the cash of the treasury at Lublin I was also shown foreign exchange in bank notes and coins. When I asked the chief of the Garrison there Sturmbannfuehrer Wippern where all this foreign exchange came from, he told that was money which originated from the confiscation carried out by SS police leader Globocnik, when I as the chief of Wippern.
Q Excuse me witness, if I interrupt you said when do you mean by this that Wippern as had this question, or that you asked that question to Wippern where the foreign exchange came from?
A No, it was a question from me to Wippern.
Q I see. Go on.
A Furthermore, I was told that this foreign exchange had come from the Jews who were interned in the labor camp near Lublin. The entry about those confiscated goods, was contained in one of the books of the Treasury at Lublin.
Q Those entries, were they marked in any particular way?
A Yes, they were marked with account R".
Q This foreign exchange which you just mentioned - was it contained in the balance sheet of your books, in the account or cash account.
(For the interpreter, I would like to point out the term has also come up in the document book and was translated with certificate about the "balance in hand.")
A The certificate about the balance or cash in hand had a special sheet of paper attached there explained where all those foreign bank notes came from, furthermore their origin and their value during the cormal rate of exchange.
Q Witness, from your affidavit which was mentioned several time, in Document Book No. 1567. Exhibit No. 8, it results that during your preexamination you were show a document and that was Document No. 061, this document is contained in Document Book XVIII and it was introduced as Exhibit 475 by the prosecution.
Q I ask you now, witness, that certificate about the cash on hand which you just mentioned and which was shown to you at the time when you were auditing at Lublin -- is that identical with the document which was shown to you during your present examination, in NO-061?
I would like to point out to the Tribunal that Document NO-061contains the evaluation, after the third of February 1942, I believe, of the various things and effects that belonged to Jews, it is stated: "Lublin, 27 February, 1943." And it is signed by "SS Sturmbannfuehrer Wippern," who was already mentioned by the defendant a few minutes ago.
My question, witness, therefore, is to the effect: Is this document identical with the one that was shown to you during your preliminary examination in Lublin?
A No. This Document, NO-061 shows the number of goods and valuables delivered up to the third of February 1943, namely, the foreign exchange and other valuables; and it is dated the 27th of February 1943. This list which was shown to me when I was counting the cash in the treasury looked about the same from the outside. That is, all the bank notes were listed according to their place of origin and value. However, in its contents it contained foreign exchange which was actually in the cashbox on the day of the checking. In other words, not something that was in the cash box at an earlier date and had disappeared by then; but only those amounts and that foreign exchange which was in the cash box on the day of the checking.
The document NO-061, however, does not only contain foreign exchange and coins, but it contains also valuables, precious ore and other valuables. However, they were in no way connected with the examination of the treasury.
Q I have to put it to you, witness, that in the affidavit which was mentioned by me several times and which, on the 16th of February 1947, you gave Mr. Ortmann, who was your examiner, you mentioned the fact that you know document NO-061, and that it was shown to you when you carried out the examination of the treasury at Lublin? Now, how can you explain this contradiction on your part?
That is, your statements today compared with those during the examination, or, rather, after the 16th of January 1947, the date of your affidavit?
A During the examination the Document NO-061 was shown to me for a very short while -- and that only the first page. As I was not wearing any glasses, I could not read the figures. According to outside appearances it looked like that particular document that was shown to me when I was carrying out the examination at Lublin; the same list, but with different contents. If the document had been given to me, if I would have been able to hold it in my hand, and if I would have looked at pages 3, 4 and 5 instead of just one and two...and if I would have had any possibility whatsoever to acquaint myself with the contents of the documents -- then I would have had to tell the examiner that I didn't know that document.
Q Witness, was this document shown to you once more either after the signing, or prior to your signature.
A This document was not shown to me -- the last page of the document was shown to me so that I could recognize the signature of Wippern. When the affidavit was shown to me in its completed form, I didn't see that document again.
Q Well, now, I shall put this to you. You state in your affidavit, "Nor do I object to the computation of the values which are contained on page 4 of this document, NO-061, and shows a total amount of 100,047,983 "Reichsmark." You said before that you saw the signature of Wippern, if I understood you correctly. I must put it to you -didn't you see this total amount of 100,000,000 and some thousands of Reichsmark? Didn't you notice that at the time?
A No, the examiner only showed me the name and he covered up the remaining contents of the letter. I couldn't see the total amount, and he told me the total amount later on.
Q Is it customary that the man carrying out the examination of the treasury is shown the certificate about the cash on hand?
A Not only was it customary, but there was a regulation covering that. When we took down the cash on hand we had to set up a certificate about the cash on hand with reference to the various banknotes contained therein, which list was supposed to give information about all the banknotes contained in the cashbox. That regulation is covered by paragraph 80 of the Reich Treasury Code.
DR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, May I point out that the Reich Treasury Code was introduced by me as Exhibit No. 4.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q Witness, at the time did you carry out the checking of the treasury of the garrison of Lublin personally, or did you let the examiner do that?
A The checking up on the cash on hand, -- I believe this was covered by paragraph 89 of the Reich Treasury Code was my personal task. I delegated the auditing of the books and vouchers to my auditor Hauptsturmfuehrer Hahnefuss. I myself dealt with the auditing of the garrison treasury itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schmidt, just two short questions that I am not sure about. Did the defendant count the securities that were in the "R" Fund.
DR. SCHMIDT: I didn't quite understand the question in the translation. Would you mind repeating your question, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Did the defendant count the securities and the foreign exchange that were in the "R" Fund at Lublin himself?
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q Witness, would you like to answer that question?
A The foreign exchange which was shown to me was contained in that list, and it was on the basis of that list that the foreign exchange was counted.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Well, did you count it? Did you count it yourself?
A The foreign exchange was placed and counted on the table, and I compared the figures with the ones on the list.
Q You checked the money against the list?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Did you make up the list? Or was it already made up for you?
A The list had already been set up for me.
Q So you didn't compile -- you didn't make up the list yourself? The exchange and the list were put down in front of you, and you verified it?
A Yes, indeed.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q Did you, witness, when carrying out the examination which we are just mentioning, also check up on the jewels in hand, furs, valuable stones, and things?
A No. The checking of the treasury had nothing to do with those things because that was a matter for itself which had nothing to do with the foreign exchange, really, because in those accounts no jewels had been entered.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q I see in your affidavit here the following, "I need also precious metals which I saw in a trunk in the big safe. Upon my questioning I was told that these were to be delivered to the Reichs Bank. It was not only gold but a great amount of precious metals whose value I could not appraise."
Well, now, didn't you say that in your affidavit?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Yes, indeed, your Honor, I did. May I go into detail about it, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: It appears that in Judge Phillips' mind there is a contradiction here, Dr. Schmidt. Can you clear it up?
DR. SCHMIDT: Well, your Honor, I wanted to ask a question, and put the same question to the witness right now.
A Those jewels and precious metals were not within the vault itself nor in the cash box either. They were contained in another safe which was outside of the vault. One or two days, or, rather, I believe it was on the second day after the auditing Wippern told me, "I just prepared a load of valuables for the Reichsbank. Do you want to take a look at it?" Whereupon I said, "Yes". He showed me those things for a short while and locked up the safe again and the whole matter was over.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q Was it your task to appraise those valuables?
A No, it was absolutely impossible to do so. I don't even believe that the Reichsbank was able to do that.
Q Why was it impossible, would you say?
A Because I couldn't have appraised that. I only saw it for a very short time. I was not interested in it because it was not part of my task.
Q How large was that suitcase which you saw in that safe; that is, that trunk that was filled with jewels and precious stones?
A You could compare it with a week-end trunk. Apparently special things were contained in there that he wanted to give to the Reichsbank. The trunk had already been locked up, and it was ready for delivery. Perhaps he just showed it to me in order to interest me in the matter. I didn't ask him anything about it because I didn't know anything about the whole thing.
Q At the time when you saw those objects, did you have any idea as to where these things could have come from?
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.