A: Pohl, with 90,000 marks and Loerner with 10,000 marks. Loerner, however, turned over his 10,000 marks immediately to Pohl. He was only involved in this by name.
Q: What was the construction of the DWB according to commercial law?
A: The DWB had two business managers, Pohl and Loerner. It did not have any board of supervisors. Therefore, we have the following picture: Pohl was the first business manager; secondly, he was the only partner; and thirdly, he carried out the supervision over this enterprise, as chief of the WVHA.
Q: Where were the financial funds obtained from in order to found the DWB?
A: The basic capital of the DWB only consisted of 100,000 marks. Frank furnished that money. I don't know from what source these 100,000 marks were taken. Whether this money came from the Party or the Reich I didn't know at that time at all, nor do I know it today. Frank doesn't know it wither today.
Q: What else can you tell us about your activity when the DWB was established?
A: In the beginning a small number of my auditors carried out the work which accumulated in the DWB. The main tasks were bookkeeping where centralized shares of the companies had to be listed, and then, of course, the activity of the so-called internal finance office. Later on the small legal department was added, and in this form in which this business was carried out nothing changed until the time I left.
Q: Was this activity part of the field of task of an economic consultant and auditor?
A: The execution of the establishment of companies and the carrying out of usions of businesses and increases in capital and decreases in capital, are all typical tasks which are normally handled by an auditor. The auditor then leaves this task again from the very moment when the experts of a newly established company, for example, independently take over this field of task.
Q: The Prosecution in its opening speech has made the following statement, and I quote: "In 1940 Pohl and Georg Loerner established the DWB in the form of a holding company. This enterprise was commonly known as the DWB, and many economic enterprises were subordinated to it. The defendants Hohberg, et al., developed these economic enterprises, and they directed them. Concentration camp inmates were used as workers to a very large extent. Please make a brief statement with regard to these statements by the Prosecution, and please answer in particular the question what you knew at that time about the utilization of concentration camp inmates.
A: I myself did not develop a single economic enterprise. Aside from my collaboration in this holding company where this special taxation task had to be fulfilled, I myself never had the functions of a director. While I was an auditor with the DWB altogether twenty different companies were founded. Of these twenty companies three enterprises employed inmates. These companies which employed inmates were only founded according to commercial law, in that particular form. After all, these plants had already been in existence before, and later, upon my suggestion, they only received the form and the title of a company. I mention these enterprises as the German Lebensmittel GMBH, the Textile and Leather evaluation GMBH, or Deutsche Textile Und Lederverwertung GMBH, and in the last month of my activities it was the Osti.
During my first year in connection with my auditing work I had no contact with plants employing inmates. First of all I examined all the enterprises which had a regular bookkeeping set-up.
Q: In this connection I would like you to look at Document Book II of the Prosecution, Page 2 in the English and the German text. This is Document NO-542, Prosecution's Exhibit 22. This is a report about the tasks organization and financial planning of Office III. Do you know where this report originated?
A: I have seen this report here for the first time among the documents. I can assume quite certainly that this report originated with Dr. Salpeter. At that time he was the so-called chief of Office III-A, and at that time he would mainly advise Pohl on economic matters. The report is very interesting for the reason that it states the status of the companies as it actually was, that is, it was completely desperate. He described how many millions had been invested in these various enterprises, and how at that time it could be seen that the majority of the enterprises would suffer severe losses. At the time when I recognized the somewhat weak business abilities of Dr. Salpeter, I suggested to Pohl that Salpeter be replaced by somebody else. When discussing this however, the question of inmate labor was never mentioned. Here we only dealt with making the loans of the Reich and other loans, which in part had already been lost, more secure.
Q: As you have just said, this report originated with Dr. Salpeter. Just what gives you that idea?
A: At the time Dr. Salpeter was the expert in these questions.
Nobody else could have written that report.
Q: And therefore you have only seen this document for the first time here in Nurnberg. In spite of this did you know anything about the aim of the SS with regard to economic enterprises? Was anything known to you about that, as is contained in this report?
A: Well... When I concluded my contract Pohl had informed me about the aims which he pursued with regard to the economic enterprises and the SS. He told me something quite different at the time. Pohl told me that we were only pursuing social aims in order to raise the standard of living of the simple people. Therefore, these were only purely social points of view. In the report by Dr. Salpeter, it looks as if the only main task of the economic enterprises had been the utilization of inmate labor. That may have been the case as far as Dr. Salpeter was concerned. However, this was not the main principal policy according to what Pohl told me at the time.
Did you as an auditor have any influence on the economic management and guidance of the economic enterprises? Did you develop them and did you direct these enterprises as alleged by the Prosecution?
A: No, I did not have any supervisory authority at all. I was not in charge of these enterprises.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Counsel you asked a number of questions. You began by saying, did he have any influence, then you ask, did he direct. Well, there is a vast distinction which can be drawn between those two. He might not direct, but yet he might have had some influence. I would be happy if you would separate those two questions.
Q: By Dr. Heim: I, therefore, shall put this question to you in another form. Did you as an auditor have any influence on the economic direction and the purposes of the economic enterprises?
A: Actually I did not have any influence aside from my personal influence on Pohl. Indirectly I did have some influence because I tried to influence Pohl as far as the social tasks were concerned. Later on it will be shown that Pohl went along with my plans enthusiastically.
Q: Did you develop these economic enterprises?
A: I did not develop these economic enterprises, however, I was assisting in the tax centralization of the DWB as an adviser on tax matters.
Q: Were these economic enterprises under your direction as alleged by the Prosecution?
A: No, no enterprises were under my direction.
Q: What fields of task and what purposes did the DWB Concern have?
A: There is a basic difference between the tasks of the DWB and the task of the DWB Concern. It was the task of the DWB, which was carried out by a very few people, and they were the bookkeepers, Dr. Volk and Dr. Wenner, to carry out the reconstruction of those enterprises. The companies which belonged to the DWB Concern, on the other hand, within the various branches, carried out and fulfilled various tasks, and they were generally social tasks.
Q. What was the circle of the enterprises concerned with regard to these social aims?
A. Those who had any advantages as a result of the social aims, of course, were members of the SS, according to the desire of Pohl. After I became a friend of Dr. May we thought of enriching the DWB; that is, we wanted to have the DWB incorporated into the Reich so that not only the SS members and their families would benefit, but also the public in general.
Q. I am now coming to your activity after the DWB had been founded. What was your activity after the establishment of the DWB?
A. Out side of my activity as a tax adviser in the DWB nothing changed as far as my activity was concerned. My auditors continued their work. Several of the auditors were completely transferred, and they became employees of the DWB. They were replaced by other auditors.
The extent of the business managing activities of Pohl remained exactly the same as it had been before; as far as his authority was concerned with regard to the SS enterprises, Pohl now and before had exactly the same authority. Now we only had a difference that now he was also authorized to give instructions on the basis of commercial law because now he was the official business manager-which he had not been before.
Q. Therefore, did you have any auditors, in order to execute your auditing work?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you employ these auditors, or were they employed as auditors by some other agency?
A The first auditors were civilians, and I myself recruited them, and I suggested them to Pohl for employment. They then were subordinated to me professionally; that is, they were furnished to me in order to carry out the auditing work.
However, I did not have any disciplinary authority over them, and I was unable to dismiss them. May I point out at this time that in January, 1943, all auditors were taken away from me on the same day. I just happened to be absent on that particular day and nobody asked me about that before.
Q. Were any special reasons decisive for the selection of your collaborators?
A. Well, of course I tried first of all to get those auditors I liked personally--and none of then was a member of the SS.
Q. Can you give us a few names, and characterize this group of persons?
A. If I were to characterize all these people it would take too long. However, I shall give you a few names. We had an auditor Schmiehl; before he had belonged to the Communist Party. Then we had Petruska who before that was a member of the Socialist Party. Then we had Dr. Wenner who came from a strictly protestant family; the auditor Rapp who had special difficulties afterwards because his brothers had refused to serve in the German army. They came from Alsace. However, I would go too far if I were to mention all the names here.
Q. Were these auditors subordinated to you?
A. They had been furnished to me in order to carry out this auditing work, and they were professionally subordinated to me. However, I did not have any disciplinary authority over them.
Q. When did your authority end with respect to the auditors who became collaborators of the DWB?
A. My authority to issue instructions to these auditors who had been furnished to the DWB ended from the moment on when they officially were taken over by the DWB.
Fundamentally, that was the case from the very moment on when Dr. Weimer and Dr. Volk had been appointed managers with power of attorney (Prokurist). You must imagine this in a way that fundamentally no practical work had to be carried out in this holding company aside from the central handling of taxation matters.
Of course, that work was considerable.
Q. What tasks did you deal with at first, after the DWB had been founded?
A. I only advised Dr. Wenner as a sideline on taxation matters. However, I had to use the necessary intensity because I myself was personally liable with my property. That was by virtue of a Reich law. I myself carried out auditing work with my auditors. Above all, I converted everything to gold mard balances or Reichmark balances of the enterprises which previously had carried out their balance in some sort of other currency. For example, the Mattoni A.G. Another example is the Bohemia A. G.; and another is Kunod, at Prague. And, aside from that, I carried out the organization of the bookkeeping matters in a very large number of all the enterprises.
Q. What tasks were solved within the scope of the DWB which had been newly established?
A. The first task of the centralization of the company shares and the stock was solved immediately, and it only took a few weeks to solve them. The big task which was then carried out under the direction of Dr. Wenner was the elimination of the heavy losses with the assistance of the big profits of the other companies. This was carried out as a result of the so-called "holding contracts", or the contracts for the adjustment of profits and losses.
Q. What special training did you benefit from in this case?
A. I knew something about corporation charters because before I had worked with the Senior Finance President at Berlin as a so-called "concern auditor in charge."
Q. Did you have any influence on who was used as a collaborator in the DWB?
A. Yes, I did have some influence on that. At the beginning I would recommend potential collaborators to Pohl. Then they were employed by the business manager. Here we mainly dealt with people who had to know their business in special fields with which the DWB dealt. For example, the field of taxation law, and so on.
Q. When the accounting of adjustment of profits and losses was done could all the various enterprises be dealt with at the same time?
A. I have already described on Friday that a separate balancing was necessary with the various companies as far as the adjustment of profits and losses was concerned. Beyond that, however, these things had to be dealt with separately with regard to all the enterprises which were located in a field which had its own tax right. For example, Poland and Czechoslovakia. These enterprises therefore could not be used in order to balance the profits and losses.
Q. In February, 1942, the WVHA was established. Up to this time what was the organizational construction of the Main Office for Administration and Economy, and Budget and Construction?
A. You are asking me too much in this case because I have heard of these things mostly from the documents now or I heard about them at Minden when I worked on the report there, which Mummenthey, Dr. Volk and I compiled there, at Minden. I only know that with the Main Office for administration and Economy the enterprises were also listed as so called offices on the organizational chart. However, that is known here instead of W-1 to W-8; at the time we had 3-A to 3-F.
Q. What position did you occupy within this organization, or what position did your collaborators occupy?
A. I myself did not occupy any position at all there. I was an independent auditor by virtue of my working contract, and beyond that I also had to deal with other tasks. So that in the Main Office, Administration and Economy, an organizational place would exist for the auditors who were furnished to me, Pohl invented the title "Staff W."
Q. What other personal and factual relationship was it that existed between your office and the other office groups of the Main Office, Administration and Economy?
A. The office which I directed in the WVHA and before that in the Office for Administration and Economy, was the same which is furnished every auditor when he carries out some auditing work. Only in my case it was a permanent institution because I had a permanent auditing assignment. I did not have any professional contact with the other office groups, unless something had to be done in that particular field.
Q. Did you deal with the question of the organizational construction of the Main Office, Administration and Economy? That is to say, did you deal with the organization before the First of February, 1942?
A. No, as far as I dealt with organizational questions on the basis of my contract, these were only questions of the commercial organization, that is to say, bookkeeping and tabulations.
Q. Your answer apparently contrasts to document NO-1299, which has just been presented by the prosecution. It is Exhibit 35 in Document Book 2, on page 64 of the German, and page 54 of the English text. Have you found the document? According to your description, should we not reach the assumption that you also participated in the organizational construction of the WVHA?
A. I suggested to Pohl that Dr. Bobermin who administered the Polish Brick Works, which were under his trusteeship, -- that these enterprises should be removed from the direction of Dr. Salpeter.
Dr. Bobermin constantly complained that through Dr. Salpeter, as a result of his powerful position as a superior SS officer, he was constantly forced to do various things. For example, whenever Dr. Bobermin had procured large amounts of iron for his companies, Dr. Salpeter would take away part of that iron from him, although he was not actually in charge of the brick works in the East. Then the following factor was added. I myself had worked with an auditing company for four years and its partner was the Deutsche Gemeindetag, that is, the league of German Towns and Communities. This German Reich authority from the very beginning was opposed to National Socialism. Therefore, it was only natural that I had a special confidence in Dr. Bobermin. This was also the reason why I suggested that he should be taken away from the direction of Dr. Salpeter.
Q. With regard to the assumption that you worked in the organization, one could also reach that assumption by virtue of your affidavit which you gave to the prosecution. This is a document in Document Book I of the prosecution and is on page 83 of the English document book. It is Document NO-1924, Prosecution Exhibit 16. In your affidavit you state that you had the task -- and I quote -- "to consult the business management in taxation matters and also in organizational matters." What did you try to express when you made that statement?
A. As a result of my contract as advisor I was obligated to advise the business management on all questions of the commercial and business organization. As I have already mentioned before, commercial organization mainly deals with the question of the accounting system.
Q. I now want to refer to Document NO-620, Prosecution Exhibit 33, It is in Prosecution Document Book No. II. This is an organizational chart of the Main Office, Budget and Construction, or the Main Office, Administration and Economy. Witness, have you found this chart?
A. Yes.
Q. Here you are listed under the Main Department W. You are directly subordinated to the Main Office on this chart. I now want to ask you, is your position correct as it has been described and reproduced on this organizational chart?
A. Never in my life was I appointed to be in charge of a Main Department. Of course, it is up to every concern, whenever it compiles an organizational chart of the entire organization to also include the auditor of this concern, above all, when he has a permanent assignment there and when he has even been furnished his own office. Of course, I could not prevent them from listing mine on their chart. However, in this form, this reproduction is not correct. I would like to mention that undoubtedly this chart was more or less a dream, because it had been planned from the very beginning that I was to be included in the business management of the DWB in some form.
Q. If I have understood you correctly, Witness, the position which you occupied as an auditor is wrongly listed on this organizational chart. Here you are listed as being dependent on Pohl, and, therefore, you are listed as part of the Main Office, Administration and Economy, is that correct?
A. An auditor can never be dependent and Pohl knew that. After all, I expressed that in my contract. Already in the first clause it states, "as an independent free auditor."
Q. I also want to refer to Document Book II of the prosecution; on page 64 of the German text, on page 54 of the English text we have prosecution Document NO-1299. This is Prosecution Exhibit 35. This is a letter which you addressed to Pohl on the 26th of May, 1941. On the letterhead it states, "ST. W. HO-FA. I now want to ask you: Did we already have a Staff W in existence at that time?
A. Yes, we had a Staff W from the very moment I came there. After all, the people who were furnished to me by virtue of my con tract, that is to say, the auditors and the clerks, after all, we had to occupy a certain place within an organizational chart which Pohl compiled and this place was called "Staff W" by Pohl.
In this trial it will be shown that Pohl placed fundamental value on the fact that all commercial forms and functions which pertained to commercial law be provided with a military designation, and, therefore, in this case, he invented the name and title, "Staff W". When we consider these things, then the special mentality of the people must be considered who work within this main office. After all they mainly consisted of soldiers who only obeyed commands and for them only military expressions could be used. That is also the reason why Pohl requested me to use the letter head "Staff W" in my correspondence as an auditor. However, this letterhead was never actually printed. I myself did not have any actual reasons for refusing this request by Pohl, which, in itself, was rather harmless. However, of course, I compiled the auditing reports in my own name. The correspondence from enterprise to enterprise when it dealt with the auditing work, was provided with the letterhead, "Staff W".
Q. The designation, "Staff W" therefore was the invention of Pohl? Please describe for us the development of Staff W?
A. In Staff W at the beginning we only had auditors and a secretary. These were the people who had been furnished to me. Approximately six months later, gradually the DWB G.m.b.H. was established. It had its own employees. Pohl also included these employees on his organizational chart and put them in "Staff W". If he had wanted to use a different title, he could have invented a new name. Later on, individual companies were added and in this case companies were personnel union existed between the directors of individual departments of the DWB and the business managers of the companies in question. To give an example here: the house and property ownership G.m.b.H, whose business manager was Dr. Volk and at the same time he was also the legal department of the DWB. Then finally we also added enterprises which Pohl could not list anywhere else on the organizational chart because as far as their branch was concerned they could not be included in the other group of firms, for example, the German Medical G.m.b.H, which made medicines and therefore constituted a different branch. Then we had the OSTI. This enterprise, on Pohl's wish, was also included in Staff W on the organizational chart. Staff W in its entirety consequently was only a square on the organizational chart, therefore, with fields of tasks in masses of property which had nothing whatsoever to do with each other. However, this can be explained more clearly by means of the chart which has not been translated as yet.
Q. What position did you occupy at the time within Staff W?
A. I, myself, was outside of the WVHA as a result of my contract. The auditors and the secretary, however, did belong to the main office of administration and economy and later on to the WVHA. The auditors and the secretary had been furnished me in order to carry out my auditing work.
Q. In the course of your examination you mentioned briefly a daily mail or correspondence conference. Please describe to the Tribunal some of the details in this matter and show in particular the methods of these conferences.
A. In order to understand this daily discussion of the mail we must start from the point that first of all only the auditors and I attended. The first mail which was discussed, consequently, was the mail which referred to auditing work, and the mail with regard to the central organization of the stocks and shares of the various companies. After the so-called corporation charters had been concluded, the entire tax mail, which referred to taxation matters, also arrived. Herr Amsorge, who was with me at the beginning as an auditor, first of all temporarily, had been furnished by the DWB and he worked, therefore, four hours and at that time already he had compiled some small statistics. This mail was also discussed. And the same procedure was followed afterwards, when the experts statutes of the DWB were also completed; that is to say, they did not have to comply with my advice any more as had been the case at the beginning; they did not know the field of work at all and I had to show them everything that had to be done.
Q. Was the entire mail which arrived for "Staff W" discussed at these conferences?
A. No, only the mail with regard to the auditing work was discussed, the mail about the taxation matters and the statistics. These were the things with which I was personally connected as a result of my consulting activity. However, we did not discuss the mail of the various enterprises which belonged to the so-called Staff W and we did not discuss those which were administered directly in the offices of Staff W in Berlin. As far as I can recall, only part of the mail which arrived for the legal department was discussed there, if it just happened to arrive there by accident.
Q. Witness, I now want to refer to the time after the WVHA had been established on the 1st of February 1942. Did this reorganization have any effect on your position and your activity?
A. No, the reorganization of the main office administration and economy did not have any influence at all because I was an auditor of the Commercial Law Organization and we were not affected by this reorgani zation at all.
Toward the outside only we received a military designation as listed on this chart.
DR. HEIM: In connection with the establishment of the WVHA it seems appropriate to me to describe the statutes of the DWB within the organization of the WVHA and also the position of the so-called Staff W. I believe that whatever has been stated in this trial was only part of the entire organization; that is to say, it was only fragmentary and it did not give us a clear picture of the economic enterprises after the establishment of the WVHA. In order to gain a more complete insight into this matter, I have compiled four charts in Hohberg Document Book I that is to say, I have included these charts in this document book. The document book has not as yet been translated. At least, I have succeeded in having three charts translated. In this connection I offer Hohberg Document No. 12 as Hohberg Exhibit 1. It is a chart entitled "The Organizational Chart of the DWB up to the 30th of June 1943". I further offer Hohberg Document No. 13a, which will become Exhibit 2. It is a chart entitled "Staff W until the 30th of June 1943". A mistake has occurred in this document "Hohberg No. 13a". The document should read No. 13a. I had enlarged photostats made of this chart. Unfortunately I do not have the English translation available yet and I take it upon myself for the time being to submit this chart in German and I shall offer it as an exhibit as soon as I can submit it to the Tribunal in the English text.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll take the customary recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session
DR. HEIM: Before continuing with the examination, I should like to correct a mistake in the translation. The witness testified that Dr. Salpeter had been in a position to discharge himself as a manager, that he could dismiss himself but the interpreter has translated it as "he could dismiss himself."
If the Tribunal please, just before the recess, Document Hohberg's No. 12 was offered, which became Exhibit No. 1, and it is entitled "Organizational Chart of the DWB" until the 20 July 1943, as Exhibit No. 2. I offer Hohberg's Document No. 13-A. Hohberg's Document 13-B I offer as a photostatic copy of charts of Staff-W up to 20 July 1943. This should become Exhibit No. 3. This chart has not been translated as yet, and I would, therefore, like to ask the Court in the meanwhile whether the German plans suffice. The translators have a copy of this plan, and in the course of the examination will offer translation of the copy. As a fourth document, I should like to offer Hohberg's No. 14, which will become Exhibit No. 4, which is a chart called Staff-W after 30 June 1943. That chart has been drawn up exclusively because of the documents submitted by the Prosecution No. 854, which was Prosecution's Exhibit No. 401.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, would you please give us your comments on the organizational chart of the DWB, which is Hohberg's Document No. 12, and which is Exhibit No. 1. Why according to the chart was there between the DWB and the WVHA any collaboration at all? If the Tribunal please, this is Hohberg's Document No. 12.
A. The DWB concern was not part of the WVHA, but it was a top organization consisting of a large number of independent firms, and they formed a holding company. Pohl, who had been trained in the administrative services of the army, gave to the concern, set up on a commercial status under law military terms, such as "Office Group", "Office Chief", "Office", "Staff", and so forth.
The picture which results there is completely incorrect. Pohl achieved thereby only one thing. He managed to have the whole of the DWB concern, parallel to his own department, to appear on one organizaional chart. That was a plaything from the point of view of the description of an organizational chart as such, but basically a masterpiece. For the DWB concern it had no value whatsoever. The disadvantage became clear, because now the Prosecution base themselves on the assumption that the DWB concern was a government department. In order to make this quite clear, a separation line has been drawn in the document between the official SS organizations, such as Office Groups A to D, on the one hand, and the commercial organization on the other. It becomes clear at once that Pohl was the first manager, partner, and that he had at the same time, as chief of the WVHA, the official supervision over the concern.
Q. Therefore, we had Pohl in his person uniting the two functions, namely, the WVHA and the DWB; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. How could one see from the beginning that DWB had nothing to do with the WVHA but was completely separated, apart, of course, from Pohl uniting the two things in his person?
A. Pohl was the first manager and Loerner the second. These two as well as the officials of the DWB and the directors and managers and the managers and officials of the subsidiary companies, were not entered in the commercial register with the SS titles but simply with their civilian names and with their status under commercial law, commercial registers.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Counsel , please, I presume this will become clear as we go along, but I would like to put the question immediately because it is fresh right now. DWB was in no way connected with WVHA, you tell us, but the industries within DWB did employ, did they not, concentration camp labor? I'd like to have that answered.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, you heard his Honor's questions. Will you please give us your comments?
A. Yes, indeed. It was like this: From among the 40 companies of the DWB concern, six or seven employed inmates. Those inmates were not employed by the WVHA, but by the subsidiary companies of the DWB. In other words, it is the same as if the Junkers or Heinkel Works, as indeed they did, were to employ inmates.
THE PRESIDENT: Before when you were testifying you said there were 20 companies of which three employed inmates.
A. Mr. President, may I point out that I said that while I was the official auditor there, twenty companies were established, and of those, three employed inmates. But the total of all firms amounted to 40 companies, and there were six employing inmates.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, what you wanted to say is that at your time twenty companies were newly established; that is to say, added to the ones that already existed?
A. Quite right.
Q. Witness, I would like you now to look at the chart which is Document Hohberg 13-B. This is a photostatic copy which the Court unhappily has only in the German language. The document is called "Staff W until 30 June 1943". It represents a larger and more detailed description of Document Hohberg 13-A. Will you please give us your comments on this chart for the benefit of the Tribunal?
A. The triangle in the middle is the DWB. Right on top it gives the name of the partner Pohl. If the Tribunal please, I may add here that German commercial registers never mention the name of the owner, if somebody is listed as a trustee.