THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, about five to ten minutes and the prosecution will be through with this witness. Just a few more questions and it will be over.
Q Witness, during the time that you were in the WVHA did you ever see a table of organization of the WVHA?
A I cannot recall that at all. I may have seen one hanging on a wall. However, I didn't go to the effort of looking at it closely, because I didn't know this organizational chart from the front and I had not established any main departments within my office.
Q While you were in the WVHA, did you ever hear of Office D-II, which was labor allocation?
A I cannot say if this was D-II. I only knew it for the following reason. Every month I had to write down requisitions for the inmates of Amtsgruppe D and I knew that this was submitted to Amtsgruppe D. However, I don't know anything about the individual fields of task there.
Q You had to write down requisitions for Office D-II, did you say?
A No, these requisitions of inmates were not passed on by us to Amtsgruppe D of Office D-II. As I have already said, these inmates were already there. Certain requisitions were handled there.
Q Do you knew generally the function of Amtsgruppe C or Division W?
A What it was? That was the administration of the concentration camps.
Q Did you know that they used inmate labor?
A I stated that I knew that they were employed in the camps in small details. The same was as it was in the work shops. However, I did not know anything about a mass allocation of inmates in the war industries. It would be different if I could have constantly visited concentration camps; of course, I would have noticed this fact.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Where did you make requisitions to for the inmates that were working under your office?
THE WITNESS: Could you please repeat your question once more. I didn't quite understand it.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: You have testified that you had about 20 inmates of concentration camps working under your office, B-II.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: To where did you make requisition for their maintenance to?
THE WITNESS: They were not requisitions, Your Honor. The inmates were paid by us, by the Office Treasury of the WVHA. That is to say, they were paid a certain salary and this accounting that the inmates had been paid was confirmed by me every month. Just how the exact accounting was carried out I don't know. However, I had the impression that this was their salary for the inmates by which, first of all, their families were supported and I also know from the prisoners who had been in penal institutions before 1933 that in agricultural plants in my homeland they also made out these request slips and paid these prisoners. This was not a requisition, but I only signed the request for payment.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Now who furnished their food and clothing?
THE WITNESS: Food and clothing came from the small camp, as I have already stated. The inmates came in the morning at 8:30, and they were sent by cars to work and they returned to the camps at night and they received their food in the camp. They only received additional food from me.
Q Witness, did you ever hear, while you were in the WVHA, that there were concentration camps outside of Germany?
A No, I didn't hear anything at all.
Q Did you ever hear that there was a concentration camp at Dachau?
A Yes, I knew that.
Q At Sachsenhausen?
A Yes, I knew that too.
Q Buchenwald?
A I heard about Buchenwald. Yes, I did hear about Buchenwald. However, I heard of it most during the last months and after the war.
Q Did you ever hear that there was a concentration camp at Flossenbuerg?
A. I know it by name, yes.
Q At Ravensbrueck?
A That also.
Q Mauthausen?
A I know that too.
Q Auschwitz?
A. Yes, I know it also.
Q Neuengamme?
A Yes, I heard of it also.
Q Did you ever hear while you were in the WVHA of a concentration camp at Lublin?
A No, it is unknown to me.
Q Stutthoff?
A I don't know it either.
Q Natzweiler?
A I do not know that either.
Q Gross-Rosen?
A I cannot recall ever having heard that name.
Q Gorss-Rosen?
A. Well, I said I cannot recall ever having heard that name before.
Q Did you ever hear of a camp at Gross-Rosen?
THE PRESIDENT: He answered that.
MR. WALTON: I didn't know, Sir, whether he was talking of Natzweiler.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no. Gross-Rosen. He said he can't remember having heard of it.
Q Did you ever hear of a camp at Nordhausen?
A No, I didn't know a camp existed there.
Q Did you ever hear of a camp located at Bergen-Belsen?
A No, I never heard of it.
Q In these camps that you heard of, which is about half of them, did it ever occur to you that was a large amount of concentration camps for German Nationals only?
A Mr. Prosecutor, May I tell you my point of view as a soldier? Perhaps, this will give you an answer. I thought the concentration camps disposed over ten-thousand rifles. For each six we had one guard, consequently, we had sixty-thousand inmates. I was unable to know anything about the size and the extent of the concentration camps.
Q You said that you knew about Auschwitz. Did it ever occur to you that was rather a far way or distance to have German Nationals sent to a concentration camp?
A I could not tell you any more today where and when I heard the name. I can not tell you whether this was Germany, or Poland, or something of that sort. I just don't know.
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution has no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any questions, Dr. Hoffman; also any further questions from any other defense counsel. The Marshal may remove the witness.
(witness excused)
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I as defense counsel of the Defendant Scheide, after the statement by the prosecution, and after what the statement by the prosecution, and after what we have heard here now in this trial, I still have the question whether the defendant Scheide did not know anything at all about the exterminations in the concentration camps, and the other atrocities. I believe that it is my duty as his defense counsel to clarify this question by introducing an affidavit, which has already been presented to the first trial. It is an affidavit which is contained in Document Book II, page 83 of the English Document Book. It is Scheide's Document IMT on 26 June 1946 on behalf of the SS, and, afterwards it was also submitted to the International Tribunal and the senior defense counsel there. This document is of importance to me for the following reasons:
Firstly, it contains a statement about the extermination of the Jews and the conditions in concentration camps from a witness, who gave this affidavit already on 1 June 1946. That is at a time when these things were not yet known through the press, the radio, or through the trials made.
This document also shows that the SS Tribunal in the year of 1944 began to investigate these matters, and that they were the first ones to find out these atrocities. This document further shows that the man in charge of the investigations, who deposed this affidavit, states that the circle of persons who committed these atrocities was extremely small, and that the secrecy was handled in such a way that even the chiefs of the main offices of the SS, in his opinion, could not possibly have known anything about these matters. This is of extreme importance for my client. I believe that this will also decide for him whether he was rather far removed from all these things and could not actually have obtained any knowledge of these things. In this document the Tribunal will also find a statement, which is on page 9 of the document, page 91 of the English Document Book II, which reads as follows:
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the defendant Oswald Pohl. May it please the Tribunal, the defense of the defendant Scheide contends to introduce document 35 contained in a document book. This affidavit by Morgan contains a number of accusations against other defendants in this trial. Amongst other things, it also contains accusations against Pohl, when I represent here. I, therefore, request this affidavit should only be admitted with the reservation that the signer of this affidavit, formerly SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Morgen, should be placed at the disposal here for cross examination by the defense. In view of the fact that the accusations brought forth here, which have not been brought forth as yet by the Prosecution, I request that this affidavit should only be admitted with the reservation that the defendant Oswald Pohl personally will be given an opportunity to testify in the witness stand about these new accusations which are now raised against him. He was unable to make any statement about that on the witness stand in the course of my examination, because these accusations were not as yet known at the time, and no body could count on the fact that such accusations would be brought forth in the course of this trial by the defense.
I want to point out at this time that I request in particular that Dr. Morgen should be called here together with the formal legal officer of the SS, Dr. Schmidt-Klewenow.
DR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, in this connection I would like to say the following: I don't want to explain any longer why I consider this affidavit necessary. Moreover, I am of the conviction that I have to submit it on behalf of my client. Of course, I agree to a cross examination. I don't think that the accusations which are now raised against the defendant Pohl and others contain more than what Morgen has stated. However, it is of importance for me that the secrecy is confirmed at a time when nobody knew that the defendant Scheide later on would be accused. Also from this objective investigation, which took place under an utterly different condition at a time that this circle of people who committed the atrocities only consisted of some hundred people, or so therefore, the charges against the defendant Scheide can not be maintained. I therefore, insist upon submitting this document, even though this will bring wrath of my colleagues upon me.
THE PRESIDENT: The date of the document does not appear in the copy which I have here. It is 13 July, but the year is not given when the document was sworn to. What year was that?
DR. HOFFMANN: It was 5 July 1946. That is the date which is contained here, 13 July.
THE PRESIDENT: 13 July.
DR. HOFFMANN: The 5th of July. July 5. Oh yes, Your Honor, the 13th of July. It is the year of 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Rauschenbach.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Dr. Rauschenbach for the defendant Frank. The defendant Frank is also concerned in this affidavit. I, therefore, join the request of my colleague, Dr. Seidl, and I want to go beyond this request in the following respect.
According to the principle of presenting the best possible evidence, which was particularly adhered to in the trial before the IMT, I request that this affidavit be rejected. I would like to request also that the defense counsel of the defendant Scheide be requested, if he wants to submit this affidavit, to call Dr. Morgen personally onto the witness stand. He is located in the prison, and he can be called here at any time. I also want to announce that because of the importance of this matter that I will have to confront Dr. Morgen, not only with regard to my client, whom I represent, the defendant Frank, but also the defendant Dr. Hoven from the medical trial, and to the witness Dr. Kogon, who was here once before this Tribunal, because these two witnesses will be able to say something decisive about the veracity of the witness Dr. Morgen.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, we have a faint recollection of another affidavit of Dr. Morgan's which was presented earlier in the trial during the Prosecution's offer of proof. Was it admitted?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes. Well, it was offered on the cross examination of defendant Vogt, and it was marked for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't this affidavit?
MR. ROBBINS: It isn't this affidavit. It contains some of the same information.
THE PRESIDENT: It has not been admitted in evidence?
MR. ROBBINS: It has not been admitted. It has just been offered for identification, and the Prosecution intended to offer it later to impeach and contradict the defendant Vogt.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Morgan is in custody here in Nurnberg?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor. I believe the Court inquired as to that at the time we offered the affidavit, or marked it for identification and at that time I stated that he was on that day testifying in Dachau, I believe he has been returned since that time.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, may I say the following in this connection: Contrary to the opinion of my colleague Seidl, I have presented this document because of its importance for the Defense, and for these reasons which I have already given, I want to present it because it was already given in June 1946 and because it contains statements which show just how strict secrecy was kept and that it was impossible that the defendant Scheide could have had any knowledge of it. However, I am perfectly willing to have the witness Morgan called. However, the importance of this affidavit to the questions of secrecy is already shown by the testimony before the IMT.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution has just been asked by the Tribunal whether the Prosecution had already introduced an affidavit by Dr. Morgan. I can recall that only one affidavit was introduced. This was in the cross examination of the witness Dr. Schmidt Klewenow.
However, in the supplementary document book which the Prosecution submitted afterwards and in which the documents are contained which were introduced for identification, I have found a document by Dr. Morgan which is not identical with the affidavit of Dr. Morgan which was shown to the witness Dr. Schmidt-Klewenow in the course of the cross examination. The affidavit which was shown to Dr. Schmidt-Klewenow was a short affidavit which consisted of only three pages. The other affidavit, on the other hand, is a very large affidavit, and it is approximately ten pages in the German text. I am not quite sure whether two documents were introduced by the Prosecution or whether this is not all a mistake here. If the second document is to be presented by the Prosecution and if this is done on the assumption that this was the same document which was shown to Dr. Schmidt-Klewenow, then I would have to object to the admissibility of the document. I therefore request the Prosecution to explain just how many affidavits by Dr. Morgan have so far been introduced.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, there has been only one affidavit of Dr. Morgan's which was marked for identification. It is true that another Morgan affidavit was shown to Schmidt-Klewenow by Mr. Higgins when he was cross examining him. However, it was not marked for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, during the noon recess, I'll compare the affidavit which was marked for identification as Exhibit 554 with the one which is in the document book and make sure that it is the same affidavit. I think Mr. Robbins' explanation probably clears that up.
The affidavit of Dr. Morgan, Exhibit 27, will be admitted in evidence in defense of the witness Scheide. In as much as it contains accusations against other defendants, the witness may be called in person for cross examination as to any matters contained in the affidavit which implicate any other defendant.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: Is the ruling clear to you, Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Your Honor. However, I would like a decision on my request according to which the defendant can make a statement himself with regard to these accusation, and I would like to know whether a request of mine could be granted to confront the witness Dr. Schmidt-Klewenow with Dr. Morgan.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, the defendant Pohl can be recalled only to refute any statements which Morgan might make while testifying. That is true of any other defendant who is affected by Morgan's testimony: That defendant can take the witness stand and refute the accusations.
Now, what was it about the witness Schmidt-Klewenow?
DR. SEIDL: I would like to have Dr. Morgan called here and Dr. Schmidt Klewenow at the same time and have them confront each other.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you just want them to see each other, or what?
DR. SEIDL: No, Your Honor. I would like the witness Dr. Schmidt-Klewenow to be present when the witness Dr. Morgan is examined, and then I would like to call him as a witness with regard to the statements made by Dr. Morgan.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, wait a minute. This puts us back about to the first of May in the trial. Schmidt-Klewenow has already testified, has he not?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Your Honor. However, he has not made any statements with regard to the new accusations of Dr. Morgan which are contained in this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, he has already denied the statements made by Dr. Morgan. I mean Schmidt-Klewenow has. Now you are going to put Morgan on to repeat his statements and then put Schmidt-Klewenow on to repeat his denial, and that could go on forever.
DR. SEIDL: I suggest, Your honor, that the decision about this request be postponed until the cross examination of Dr. Morgan has taken place and has been completed.
THE PRESIDENT: The decision will be postponed indefinitely.
MR. ROBBINS: I should like just to remind Dr. Seidl of two things. One is that Schmidt-Klewenow was asked about his opinion -
THE PRESIDENT: I just ruled with you, Mr. Robbins. You need not labor the point unless you just want to express yourself.
MR. ROBBINS: Very well.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, the defendant Scheide has just sent me a note to the effect that he does not feel well. Could he be briefly excused from the courtroom?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, He can be excused for the rest of this session and the rest of the day, if necessary.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I would like to read several phrases from the document which has just been admitted on behalf of Scheide. First of all, I would like to say something with regard to the question which the Tribunal put to the defendant yesterday -- the question of who actually carried out the rail transports. On page 91 of this affidavit, page 91 of the English Document Book, in the center of Page 1, Line 17 from above it states:
"The railways had to transport the Jews by numbered trains as used in the transportation of soldiers. In this way the station of departure and the transient station could not know the place of destination. The management of the trains was conducted by WehrmachtTransportation Headquarters. The escorting personnel was assigned by the Foreign Police authorities to the Reich border, within the Reich territory this duty was exercised by the German or the transport escorting commands of the Waffen-SS, which in general were detailed for the escort of war transports of all kinds. Members of the guard units of the concentration camp concerned were used only for transfers from one camp to another. In this way the transports arrived at the extermination camp, without anyone of those cooperating up to that stage possibly suspecting the secret purpose of this transport."
I then should like to go on, and I want to quote on page 92 where the question of secrecy is discussed:
"The cooperation of members of the SS was therefore restricted to the commander, the physician, the driver, the exterminator and the guards. Here we are discussing the extermination question. Germans in this operation were only the commander, the medical officer and the exterminator. Thus it was again assured that secrecy was maintained not only by compulsory discretion under oath, but also by the difficulties with regard to a linguistic understanding between the majority of those informed about the events and the German population or the German members of the SS. Thus, it is quite possible that people in foreign countries perhaps know more about those events than those in Germany itself."
From this the medical officer, the commander, were German in this case.
And now I want to go back to page 90. Here this affidavit states the following:
"The circle of the active perpetrators, participants and informed persons was an extraordinary small one. I estimate the number of those in some way connected with the extermination of human beings comprising all those concerned - to several hundred. Most of them have probably died in the meantime."
Then the author of this affidavit on page 88 makes the following statement. That is the second paragraph of page 88: Here it shows the possibility of the things which brought about this action:
"By Himmler's personal behavior the recognition of the actual conditions became completely confused. Upon my first remonstrance, Himmler immediately agreed to the investigation, dropped without mercy the former big-wigs of the concentration camps that had been seized and decreed in repeated orders ruthless measures. Therefore, at the beginning it was hardly conceivable that in this case it could be the question of a system and that Himmler himself should be the author of certain kinds of concentration camp systems. It just seemed to be unthinkable, in view of the education of the SS to manly sincerity, frankness and honesty, to think the Reichsfuehrer SS capable of such insidious activities and of being two-faced, the hidden face bearing the characteristics of a common criminal."
I have now reached the end of my preparation as far as this affidavit is concerned. I now would like to introduce a number of documents which are located in my document book. I only want to give the exhibits a number, because I don't want to read them here in detail.
In document Book I, I want to introduce Scheide Document I. This is an affidavit by Fritz Ebert, who was working in Office B-5 with Scheide. I want to give this exhibit No. 28. Ebert can testify about the work of Scheide.
In Document Book I, I also want to introduce document 14. I will give this exhibit No. 29. This is an excerpt from the Gazette of the Waffen SS. Then I want to introduce document Scheide No. 16, and will give it number 30.
This was an extract from the Gazette of the Waffen SS.
Then I want to introduce Document 18, which I will give Number 31. This is also an excerpt from the Gazette of the Waffen SS.
Then I want to introduce Document 25 in Document Book I, and will provide it with exhibit No. 32. This is an affidavit about the character of the defendant Scheide.
I will introduce Scheide Document 26 and will give it exhibit No. 33.
Then Scheide Document 27, and this will become Exhibit 34, and Scheide Document 28. This will become exhibit 35.
Scheide Document 29 will become exhibit 36.
The last few documents are a summary about the attitude of the defendant Scheide from 1933 until the war ended, and I therefore would like the Tribunal to take Judicial notice of this.
In Document Book 2, I also want to introduce several documents. However, I want to be able to present them together with other documents, which I shall present later on. For the time being my presentation of evidence on behalf of the defendant Scheide is now completed.
THE PRESIDENT: In Document Book I, Dr. Hoffman, Document 12, and Document 20, you did not give those exhibit numbers.
DR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, I do not want to introduce Document 12. Scheide Document 20 is Exhibit 13-A, because Exhibit 13 and 13-A belong together.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you intend to offer further proof?
DR. HOFFMAN: I shall submit several other documents later on. I request permission to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents are not ready yet?
DR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, these documents are not ready yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you close your case, but you wish leave to offer further proof in the way of documents.
DR. HOFFMAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Defendant Hohberg is the next one to offer his defense. We will start the defense at the afternoon session.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345.
(Thereupon the noon recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1350 hours, 11 July 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
HANS KARL HOHBERG, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE PHILLIPS: You may be seated.
DR. HEIM: Dr. Heim for the Defendant, Dr. Hohberg.
May it please Your Honors, I shall begin the presentation of evidence for the defendant, Dr. Hohberg, by calling the defendant as a witness in his own behalf. I furthermore shall examine other additional witnesses as well as use documents.
As I have found out, the two document books which I introduce for the Defendant Hohberg have not been translated as yet, although I turned them in about four weeks ago to the translation department.
May it please Your Honors, I shall show you by calling the defendant as a witness what activity the Defendant Hohberg carried out for the Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetriebe, G.m.b.H., the German Economic Enterprises and what his position was there. In order to explain his activity as an auditor and consultant to the DWB, it is absolutely necessary to discuss questions in connection with the audits and economic consultation for instance, economic advice and advice on tax matters. All these questions are closely connected with the presentation of evidence, so that knowledge of them is a basic necessity, particularly since the profession of auditors and economic consultants is hardly known in Germany. I shall deal with those questions only as briefly as necessary. I shall, however, have to discuss the organization of Amtsgruppe W more in detail.
Dr. Hohberg is the first defendant who has been brought to a connection with Amtsgruppe W by the Prosecution.
Furthermore in the course of this trial the last existing unclarities concerning Amtsgruppe W were absolutely eliminated. Finally I shall have the witness comment on a few documents, and I shall also examine him in brief terms concerning his activity after his work as an economic consultant to the DWB was ended in the middle of 1943.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness, please give us your full name.
A Hans Karl Hohberg.
Q When and where were you born?
A I was born on the 21st of April 1906, at Winzenheim in Alsace.
Q Will you please tell us your curriculum vitae and education until Hitler seized the power in Germany?
A First of all I went to the gymnasium in Strasbourg in Alsace, and then after the end of the First World War my father was deported from Alsace due to the fact that all Protestant ministers of German origin were expelled from Alsace. Then I visited the gymnasium in a city in Westphalia. I graduated there. I went through a commercial training course; then I went to the universities in Cologne and Freiburg, and I studied plant economy. Then in 1928 I received my commercial diploma. Then I became assistant to a Director in one of Cologne's enterprises, and then I became an auditor in a chain store concern. I resumed my studies and in Cologne I received my doctor's degree by writing a literary work dealing with the Reich finance policy at the time of the Dowes and Young plan with Professor Mann later in Washington. Immediately after that I became an auditor and later on I worked with an auditing enterprise at Hamburg, which was part of the banking house Warburg. That was in 1933.
Q What were the decisive circumstances and conditions during all this time which brought about your political ideas and ideology?
A The way I had been brought up was one of the decisive factors. My family was very liberal and not orthodox at all. My stepmother also came from a parson's family and my youth actually was very much influenced by my father's activity for an understanding between Germany and Alsace. Later on I became a member of a Christian Student Union. My personal ideology went along a certain line due to the fact that I worked as a locksmith in one of the mines during my holidays. I gained Socialist ideas there curing my studies which were undermined because the particular professor who gave us lectures in Cologne where I completed my studies tried to prove the Marxistic theories on a plant economy basis. I do not want to speak more in detail about those things. This question deals mostly with the overhead expenses in factories and the accumulation of capital. That is the plant economy under the marxist theory about the accumulation of capital.
Q Witness, will you please explain to us your professional activities from 1933 onwards until you had your first contact with the SS and Pohl.
A In 1933 I tried for a whole year to become independent in my profession in Dortmund. However, that was not a final solution because I had not yet completed my studies as an auditor. I then became an auditor for a Berlin auditing enterprise and in order to complete taxation questions which existed I worked for 2-½ years in Berlin with an auditor who also dealt with taxation matters. Last, I was a head concern auditor. In the meantime I passed my examination in Berlin as an economic auditor. After that I returned to my old. company where I had worked previously; first I worked in Berlin and then I went to Vienna. Then I took over the main branch of that company in Koenigsberg for the whole German eastern territory.
Q What contact did you have with the NSDAP from 1933 to 1940? By that I mean the NSDAP and its affiliated organizations.
A In 1933 I went on several occasions to special meetings of the SA. The reason why I went was because I liked to ride on motor bikes. I was there three or four times. That's all. We drank beer at night and carried out gymnastics during the daytime. That was all. Later on I was to be taken over by the Reich Finance Department in Berlin. Of course, I had to be a member of the Party to get such a job. Without my knowing about it I was put down as a proposed member of the Party by the Reich Finance Department. I was asked if I wanted to collaborate. I refused to do so, whereupon I was immediately dismissed. That was my contact with the NSDAP.
Q What did you do from 1940 to 1943?
A I was an independent economic auditor in Berlin and during all that time I mainly audited the most important economic enterprises of Pohl, the SS economic enterprises.
Q When did you complete the economic auditing work you carried out for Pohl?
A On 30 June 1943.
Q What did you do then?
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Do I understand the witness to say that he did independent auditing for the defendant Pohl from 1940 to 1943?
DR. HEIM: I don't quite understand the question. Would you repeat it please?
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Do I understand the witness to testify that he did independent auditing for the defendant Pohl between the years 1940 and 1943?
DR. HEIM: Yes, that is what the defendant stated, Your Honor.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: And had no connection with the WVHA?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, in the course of this examination I shall discuss the defendant's activities in detail with reference to his auditing work for the DWB.