Since it was an "on-the-spot check", the last two months, April and May, were not examined any more; but Wippern was ordered by me to include these last two moths in this final report.
Q. In this auditing was the examination of the subsequent period, that is to say, the vouchers for the time after the 1st of April, 1943, still carried out by your office?
A. No. For reasons which are unknown to me, these accounts were no longer adutited by my office. At least, I didn't gain any knowledge of it. This is also shown by the fact that in March, 1944, the vouchers hadn't arrived as yet, and I was forced, at the time, to send a letter to all concerned, telling them that whenever there were books at their disposal they should be submitted to me. I believe that at that time they had already been destroyed, as also becomes evident from Globocnik's report, who at the time was not in Lublin any more but who was already staying at Trieste, in Italy. No additional information was received by me about any vouchers which were afterwards submitted to my office for auditing.
Q. In your affidavit you stated that you and your collaborator left Lublin hurriedly. San you give us any explanation on that?
A. Well, the expression "hurriedly" should be somewhat exaggerated. I, for myself was not very pleased about the whole matter. During the entire time in which I worked there, and as long as I was in Germany proper, I had never had to deal with anything of the kind. Nor was it my task, to examine such things. Therefore I decided first of all to report the whole matter to the Chief of the Main Office and also to report it to the Reich Auditing Court. They then were to decide what additional measures and steps were to be taken.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. Did you make a full report to Frank about this matter when you got back?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. You discussed it with him?
A. I submitted a written report to Frank which was supposed to go to the Chief of the Main Office, and I gave him a short statement that jewels were also shown in the books at Lublin which came from the Action Reinhardt.
Q. Did you tell him about your feelings about the matter?
A. Your Honor, the discussion was very brief. I believe Frank was called away and I only reported to him in person only in order to express my displeasure to him that I had been charged with this type of work.
Q. That's what I want to know. What did you tell him about that, not your conclusion, but what did you tell him?
A. I told him, "What do I have to examine these objects there at Lublin, which have been confiscated, which have been acquired quite illegally by the Reich Treasury?" There was no approval at all to include these funds into the Reich Treasury.
Q. And what did he say in reply?
A. Well, he told me: "I shall pass on this report to the Chief of the Main Office."
Q. That is the only reply he made to you when you told him about the illegal goods?
A. Yes, sir.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: All right.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q. In connection with the Courts' question, I would like to add that the sum total of the examination was that you made a report. Did you report to anybody else before, outside of Frank.
A. Before I left Lublin I reported to Globocnik's and told him I was leaving. I want to state in advance that I did not have any discussion with Globocnik upon my arrival. Globocnik asked me to come and see him and then he asked me in the presence of Wippern about the results of the examination. I informed him of my fundamental complaints and objections. They were: 1. that the Reich Treasury had received some income which was not authorized; 2, that the amount which had been accepted by the Treasury had been received through the certificate issued by Globocnik, that is to say, they were not provided with a certificate of the owners whom these valuables had been taken away from.
During this discussion he also stated that the Auditing Court was to be completely excluded from this whole matter. That was a matter for the Reich Finance Minister. Then I did not leave any doubt that I would notify the Auditing Court of what has taken place there. Because the Reich Minister of Finance did not have the authority either to make any objections or to intervene in matters pertaining to the Auditing Court. Well, he then dismissed me very briefly and said, "All right". I handed Frank the same report at Berlin for the Chief of the Main Office. In this case also I voiced the same misgivings.
Q. May I refer once more to the discussion with Globocnik, Witness; was that the only discussion which you had with Globocnik?
A. That was the only discussion I ever had with him. I didn't even know Globocnik by name.
Q. Were you informed about the Action Reinhardt by Globocnik, on that occasion?
A. No; I asked him, "What does the Action Reinhardt stand for? What does it mean?" He replied, "That is a secret assignment about which I can't give you any information and which is of no interest to you."
Q. You have already stated that after you returned from Lublin you submitted a written examination report, to Frank which was supposed to be passed on to the Chief of the Main Office. You have stated that the examination-report contained exactly the same objections which you also mentioned in your oral discussion with Globocnik. Were these objections solely of a treasury-technical kind or were these objections aimed at the fact that the income had resulted from an illegal action. Would you please explain this to the Tribunal?
A. My objections naturally only referred to treasury-technical matters.
Then, of course, in general I objected to the fact that the income -- that is to say through the certificate of Globocnik -- was not correct and authorized. I would never have given the authority to Globocnik on the basis of the certificate.
Q. May I assume from your statement that your objections were based on the fact, 1. that this entire income on the account "R" had nothing to do with the Reich Treasury because this was not an income of the Reich; and secondly, that from the financial point of view it would have been necessary for the income which was received and for the foreign exchange that certificates be issued and they would have had to be included in the Treasury vouchers which had originated with the owners of these valuables. Do I understand you correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. You have already stated that after your return from Lublin you submitted that written examination-report to Frank and that you had a brief oral discussion with. Did the Defendant Frank on this occasion, explain the nature of the Action Reinhardt?
A. No, I already stated that the discussion was extremely brief, and this matter was not even discussed.
Q After you had submitted your written report and after you had reported briefly to Frank, was the examination of Lublin closed for you?
A No. Another examination did not take place anymore. However, on the next occasion I reported to Ministerialrat Knebel, representative of the auditing court about this examination. I also pointed out to him the extraordinary fact that this income had resulted from the confiscated valuables. I voiced all my misgivings to him, whereupon he told me that he would look into the matter. I pointed out to him in particular that according to the statement by Globocnik the auditing court was to be intentionally excluded from the entire matter.
DR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, in this connection I would like to submit another document. This is Document Vogt # 13. It is located in Document Book 1 on page 39 of the German copy.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Schmidt, when you refer to your document book, I think it would be better if you really said the "Vogt Document Book."
DR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Because throughout the record we think of document book number 1 -
DR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: -- as the document book which the Prosecution has submitted.
DR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Just for clarity's sake.
DR. SCHMIDT: It is Vogt Document Book 1. It is Document 13. It will become Exhibit No. 16. The document is an affidavit by the witness, Arthur Haleck whom we have already mentioned. He was Amtsrat with the auditing court of the German Reich. He confirms that in 1943 be was informed by Ministerial Councillor Knebel that Vogt had informed Knebel on his return from Lublin about the facts which he had ascertained there.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q Witness, when you talked to the representative of the auditing court, and after you had informed him of the entire matter, did you hear anything further about the matter?
A The next thing which came to my attention in this connection was the decree by the chief of the WHVA of the 9th of December 1943. This decree has been introduced as a document. It is NO-725. It is located in Document Book 18.
DR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, as the witness has already stated, it is Prosecution Document Book 18. It is on page 182 of the German copy. It is Exhibit 481.
A In the introduction to this document the following is stated and I quote: "An inquiry of the auditing court of the German Reich has caused me to point out the following --" it is through this document that I heard that the auditing court had intervened in this matter.
Q Do the contents of the decree which you have just mentioned of the 9th of December, 1943, go into your misgivings and objections which you made at the time to the representative of the auditing court about the administration of Account "R"?
A In part. My statement was mentioned with regard to the lack of any authority to keep this account. In the first paragraph it was stated that all the income and expenditures are to be treated according to the rules or the Reich Auditing Code. And here for the first time the approval was given to admit such an account and the regular supervision was guaranteed.
Q If I can ask this question once more, what effect did your objection have in practice?
A First of all, all funds had to be turned ever to the Reich Main Treasury, which enabled us to have these funds turned over to the Reich, and thus the Reich became responsible for them. Secondly, we succeeded that no funds were issued anymore as loans to other enterprises of Globocnik.
Q Before that time were any amounts from these funds used for Globocnik? Can you determine that from any document?
A Yes. In the document of the 9th of December, 1943, NO-062, appendix 2.
Q I don't know -- is it 062 or 063?
A It is 062, Exhibit 489, and the report on the cash on hand mentions: "Loans to SS Economic Enterprises: RM 8,218,878.35."
Q This is Document NO-062, Prosecution Exhibit 489, Document Book 19. It is appendix 2, and it is called "Temporary Report about the Examination Report of the Action Reinhardt at Lublin." It is dated the 15th of December, 1943.
Q. You have stated that through the intervention of the Auditing Court and through your own intervention no further amounts were given to the Globocnik enterprises?
A. Were no longer to be issued to these enterprises.
Q. What effects did the decree have of the 9th of December 1943, and what did this decree have to do with your office at all? What did it have to do with your office A-IV? From Document NO-725 it becomes evident that the decree of the 9th of December 1943, among other things, was also passed on to your office.
A. Yes, because this document includes a decree which applied to my office and which probably was passed on to me because this whole decree originated from my original report to the Auditing Court. By doing this this whole matter was to be brought in line with standard procedure.
Q. In line with standard procedure from what point of view?
A. From the point of view of the auditing.
Q. In the execution of this decree were any vouchers submitted by the agencies for subsequent examination?
A. I only received one notification from the personal staff. The front in the east at that time was already in a state of disintegration. I assume today that this decree no longer reached the agencies to which it was addressed.
Q. You are probably referring to the decree of March 1944 which was introduced by the prosecution as Document NO-726 and it has been submitted as Exhibit 496 in Document Book 19. It is the decree of the 15th of March 1944, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you submit any further documents or did you receive any further answers in replying this decree?
A. No, I did not hear anything further of the whole matter until the decree was issued on the 4th of July 1944.
Q. However, you can recall that the prosecution submitted a noti fication of the personal staff?
A. I have said that before.
Q. That is also part of Prosecution Document NO-726.
DR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, I think we have now reached a suitable time to call a recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 17 June 1947 at 0930 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 17 June 1947. 0945-1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I should like to make a brief statement about the matter of the interrogation of Vogt which we discussed.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you do, Mr. Robbins, let the record indicate that the defendant Klein is absent this morning on account of illness. The trial will proceed in his absence.
MR. ROBBINS: I have reconsidered the position of the Prosecution on the matter of whether the Prosecution should voluntarily deliver to the defendant Vogt the interrogation which took place some time in January; and it seems to me in order to dispel the hint that has been made by the defendant that something improper took place at the interrogation, that the Prosecution probably should make available the transcript of the interrogation. I am still of the opinion that the interrogation has no probative value, and that even if it were totally inconsistent with the affidavit which the defendant signed, that it could not detract in any way from the affidavit. Whether or not it is inconsistent -- I don't know. I have not read the interrogation; it hasn't been translated. And that is one of the major objections that the Prosecution has had to furnishing defense with copies of the interrogation because the attorneys for the Prosecution in most instances do not have copies in English which are usable to them, of the interrogation. And to give them to the attorneys for the Defense would put the Prosecution at a handicap. As I say, I am willing voluntarily to make available to the Defense the interrogation of this witness.
I should also like to do this with the understanding that it doesn't prejudice our rights to object in the future; and I should also like to say that this will be the last time that we will voluntarily make them available. We would, of course, on the order of the Tribunal.
I understand that this interrogation consists of about 75 pages. and I take it that the whole thing would need to be translated to be of any value to the Court and to the Prosecution; and I make this offer on the understanding that it will be submitted by the Defense as a Defense exhibit.
As I say, I do not know what is contained in the interrogation, but I am quite certain that there is nothing which would indicate that anything improper took place. I am certain of that without reading it.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Prosecution's position is eminently fair and proper. Judge Musmanno suggests, however, that before the burden of translation is undertaken that the Defense look at the interrogation and read it, and then determine whether there is any need for offering it in evidence and therefore having it translated. Perhaps it will not be necessary to do that after Dr. Schmidt has read the interrogatory.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, I don't think Prosecution can agree to the procedure of just turning it over to the Defense and letting them decide whether or not they are going to use it. They have made rather serious charges here and I think that the matter should be made a matter of record. Perhaps, in order to save the translation difficulty, it should be turned over to a commissioner.
THE PRESIDENT: If the translation does not prove that the Defense contention is good, then there will be no need of considering the interrogatory at all.
MR. ROBBINS: Well -
THE PRESIDENT: Then the claim of the Defense is not substantiated -not proved.
MR. ROBBINS: This is, as it were, an unexplored territory. The Defense does not know what is in the interrogation, and I don't know what is in the interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: And the Tribunal does not know what is in the interrogation! Suppose we all find out what is in the interrogation and then take up the question again. We may all agree that it is "love's labor lost."
MR. ROBBINS: I suggest again the most convenient procedure would probably be to turn it over to a commissioner because undoubtedly many defendants are implicated in the interrogation. It would mean that every Defense attorney would have to read it. There is only one copy.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you are unduly laboring the point. I suggest you turn the interrogation over to Dr. Schmidt and then let us talk about it after he has read it. We will see what our problem is then. Is that agreeable?
MR. ROBBINS: Well, it means, Your Honor, that Dr. Schmidt will know what is in the interrogation -- but I won't.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there is no objection to your reading it before you turn it over to him.
MR. ROBBINS: It means that it will have to be translated before I can read it. That is the big difficulty with all of those interrogations.
THE PRESIDENT: Is your copy in German?
MR. ROBBINS: It is in German.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh well, Judge Musmanno again suggested that if Dr. Schmidt reads it and then drops the matter -- does nothing -- what have you to worry about?
MR. ROBBINS: Very well, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take one step at a time and feel our way along.
DR. SCHMIDT: (Counsel for the defendant Josef Vogt): May it please the Court, I fully agree to the suggestion of the Tribunal, and I believe that a good purpose would be served if, first of all, I would read the transcript.
It is quite possible that then it will not be necessary to submit the transcript. Therefore, I think this is the best idea.
JOSEF VOGT - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q To continue the examination of this witness, we shall now discuss, witness, a document which has been submitted by the Prosecution on cross examination of the defendant Pohl on 2 June, 1947. It is Exhibit 543; it is in Document Book 22 of the Prosecution, on page 58 of the German copy. That document represents an order from Office Chief Pohl of 4 July 1944. It concerns the administration of Jewish property -
THE PRESIDENT: What was the exhibit number, please?
DR. SCHMIDT: Five hundred forty-three. It is in Document Book 22, page 58 of the German copy.
BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q On the distribution list of this document among other things, Office A-4 is named -- that is the auditing office. My question, therefore, is, witness, what was the connection between your office--A-4-and this decree of Pohl's of 4 July 1944?
A Office A-4 had actually nothing to do with the administration of Jewish property. This decree of Pohl's of 4 July 1944 -- certain decrees are contained concerning the booking of the administration of these items, and the income accruing- therefrom. When the treasuries of the Waffen SS were doing their counting, the Office A-4 -- if it wanted to carry out the preliminary auditing -- had to be informed of all these new regulations. The auditing office was under the obligation to carry out all regulations and decrees and submit it to the Reich Auditing Court as evidence. For that reason Office A-4 had to be named on the distribution list of such regulations.
Q Witness, you have referred to regulations concerning the accounting which are contained in this document. Will you please quote the passage which you had in mind from that document?
A I am afraid I have not got the document. (Document presented to witness). It says here, under paragraph 5:
"When these items are evaluated and income accrues, the treasuries concerned of the Waffen SS, under paragraph 21, have to show the income in their books inasmuch as direct transfer has not been effected to the Reich Main Treasury."
Q Was there another regulation concerning accounting in that regulation?
A Under paragraph 6 it says, and I shall quote:
"For reasons of simplification of administration, regulations contained in paragraph 3 dated 9.12.43, which had something to do with the transfer of money and cash on hand is herewith rescinded. Such income is to be booked on behalf of the Reich under 21-E by naming the source of income and submitting documentary evidence. If such evidence should be secret, income entry is to show that matter must be treated as secret."
Q Now let us turn to another document, which has already been discussed here. It is a document which was used in the IMT trial. It is PS-4024, Prosecution Exhibit GB-55-. It is a letter of Defendant Pohl of 16 February, 1944, addressed to Globocnik and concerns the Reinhardt Action in Lublin.
THE PRESIDENT: What Exhibit? 550?
DR. SCHMIDT: It is Exhibit GB-55- of the IMT Trial, of course, not of our trial here.
Q. I have put that letter to the Defendant Pohl when he was on the witness stand, and it deals with the auditing of bills from Lublin and I think it is necessary to have Vogt also give us his comments.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, did we have a copy of that?
MR. ROBBINS: No, Your Honor.
DR. SCHMIDT: May it please the Court, I only have a German copy.
MR. ROBBINS: It wasn't submitted by the Prosecution, I suppose through an oversight. It's not in the record. It's not in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have one copy of it that we can use? No?
MR. ROBBINS: Apparently he doesn't. I don't have a copy either.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll fight with this one.
Q Witness, from this letter, I should like to quote two sentences to you. I quote - the first sentence is:
"Special tasks of the Administration 'G' Lublin and the bills sent in for the period from 25 October 1942 up to 31 March 1943, have been submitted to the auditing office."
And the second sentences:
"Further bills for the period of 1 April 1943 up to 31 of December 1943 are being audited at this moment. The recital of that auditing will be put to your information in good time."
Witness, here is my question: Was Office A-IV concerned with the auditing of the bills named here?
A The bills up to the 31st of March, 1943, such as they are mentioned in paragraph 1, were audited already in Lublin. The letter mentioned here, namely that they had been submitted to the office, is therefore apparently incorrect.
I spoke yesterday of the fact that bills for April and May and later periods in 1943 were no longer submitted to Office A-IV. The reasons are not know to me. I assume that at that time bills were either sent to Office A-II/3 or they were, when the front was withdraw in the East, destroyed in good time. About this letter - the letter was sent from A-II/3, as I hear now.
DR. SCHMIDT: May it please the Court, I understand that the letter has the File Number A-II/3, Reinhardt - REINH.
Q Witness, was that letter know to you before it turned up here in the trial?
A I saw this letter here for the first time.
Q I shall now turn to a final questions concerning the Reinhardt Action. I would like to ask you, can you tell us something final about the whole Reinhardt Complex: that neither before nor after the auditing in Lublin you knew anything about the real context of the Reinhardt Action, particularly nothing about the fact that it was concerned with the extermination of Jews and the utilization of property of killed Jews?
A Neither before the assignment nor while assigned, nor even when I carried out the auditing in Lublin, nor afterwards, until this trial, did I know anything about a connection between my auditing activities and the extermination action against the Jews. I did not know that the funds, foreign exchange, jewels, and clothes, and so forth, were the property of Jews who had been killed. When auditing, I did not conceive the idea even that these things originated with killed Jews. I had the best faith that this had been confiscated property by virtue of the laws of confiscation, which had been issued at the time in other words, that Jews interned in labor camps had been relieved of their property, or otherwise that these things came from storage camps. I did not belong to Staff G, which has been referred to here before, nor did I know anything about its existence, nor even did I know anything about the order under which Hauptsturmfuehrer Melmer acted.
May it please the Court, I hafe not attempted here to call black white. I have endeavored to tell you everything as it really happened in Lublin. My conscience is clean towards myself, God and towards this Tribunal. If the highest persons who day after day moved in Hitler's and Himmler's circle did not know anything about the schemes of these criminals, how much less can that be the case in my case?
Q Witness, before turning to the last count of the indictment dealing with your membership of the SS, I would like briefly to use two Prosecution documents which are connected, at least superficially, with your office because your office is named on the distribution list of these documents. Firstly, I have Document NO-2117, which is Prosecution Exhibit 78 and is in Document Book IV. This is a letter from Hans Loerner to the Court of Audits of the German Reich in Potsdam, dated 2 September 1942 and it concerns the auditing of bills at Stutthof Camp near Danzig. This letter, as can be seen on page 3, was sent to the Chief of Office A-IV, at least a copy of that letter. Witness, therefore, I would like to ask you were you working at that time on the auditing of the bills of Stutthof Camp?
A That whole Stutthof business had nothing to do with Office A-IV. The correspondence between the Auditing Court was submitted to me through the usual channels, because I was the Preliminary Officer of the Court of Audits. I passed the matter on to Office A-II, A-I. Standartenfuehrer Loerner asked me at that time to go with him to Potsdam in order to have a conference with the Courts of Audits, because he didn't know anybody there. The Reich Court of Audits made some remarks here which were not concerned with the SS, but the Police Budget. I myself had nothing to do with this.
Q I shall now turn to another Prosecution document, which is Document NO-2130, Exhibit 497, and it is part of Prosecution Document Book XIX. That document is a decree from Pohl, the Chief of the Main Office, of 19 January 1945 and it concerns the dissolution of the SS Economist East as under the Higher Police and SS Leaders for Eastern territories and Northern Russia.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Give the exhibit number, please?
DR. SCHMIDT: 497, page 107. The distribution list of this decree among a great many other offices names also Office A-4 of the WVHA. Therefore, I would like to ask the witness BY DR. SCHMIDT:
Q What was the connection between your office and this decree of the Chief of the Main Office Pohl?
A That decree is headed Office A-5, and it reached me in the Auditing Department for my information, namely, that the SS Economist East had been discontinued.
Q I shall now turn to Count Four, and my question, witness, is, did you join the SS voluntarily at the time?
A When I joined the SS Administrative in March 1936 I was being transferred from one Reich Agency to another Reich Agency. The Administrative Office of the SS was interested in establishing this administration with the SS Special Task Troop or the "Verfuegeungstruppe". They needed expert military administrators. That Administrative Office, therefore, requested from the Reich Ministry of Labor that I be transferred to the Administrative Office of the SS. Needless to say with my agreement.
Q And what were the reasons which caused you to agree to the transfer?
A I hoped to improve my standard of living. I had been given a promise that I would take a position which was planned by the SS Special Task Troop.
Q Were you a member of the Algemeine-SS?
A No.
Q Were you promoted within the Special Task Troops rather quickly simply because you had acquired special knowledge, that caused it, or because you had special connections?
A No.
Q Before you had transferred to the SS Administrative Office, Court No. II, Case No. 4.did you have any contacts with the SS?
A No.
Q Will you please tell us, witness, what your rank was with the SS-Special Task Troops, or later on with the Waffen-SS?
A I became Obersturmfuehrer when I took up the position provided by the SS, that was when I was transferred around 1 October 1937. I then in October --- 1 October 1936, not '37. In October of 1937 I became a Hauptsturmfuehrer; in the Autumn, I believe in September 1939, I became an Obersturmbannfuehrer in 1941. I can not recall the month, and on 18 February 1944, which was my sixtieth birthday I became a Standartenfuehrer.
Q Now, you told me, witness, that you joined the SS with the rank of Obersturmfuehrer. I would like to ask you why it was your transfer was carried out with that rank?
AAt the beginning of my examination when I was giving my life story, I said that in 1918 I became a paymaster, and was made a 1st Lieutenant, and with that rank I was released from the Army in March 1920. The rank of 1st Lieutenant is equivalent to the rank of Obersturmfuehrer in the SS. My transfer, therefore, was simply that the two ranks were adjusted to each other.
Q Now, did you at any time attempt to be released from serving in the SS?
A In my examination I have said that when the auditing office had been dissolved in the Autumn of 1939, I was transferred to the First Death Head Unit. This was done completely against my will, and as I saw it, it violated the promise which the Personnel Office had given me. I was a member of the SS-Special Task Troops, which was the reason why I could not adjust the transfer to the Budget of the Death Head Units in this arbitrary manner. My conclusion at the time was to retire and draw my pension. I was over fifty years of age, and I reported sick. I was suffering from sciatica. Unfortunately I did not succeed in obtaining my pension because the war had broken out. On the Court No. II, Case No. 4.second occasion I attempted to be pensioned off in 1944.