A Because I never did receive any pay from the General SS. The SS was an organization of the Party, of the NSDAP, and payment came from the Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP, his name was Schwartz. He also took care of the military pay. I never did receive any pay from the Treasurer of the Reich. My pay was never affected by the directives as issued by the Reich Exchequer. It was never fixed as such.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Well, who did pay you?
A From the end of September 1941 the DWB, G.m.b.H., paid me the German Economic Enterprises.
Q And those were SS industries, weren't they?
A Your Honor, on Friday I explained that. The DWB, G.M.B.H. was a Reich company. Therefore, it was not an SS industry.
Q Well, all right. Did you receive no salary as a Hauptsturmfuehrer?
A No, I didn't. My contract of employment which is among the documents here states explicitly that I was being employed as a legal advosor. I didn't sign that contract with my Army rank either. Apart from that, Your Honor, according to paragraph 3 of the contract, I reserved myself a three months notice unilaterally.
Q That isn't the point. You held a position as Hauptsturmfuehrer.
A Yes, indeed, Your Honor.
Q But you received no pay as a military officer?
A No, I never did receive any salary. I only received the so-called Wehrsold of 96 marks.
(That is Wehrsold, Your Honor, I can't think of the translation of that, Your Honor. It is pay in connection with military service but you can't very well call it military pay.)
Q Well, all of your pay came from the DWB?
A Yes, my entire pay came from the DWB, G.m.b.H.
Q And, how much was it?
A 1600 marks, Your Honor.
Q Per month?
A Yes, indeed.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Witness, when were you conscripted into the Waffen-SS?
A I was conscripted into the Waffen-SS on 3 January 1940.
Q Where did you get your payment from since you joined the Main Office of Economics and Administration?
A From 3 January 1940 on until September 1941 I received my salary from my peacetime agency which was the German Gemeindetag and not from the SS with the exception of the military service pay given to every soldier. That military service payment, however, was deducted off my salary. That regulation is contained in the military pay code dated 1 September 1939.
Q Witness, will you take up the contract of employment you spoke about before. It is Document NO-2163, Exhibit 399. It is contained in Document Book 14 on page 76. Are the contents of this document correct?
A Yes, indeed.
Q Did you become a fulltime SS-officer on the basis of this contract of employment?
A No.
Q Did this contract of employment have any importance for your legal relationship with the Waffen-SS?
A No.
Q Can you describe this more in detail?
A First of all, let me explain to the Tribunal how this contract of employment came about. In 1941, it was the end of 1941, I already had received such a contract. I already mentioned on Friday that old contract has approximately the shape of this contract here with the exception of the last five paragraphs.
As I in 1941 had been transferred from the Main Office for Economics and Administration to the DWB, G.m.b.H., my vice president tole me that he could no longer pay me. After all I was working with the G.m.b.H. now. Therefore, with a private enterprise and the State and administrative regulations do not allow to continue to pay a salary to a man who is working for the G.m.b.H. I also explained that Herr Pohl wanted to take me over as a fulltime SS officer which I refused, that he wanted to pay me as an officer of the Waffen-SS which I didn't like either because that pay was too low. I had a much higher pay during my peacetime activity. That was the reason why this contract came about.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q We heard this same story last friday, Dr. Gawlik, it's now new.
A It was on the basis of this contract that I became an employee of the DWB, G.m.b.H., The German economic enterprise is a company under civilian law, therefore, not unlike the SS, an organization of the Party. If I would only have become a fulltime SS officer I would have received my pay from the Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP.
Q That is sufficient. We have heard enough about it. Would you have been dismissed from the Waffen-SS if you refused to sign that contract?
A No, I would have had to continue to serve in the Waffen-SS and carry out my duty. I couldn't have been able to resign. The only question would have been "How am I able to feed my family?"
Q What additional facts can you state as the reason why you did not become a fulltime SS officer on the basis of this contract?
A I was neither a member of the Lebensborn, nor of the SS-Spargemeinschaft as a paying member.
Q Was it possible during the war to resign from the Waffen-SS?
A No.
Q Can you justify this a little bit more in detail?
A The Waffen-SS was the fourth branch of the Army, besides the Navy and the Air Force. Just as it was impossible to resign from the Army, Navy or Air Forces it was also impossible to resign from the Waffen-SS.
Q Was it possible for you to have yourself detached from the Waffen-SS to one of the other three branches of the Army, that is, the Navy, the Air Forces?
A No, during the war the Waffen-SS was extended more and more and many soldiers and officers of the other branches of the Wehrmacht were transferred to the Waffen-SS and that under duress.
Q The Prosecution has stated that the defendants had been for all the time professional members of the Waffen-SS. This is contained in the record on page 113. Does that apply to you also, Witness?
A No.
Q Now, this is the last question. The Prosecution on page 113 also alleges that the SS was your way of living. What do you have to say about that, Witness?
A. This charge preferred against me is not comprehensible to me, I do not understand what the prosecution wants to show by saying this. However, I would like to say one thing, namely, the SS, as seen by the prosecution, was not my way of living. I could actually prove that statement from a whole number of facts of my life so far. It would especially result from this that I in no way was a blind fanatic follower of Himmler who, without criticism, agreed with all the measures taken by Himmler. I observed all political events with a critical eye at all times. According to my sense of justice, I always acted wherever I could act. I would like to point out two facts which came to my knowledge officially and which have already been mentioned in this trial. In the first case I am speaking about enemy property with which I officially had to deal, namely, the case of the Appollinaris A.G. which was the greatest soda water enterprise. Heydrich, or the Gestapo, illegally confiscated that property and had already decreed the seizure. When the property administrator, that is, the Reich Commissioner for Enemy Property, called me up, I drew Pohl's attention to the fact that was an illegal measure. After long debate, I succeeded in getting Pohl to give me an order to take care of the matter - put it back into order. In a conference in the Reich Justice Ministry, where highest officials of various ministries and representatives of the RSHA were present, I, as the only man there in presence of my legal assistant, saw to it that the property was not seized but administered as defined by international laws.
A second fact which came to my knowledge while on duty was a woman who was being persecuted for racial reasons. The RSHA wanted to take away whatever she had inherited and I saw to it that the woman received her inheritance. Her name is Helene Hoffman and she is living in Geneva, Switzerland. She received all the money, paid in foreign exchange. I succeeded in doing so in two years, from 1942 to 1944.
I do not want to speak about all these individual cases in detail, but I shall prove by affidavits, and probably also by international affi davits, that all those facts stated are true, and I shall introduce them in my document book.
Apart from that, I helped many people and advised them in political matters; I could do this because I was conscripted in the Waffen-SS. This will be shown in affidavits, also.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I have then completed the direct examination of Dr. Volk as a witness in his own behalf.
I have only a few questions on behalf of the defendant Dr. Bobermin.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. Did you receive any additional compensation as the personal representative or advisor of the defendant Pohl in addition to what you got under your contract from the DWB?
A. No, I did not receive anything further.
Q. That was just additional duties, not outlined in your contract?
A. Yes, indeed, Your Honor. Your Honor, I also never did get paid for any other activities which I had to carry out.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Will you explain what the Allgemeine SS did? I mean, what were the activities of the Allgemeine SS?
A. The activity of the Allgemeine (General) SS, Your Honor, is very difficult to explain, the reason being that it depended on the individual units where the men were assembled. First of all, you had to do some training in the first few years.
Q. What kind of training?
A. Military training.
Then the SS, in case there should be party rallies and parades, had to make a cordon, a ribbon, around the people there just as if they were policemen. Political lectures only took place very seldom and depended entirely on the officer in charge of the individual unit. If the man was culturally high and well-educated, then the lectures were good. That is to say, lectures in connection with National Socialistic idea, but there weren't too many of those so they sometimes didn't have any lec tures whatsoever.
Very seldom, as I stated before.
Q. Did the members wear a uniform? A military uniform?
A. In the Allgemeine SS every SS-man had to buy himself a black uniform at his own expense and he wore that uniform only when he went on duty which was every Tuesday and Friday evenings, for instance.
Q. When the members of the Allgemeine SS drilled, did they carry arms - weapons?
A. I didn't quite get that. Would you repeat, please?
(Interpreter repeated)
No, that was forbidden, Your Honor. Only in the first years - I believe in 1934 - it occurred that we did some small caliber shooting but those were weapons which were given us. For instance, a unit of 150 men received three to five rifles and those rifles were permissible according to the Versailles peace treaty.
Q. The only weapons you had were hand weapons, that is, side arms?
A. We were not permitted to wear side arms or bayonets. All we used, at the beginning, was simply a belt. The officer of the unit, compared with the military rank in a company, had a pistol, but he had to have a special permit for that. And in later years, Your Honor, the men received a so-called honorary dagger. It was not a bayonet, though; it was simply a small piece for decoration.
Q. Did the Allgemeine SS drill with horses or with artillery -- with large caliber guns?
A. The Allgemeine SS did not drill, only the Mounted SS had horses and they did horseback riding. Possibly a wrong impression was created abroad when pictures were shown about the SS Special Task Group. That SS Special Task Group, even before the war, had a black uniform, but that was not the General SS.
Q. When you were with the DWB as Prokurist after 1943, you were in uniform?
A. Yes, I was. I had to wear a uniform. Herr Pohl asked us to.
Q. That is, you wore the uniform of an SS Captain?
A. Yes, indeed.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, do you know how the defendant Dr. Bobermin joined the Waffen SS?
A. The defendant Dr. Bobermin received the same order of conscription as I did.
Q. How do you know that, witness?
A. When I was in the Main Department III A/4, he showed me that conscription order and he told me to add that to his files.
Q. Herr Dr. Hohberg, in the cross examination, explained the forms of German enterprises and their organs according to commercial law and commercial law and commercial code. Was that correct? Was that description complete?
A. I'm afraid I don't remember Dr. Hohberg's testimony very clearly. Maybe you can give me a few tips or ask me direct questions.
Q. Was there an organ missing, not according to commercial law but according to another law, according to the law concerning labor? Please give it to me very briefly, witness.
A. After the seizure of power--
Q. Very briefly, please, tell us what organ was missing.
A. The business manager.
Q. Who was the business manager and how did he receive his job and his sphere of responsibility according to the legal regulations?
A. The explanation of a business manager is contained in the code concerning national labor. The law is dated 30 January 1934, I believe. The term "business manager" is explained there. This law was changed completely to comply with the Fuehrer principle; it says there:
"The leader of an enterprise decides in all managerial questions."
Therefore, he was the leader of the enterprise and he was the one who made the decisions in all managerial questions.
Q. Was the business manager always identical with the business owner or the organ according to commercial law?
A. He didn't have to be that. If, for instance, an Aktiengesellschaft (A.G.) had several supervisor board members, then one business manager was appointed, or then if a GMBH had several business managers, then one works manager was appointed. One could not change the GMBH law to comply with the Fuehrer principle immediately. That was the reason why one used the law concerning national labor.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I'm just informed that the German word "Betriebsfuehrer" was translated "business manager". That is not correct because business manager is "Geschaeftsfuehrer". The Betriebsfuehrer is a works manager or plant manager. I don't even know if there is an English translation. I am not speaking about the business manager, but I'm speaking about the plant manager. This is a term which was created after 1933 and that plant manager was the one who was responsible for everything.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we understand the difference.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. How were the conditions with enterprises which had several plants?
A. I don't know that, Mr. Defense Counsel. I would have to take a look at the law concerning national labor again. I couldn't possibly give you such a quick answer without even looking it up in the booklet.
Q. Do you know the situation in the DWB? Who was the plant manager there?
A. In the DWB GMBH Pohl, the defendant, was the sole plant manager. Then, in various affiliated companies there were also plant managers. I believe, since you are examining me for Dr. Bobermin, that the plant manager of the Golleschauer Cement Works was Herr Goebel. I believe that he had that explicitly stated in the contract.
Q. Now, I shall speak about another subject, witness. Do you know if the administration of brick factories which were in the Russian territory were part of the task of the defendant Dr. Bobermin?
A. Dr. Bobermin was simply to find the brick factories. He did not run them. I don't believe that ever occurred; when we are speaking of Russia, you have to differentiate between various areas. You have Central Russia, and the Eastland, the eastern territories, were under Gauleiter Lose, who was Reich Commissioner for Russia. The Ukraine was under Gauleiter Kock, who was the Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine. Then there was a third territory, Bialystok, for instance, which the Russians had occupied and incorporated into Russia in 1940 -- I believe it was toward the end of 1939. After that territory had been recaptured by the German Army, it was incorporated into the Ex-Government General at the time. As far as the conditions are concerned between the territories in Eastland and the Ukraine, I can say the following: The brick factories in the Eastland were always operated by the Reichs Commissioner for the Eastland. He didn't want to have anybody else interfere within his sphere of tasks. Now, as far as the territory of Ukraine is concerned, I believe there was an agreement between Gauleiter Kock and Herr Pohl, according to which Herr Pohl would delegate several SS officers to Kock. These SS officers were taken over by Koch and incorporated into the administration of the Reichs Commissariat. These brick factories were also operated by Koch at the expense of the Reichs Commissioner and not the expense of the WVHA.
Q. Witness, I shall now speak about something else. On the direct examination, you stated that until the end of 1942 you were prokurist of Klinker Works, GMBH. Were inmates employed in the Klinker works GmBH at that time?
A. No.
Q. Was the labor allocation of inmates intended at the time in the enterprises there?
A. No.
Q. Do you know that in the summer of 1943 in the Golleschauer Portland Cement GmBH inmates were used for labor assignments?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you know how this labor allocation of inmates came about?
A. Herr Dr. Bobermin had submitted a report to Herr Pohl, in which he suggested that the work in the Golleschauer Cement factory be stopped. He said he had received a compensation for discontinuation of work from the Reich Economie Minister, or the trade agencies. I couldn't tell you which agency. Thus, he would have been able to pay all the expenses which occur when a factory is no longer in operation. After the conference, Herr Dr. Bobermin told me, and I also saw that on the letter, that Herr Pohl had ordered that the work continue in the enterprise. I can remember that letter very well. It had a green slash of writing across it --"No production".
Q. Did Herr Dr. Bobermin tell you his opinion about the allocation of inmate labor ordered by Herr Pohl, and if so, how did he do it. Tell us about it.
A. Herr Dr. Bobermin, in his entire actions, is a business man. He never did want to have anything to do with inmates, with people who were not free. That is part of his nature, part of his attitude. He is not exactly soft, but he is a man with feelings. That was the reason why I knew that. Apart from that, he was of the opinion that inmates would never work with such pleasure as free laborers do.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honors, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Cross Examination by any defense counsel?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. HAENSEL (for Georg Loerner):
Q. I have very few questions, witness, concerning two problems. The first problem is one, as I can see from the records, which was touched upon by the Tribunal during my absence, the problem of the deputization and how far deputization can go. And I want to elucidate that question, in the case of Georg Loerner. You know that the defendant Georg Loerner, witness, formally speaking, was Pohl's deputy, with certain limitations.
Now as you had knowledge of the method of the business in the WVHA, I would appreciate it if you would tell me if Loerner as Pohl's Deputy could decide important, practical questions?
A. Herr Loerner, if I can say this in a few brief terms, was nothing but a dummy. In Amtsgruppe W he hardly appeared as a deputy. He was only used when companies were established and when general questions were discussed, which, however, were of no importance. Herr Pohl was the one who made all the decisions. I can only remember during one occasion when Herr Pohl had taken him along to visit a new factory; that even struck me, but I took it as a more or less loyal action. I can say that Herr Loerner was just taken along for one visit.
Q. Witness, do you remember that the prosecution showed us a decree by Pohl that the W Office Chiefs had to inform Georg Loerner of all important matters?
A. Yes, that decree is contained in the documents.
Q. Do you know anything about what happened to that order, was it carried out or not?
A. That order possibly existed for two months. I couldn't give you the exact date, and I couldn't swear to the dates, but Herr Pohl cancelled that decree one day. I believe I can remember that the Office Chiefs of W Offices no longer came to see him, and if they did, they only came to see him for a very short time, and, that the cooperation didn't work very well. That was the reason why certainly after that the decree was cancelled. Herr Pohl even prohibited the office chief to see Georg Loerner first, and he wanted to have the Office Chiefs see him directly.
Q. Thank you, witness, no more questions in connection with this point. The Tribunal spoke of a subject today while examining the defendant Volk, and I believe that one of the most important questions is still missing, that is the activity of the SS after 1939. Herr Volk, you said something about the training of the SS and drill. Did that refer to the time prior to 1939 or after 1939?
A. What I described -
THE PRESIDENT: That was the Allgemeine SS?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, but I believe that it is also very important for the Tribunal to know what the Allgemeine SS was after 1939. That is what I wanted to find out. What he answered before was about the Allgemeine SS prior to 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Allgemeine SS after 1939 was nothing, I mean it just disappeared, didn't it?
DR. HAENSEL: That is excellent, Your Honor, that is more than I could hope for. Thank you, no further questions.
BY DR. HEIM (Counsel for defendant Hohberg):
Q. Witness, I would like to clarify a few small points in connection with the defendant Hohberg, and I want you to help me clarify those points.
First of all, the resignation of Dr. Hohberg as an auditor of the DWB - by that I mean the fact that he was considered indispensable. Could you tell me, Dr. Volk, whether Dr. Hohberg was deferred as essential until he left as an auditor?
A. I couldn't answer that question of yours with one hundred percent certainty. I remember that Dr. Hohberg had been deferred as essential by the auditors association, I believe. I don't remember what the conditions were, but I believe that union handled the matter. I still couldn't swear to it. I believe I am in a position to say that it wasn't the DWB G.m.b.H. that actually deferred him as essential.
Q. Witness, you believe that you can recall that somebody deferred Dr. Hohberg as essential?
A. I really couldn't tell you for sure. It is possible -- but in any case I believe I can tell you with more certainty that it was not done by DWB, G.m.b.H. You see, I didn't have the time to deal with all those individual cases, Mr. Defense Counsel. After all, I wouldn't tell you anything incorrect.
Q. Dr. Volk, I have two additional questions in that connection. Was Dr. Hohberg in a position to be conscripted into the Wehrmacht during the time when he was deferred as essential?
A. No.
Q. Can you recall whether, shortly before the resignation of Dr. Hohberg, Herr Pohl, the defendant, had made an application to have him deferred as essential?
A. Yes, I was the one who submitted that application -- there were two.
Q. Was that application approved?
A. The first application was approved. The second application was not approved.
Some general of the Luftwaffe had signed it, and it was stated that Dr. Hohberg was to be conscripted on the first of August 1943. Pohl signed both of these applications which I had to set up, as a legal advisor of the organization.
Q. Witness, now let me discuss another point. The witness Karoli testified here in this Tribunal that complaints went directly to the Reich Economy Ministry from professional circles according to which Herr Dr. Hohberg no longer was permitted to work as an auditor of the DWB because his position was too high and too powerful in the DWB.
You were a lawyer, weren't you, witness, and at the same time, for quite a while, you were a personal referent of Herr Pohl. Can you tell us something on the basis of your position at the time?
A. The fact which you just touched upon, Mr. Defense Counsel, is correct. The Union of Auditors received a report to the effect that Herr Dr. Hohberg in Staff W, with the Economic Enterprises GMBH, was carrying out a function which was similar to a commercial body.
Q. Do you know what was done upon this report, and when this was?
A. Well, when that was I couldn't tell you for certain. It could have been towards the end of 1942 or it might have been the middle of 1942 or even early 1943. I just couldn't tell you about the date.
Q. What did the Institute of Auditors cause against Dr. Hohberg upon this report?
A. I believe that they asked Dr. Hohberg to come and see them, and they made a report. I don't know what kind of report that was, but in any case they told him that there was some sort of denunciation against him.
Q. Is that in any connection with the case of Rucks which was discussed by Dr. Hohberg when he was a witness?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you tell us something about it in a few brief terms?
A. A certain man by the name of Rucks, who used to be an auditor with Dr. Hohberg, was the one who was the denunciator.
Q. What happened to him?
A. He received a one-year jail term by the SS and Police Court. According to my impression, Rucks was not the man who had made the denunciation.
Q. Well, witness, that doesn't make any difference who the denunciator was. Did the Institute of Auditors speak to Mr. Pohl about it in this connection?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what letter Herr Pohl had sent to the Auditors' Union?
A. Herr Pohl covered up for Dr. Hohberg.
Q. What do you mean by "covering up" for him?
A. Herr Pohl stated that formally, of course, Dr. Hohberg was an auditor because, after all, he had a contract on commission. But the position which he held he had got by Pohl, so that it looked as if he had a position of a body, according to commercial law.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. The position that you referred to was that he was chief of Staff W, isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Pohl was covering up so that the Institute would not know that he was the chief of Staff W, but to the contrary, he was trying to make it appear that he was only an auditor. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then when the Institute found out that he was the chief of an office, then they asked that he be relieved?
A. Well, then the Institute would have put Dr. Hohberg on trial; he was no longer permitted to be an auditor. But, Mr. Federal Judge, I believe that the Institute of Auditors, politically speaking, was so weak that it couldn't possibly have been able to do anything against Herr Pohl or Herr Himmler.
Q. In other words, if he was violating the rules of the Institute under the orders of Himmler and Pohl, the Institute could do nothing about it?
A. Actually not, Your Honor -- but legally, yes.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, if I understood you correctly, then Herr Pohl informed the Institute of Auditors that Herr Hohberg was nothing but an auditor, whereas, according to your testimony, he was not an auditor, because, according to your testimony, witness, Herr Dr. Hohberg was Chief of Staff W. Is that correct?
A. Mr. Defense Counsel, Dr. Heim, in order to clear up this mysterious problem I would have to hold a speech--
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I was afraid of. This isn't mysterious. We have understood it for a week, and you are just going over and over it again. We understood it before, and now you give us fair warning that it calls for a long speech. We would rather not hear the speech, if you please.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, would you please answer my question very briefly, the way I have put it to you?
A. Herr Dr. Hohberg, on the one hand, was an auditor. Well, after all, I can't answer your question with yes or no because the Tribunal will get the wrong impression, and I am not going to give you the wrong testimony.
Q. Witness, I asked you the following: Did I understand you correctly, namely, that you said the following to Judge Phillips. Pohl stated at the time to the Institute of Auditors that Herr Dr. Hohberg was nothing but an auditor. In reality, however, Dr. Hohberg was not only an auditor but also chief of Staff W.
Did I understand you correctly, witness? That you wanted to tell that to Judge Phillips?
A. No, I didn't want to say that. All I wanted to say--- After all, that question cannot be answered that way--
THE PRESIDENT: Now, the translation was "I didn't want to say that.
That is all I wanted to say."
WITNESS: No, Mr. President--
THE PRESIDENT: That is right.
WITNESS: Dr. Heim didn't give me time enough to finish my statement.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, after all, as far as I am concerned, you can go into detail and hold a long speech. I don't care.
A. Herr Dr. Hohberg was an auditor and, apart from that, he also had the title Chief of Staff W. That can be seen from the documents. I don't have to tell you more.
THE PRESIDENT: That is nothing new. We certainly knew that day before yesterday.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, was Dr. Hohberg chief of Staff W, or did he have only the title? After all, you should be in a position to clarify this problem, being a legal expert. After all, you did work with the DWB for years and years.
A. I can clear up that question of yours.
Q. Then please do.
A. If Mr. President permits me to say three sentences, then I will be able to solve that problem.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, let's understand the question. Was Hohberg chief of Staff W, or did he just have a title? Now, answer that as best you can.
WITNESS: The chief of Staff W had the position of a chief of office, just as all the other office chiefs of the "W" offices, W-1 to W-8. In the WVHA there are two kinds of office chiefs. You have the real office chiefs, who were members of the office groups A to D, who had been appointed by the Reichsfuehrer-SS or the Personnel Main Office and who were receiving Reich pay; in Amtsgruppe W you had so-called Pohl office chiefs, who did not comply with the prerequisites which were necessary for the office chiefs of office groups A to D. If that is a title or if it is an official term, I couldn't tell you, Mr. Defense Counsel.
Q Dr. Volk, at the time, Thank God, I was not with the DWB. Therefore, I could not clear up this problem, but there is bound to be a way to express this clearly. Was Dr. Hohberg Chief of Staff-W or was he never Chief of Staff-W? This is a question, which according to my opinion can be answered with "yes" or "no."
AAll right then. I would have to speak about the activity of Dr. Hohberg.
Q Witness, if the Tribunal agrees to listen to you, please do.
THE PRESIDENT: No, we don't agree at all. Either you can answer that question -- You understand the question? You understand the question, "Was Dr. Hohberg Chief of Staff-W?" Now you can say "yes" and "I can't answer that."
THE WITNESS: Herr Dr. Hohberg had the title "Chief of Staff W." Sometimes he did have the title and sometimes he didn't have the title. It depended. It was not clear at all with him.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, that's a pretty fair answer. Now go ahead from there, Dr. Heim.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness, was the Chief of Staff W in a position to give orders to the members of Staff W?
A Not military orders, no.
Q What kind of orders then?
A He could, for instance, tell Dr. Wenner, who was in charge of the Finance and Tax Department, to take care of this or that file.
Q Herr Dr. Hohberg, in the direct examination, you testified that you were not in a position to issue orders to your collaborators, because they had the same or a higher SS official rank than you did. Now, if, as SS Hauptsturmfuehrer, you could not give any orders to your collaborators, and give them instructions, how do you think that Dr. Hohherg, as a civilian, would be able to issue orders to his collaborators, if we assume that he was Chief of Staff-W?
A Your question, Dr. Heim, is not logical.
Q Mr. Witness, I didn't ask you if my question was logical or not. I am simply asking you to answer my question as best you can.
A You asked me about orders and instructions, while in direct examination I stated that I was not in a position to give orders. By orders, Mr. Defense Counsel, I as a legal expert understand military orders and military orders I couldn't issue usually. Instructions are something entirely different.
Q Therefore, you could issue instructions, could you?
A But of course, as a man in charge of the Legal Department, I could give instructions to my collaborators.
Q You further stated literally, Witness, "I could not become Chief of Staff W, because I had too low a rank for that." Would you please explain this contradiction on your part: Dr. Hohberg, as a civilian, could become Chief of Staff W. You as a Hauptsturmfuehrer in the SS had too low a rank to become Chief of Staff W.
A Mr. Defense Counsel, in the WVHA, a person who knew something in civilian life was stronger than any SS leader, because the SS leader had to stand at attention whereas the civilian didn't have to do that. That was the reason why I, as Hauptsturmfuehrer, could never become Chief of Staff W or Chief W. Do you think that the higher ranks would have let me tell them something? That was the reason why I made my testimony. That is what I meant by my testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: Nobody claims that this witness was ever Chief of Staff W, do you? Do you, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor, for a few months. A document introduced in evidence shows that he was.
THE PRESIDENT: During that interim between Hohberg and Baier?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes. I think he himself says he was in charge of the office.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I was in charge of the business during one month and eight days, but I was not Chief W, nor was I Chief of Staff W.BY DR. HEIM: