With brief intervals, Berger was chief of the SS Main Office and, therefore, knows all about the terms "Office Chief". I will read, if I may, from this document, the fifth paragraph. It also has the figure "2" in front of it.
"Himmler himself appointed office chiefs either directly or at the suggestion of the Chief of the main Office; likewise their removal or their employment otherwise."
Finally I should like to offer Document Hohberg No. 19 as exhibit No. 8. It can be found on page 41 of the Document Book. Also I should like to offer Document Hohberg No. 20 as exhibit No. 9, which is on page 45 of the Document Book Hohberg No. I, and it is an additional affidavit to Hohberg Document No. 19. That Document is an affidavit by one Dr. Ferdinand Bodesheim, a lawyer by profession, and he is now working in the Hessian Ministry Economic Affairs, on personnel matters. His experience and knowledge is such that it enables Dr. Bodesheim to comment on the question of an office chief. I would like to read from that document on page 42 of the Document Book, just one brief paragraph. This is part of the first big paragraph, and roughly is in the middle of it. "Neither the concern nor the enterprise connected with it became administrative authorities or public corporations, but remained legally subject to civil law. As such, they were also subject to compulsory auditing, or to voluntary examination of their balance sheet. In Germany these examinations have to be carried out by professional independent auditors who act by virtue of an order to audit or advise. By this order, the auditor enters into a contractual relationship to the individual companies, similar to a relationship between two private firms, one of which commissions the other to do a certain job. This contractual relationship is not a dependant service relationship, but, in accordance with the nature of auditor's work, an independent, free contract, which may be compared somewhat to an attorney's assignment." Then I would like to ask the court to take judicial notice of the balance of this document. I shall not read, it now.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness, when you were appointed Office Chief, you were not given an official document, were you?
A No, nothing was put on in writing of that nature. On the contrary, I could draw your own attention to the fact that in Pohl's organizational charts, and which is dated a few months later, that not one word is said about chief of Staff-W.
Q Witness, I shall speak about that later on. Your so-called appointment as office chief was that done through the SS Main Personnel Office? As the affidavit of Berger said, that would have been compulsory?
A No, the whole thing was done on the impulse on the part of Pohl, and I regarded it as a ballon d'essaye, as it were, to bring me into closer contact with the SS, somehow or other.
Q Was that appointment at all possible in accordance with regulations of the SS, which you know of?
A There were firm regulations issued by Himmler, and the membership to the SS and the Party were a matter of course. For that reason I really regarded the whole thing as sort of a joke.
Q Witness, did that designation "stick" to you, so to speak?
A No, Pohl would revoke it officially by informing the Institute of Auditors.
Q Please tell us briefly how that designation was officially canceled.
A Briefly, after the designation had been coined, a movement set in against me on the part of the SS leaders. There was an anonymous denouncement addressed to the auditors that I was now in office as Chief of Staff-W, and that, therefore, I was carrying out the function of a director, whereas, as an auditor I had to be independent. The letter suggested to deprive me of my qualifications as an auditor. Pohl succeeded in tracking down the man who had written the anonymous letter, and he was sent to one year in prison. I immediately informed Dr. SchmidtKlevenow, who was then the court officer, that the man whom I suspected was one of my auditors could not have been the writer of this letter. The sentence was done on the basis of circumstantial evidence, because three letters on the typewriter were identical with the one used in the anonymous denunciation. I insisted that Dr. Schmidt-Klevenow would at least have examined the other letters which were done on a typewriter, because then it would have become clear, that these letters were entirely different.
That Dr. Schmidt-Klevenow did not feel like doing that. He refused to have any further examinations. The attorney acting on behalf of the defendant had not been given the chance to acquaint himself with the indictment. He had just been shown it briefly during the trial, and the sentence of one years imprisonment was confirmed. I should like to mention that on Pohl's birthday, on the 13th of June 1942, photographs were taken of all office chiefs of the WVHA. These photographs were bought by a British Airforce Captain Walter at the Berlin photographer Binder. For that gift for Pohl's birthday I was not photographed. I remember exactly that at the time all the office chiefs went to the photographer in their solemn uniforms. I stood by and looked on. Nobody had the idea to tell me why don't you come along and have your picture taken as one of the office chiefs. By that I want to express that the other office chiefs also did not regard me as an office chief.
DR. HEIM: If the Tribunal please, I have attempted to get these photographs which the British occupational forces have confiscated. I was even in a position to give the name of the British officer who confiscated these pictures from the photographer Binder in Berlin. But unhappily I did not succeed in getting the photographs, because it would be extremely important in my case in order to prove that the defendant Hohberg was not regarded as an office chief, because his picture was not taken when all the other office chiefs had their pictures taken by the photographer Binder.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness, in the chart kept by the Prosecutor of the WVHA of 1942, your name is not listed. This is Document NO-111, Exhibit No. 38, in Document Book II of the Prosecution. No staff-W is listed in this chart either. It only says under Pohl the words "Economic Auditors," and in addition there it says,"DWB". Does that refer to you?
AActually under the term "Economic Auditors" that document is concerned. By the way I should like to call to the court's attention the fact that it shows "auditor" and underneath it says, "Inspector," and then comes some brackets, and it says, "DWB, GMBH."
Actually by adding "DWB" here it is an attempt to show where each persons can be found. It is merely a local designation. The inspector of an enterprise, which is followed by "DWB" in this document, was at that time Maurer, who originally was chief of Office W-4, and who before he joined the Office Group-D, was temporarily employed in the DWB as so called inspector of the enterprise. He travelled from plant to plant, and reported to Pohl.
Q Is this subordination of you under Pohl correct as the chart shows it?
A I don't see here any subordination as referred to under the document, it is merely, so far as I am concerned, showing that I am mentioned there such as one might be mentioned on an organizational plan of a concern.
DR. HEIM: If the Court please, I believe this would be an opportune moment to have a recess, because I shall next speak about another document.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, the Court will call a recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345 hours.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 14 July 1947.)
DR. HEIM: May it please the Tribunal, on Friday in the examination of the witness. I could not offer the Hohberg document book which refers to the examination of the defendant as a witness in his own behalf. Now that Document Book 1 has been offered for the defendant Hohberg, I would like to ask whether the Tribunal desires that I should now offer these documents or whether I should offer them after the examination of the witness has been completed.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless there is something special and additional in the document book which has not been covered by the witness's testimony, we suggest that you simply offer the document book.
DR. HEIM: I didn't quite hear your statement, Your Honor, and I would like for you to repeat it, if you please.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless there is something new and special in your document book, I suggest that you simply offer the remaining documents in evidence.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, Your Honor. I now offer from Hohberg Document Book 1 on page 1 of both the German and English text Hohberg Document No. 1, as Exhibit 10. On page 2 of the document book I want to offer Hohberg Document Book No. 2 as Exhibit 11.
THE PRESIDENT: May I help you to go a little faster? Do you offer Documents 3 to 15 inclusive? To be numbered Exhibits 12, 13, and so on?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, if I have understood you correctly, then you said whether in connection with Document Book No. 14, these documents have been offered by me. Up to now I have offered 9 documents and now Document Hohberg 1 was Exhibit No. 10.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 3 is Exhibit 12; Document 4, is Exhibit 13, and so on, to No. 11?
DR. HEIM: Yes, your Honor.
Your Honor, I would like to go into a little more detail, very briefly, with regard to these documents. Documents No. 1 and 2, Exhibits 10 and 11, contain the legal regulations about the public owned and state owned enterprises, and Document 1, Exhibit 10, contains the main law. In Document Hohberg, 2, Exhibit 11, we have excerpts from the exact auditing descriptions. In Document 2, Exhibit 11, paragraph 7, the following is stated, "Auditors in the sense of these regulations are publicly appointed certified public accounts."
In paragraph 9 of this document we have the extent to which the auditor is authorized to examine the books of all of the enterprises.
Hohberg Document 3 is Exhibit No. 12. It is located on page 6 of the Document book. It is an excerpt from the law about the joint stock companies and about the partnerships, limited by shares.
The document refers in particular to the auditing of the yearly balance sheet. In particular I would like to point out Article 137, paragraph 2 which is on page 6, at the bottom of page 6, in the English document book.
I will now read the second paragraph of Article 14 which is on page 7 at the top: "Members of the Vorstand or Board of Supervisors, as well as employees of the cor poration may not be elected or appointed auditors.
The same applies to members of the Vorstand or Board of Supervisors and employees of another corporation which controls or is controlled by the corporation to be audited, as well as to persons on whose conduct of business any one of the above corporations has any decisive influence."
Your Honor, this document shows that the defendant, Hohberg, could never be an employee of the DWB because in that case, he would have become prevented from carrying out his activities as an auditor.
Article 138, page 7 of his document book shows that the auditor may request the Vorstand for explanations.
Paragraph 140, contains the regulations about the confirmation, and the certification by the auditor.
Paragraph 142 states responsibility of the auditor.
In this case, he personally is liable to any sum up to 100,000 marks.
Document, Hohberg No. 4, page 9 of the document book, will become Exhibit 13. It is an excerpt from the Year Book of the official trustees for the year 1941. This excerpt tells us about the peculiarity of the profession of certified public accountants. It is a relatively short document, and I will take it upon myself, with the permission of the high Tribunal to read this one paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: This is just what I meant. It is not necessary to read these. We have them in front of us. You offered them in evidence and that is the way we learn what is in them.
DR. HEIM: Very well, your Honor.
The next document is Hohberg No. 5, will become Exhibit 14. This document shows the subordination of the defendant, Hohberg, as an auditor under the Institute of the 35 Public Accountants as expert agents.
Hohberg Document No. 6 will become Exhibit 15.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 7 will become 16.
DR. HEIM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And No. 8 will become Exhibit 17.
DR. HEIM: And document No. 9 will become Exhibit 18; Document 10 will become Exhibit 19, and Document No. 11 will become Exhibit 20.
THE PRESIDENT: And document No. 15 will become Exhibit 21.
DR. HEIM: 21, Your Honor. It is an affidavit, written by Dr. Hohberg, and it represents a detailed explanation. It is with regard to the 4 charts contained on the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: And that will be Exhibit 21.
DR. HEIM: It will become Exhibit 21, Your Honor. Your Honor I would like to stop here with the presentation of documents. Your Honor, I would like to continue in my examination of the witness. I am now coming to prosecution No. 2672, which was admitted as Exhibit No. 36 in Document Book 2 of the Prosecution.
It is an organizational chart of the WVHA. This chart was compiled by the prosecution and it was signed by the defendant, Pohl.
Witness, I would like to ask you, is this organizational chart correct so far as you are concerned?
A: It states here, "Business Manager Hohberg".
Pohl knew that neither Volk nor I was the business manager. Then here is another mistake here. It says Staff W. A special space would have to be left for me where I would have to be put down as an auditor. As it is indicated there, it is not correct.
Q: Does the chart on the wall correspond with the chart here, because this chart is supposed to be an enlardad reproduction of the document. I am not referring to any disagreement or agreement with you personally.
A: I have already stated once before, - I have made squares and I have compared these. Everything is correct in the chart except the part that refers to me.
The prosecution has added here, "Chief". However, that is not stated here.
Q: How do you explain the fact that Pohl left the designation of your person although at the time he expressly withdrew your appointment as office chief as you have described to us already in your course of your examination.
As Pohl has also said the same thing in his examination. He has stated that in reality my appointment as chief of staff W had no success because the legal prequisites were lacking.
Q: How do you explain the fact?
A: We must think from the beginning that he has been trained in military administration, and that he used exclusively military terms. That is to say, he was clearly accustomed to them. Pohl didn't use any commercial terms at all.
Q: Witness, please speak somewhat slower. Please explain to us just what position you actually occupied with the WVHA.
A: I did not occupy any position at all with the WVHA. I was an auditor of the Trade Association.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you have covered, very thoroughly and completely, the evidence of this position as indicated on the chart as Chief of Staff W. I think you have given us the entire story and I do not think you need question him further.
DR. HEIM: I am now coming to Document No. 1992, Prosecution Exhibit 59. It is contained in Document Book 3 of the prosecution. It is on page 63 of the English version. Doesn't your testimony contradict this document? Here we have an incoming mail note in the right upper corner, and under the word, "distribution" it is stated there: St W L HO 3/10". What does the abbreviation mean, "St. W. L. HO"?
A: That is to say the direction of Staff W. When the staff W existed and the auditors had been furnished to me, then Pohl prohibited me from using my own letterheads, whenever we had an interdepartmental correspondence. This was done, above all, because of the fact that in he enterprises there were many soldiers. Before the officials (Prokurists) arrived, the first work of the DWB was handled by my auditors. This was done mostly by the hour and these fields of task we expressed in the correspondence with certain letters. Dr. Wenner who was in charge of the Taxations Department also was an auditor first. Ansorge first was an auditor also. Petruska remained an auditor all the time and every person here received his own letter. Why this procedure was followed later on, after the DWB had been established and it had its own officials (Prokurists) that probably was done because we continued to handle these daily discussions of the arriving mail and our taxation matters and things of that kind. Factually, the same thing was still expressed on the stamp. Only the letter form leads us to a wrong conclusion, because this was only the direction of the auditors, while later on other fields of task were added. Furthermore, I would like to point out the following: In this organizational conception of Staff W the auditors, as far as their numbers were concerned, always played the most important part. Altogether we had 18 people in the so-called Staff W. Of them 10 to 12 would always be auditors.
Q: The two letters, "HO" probably are the statement of the fact that you signed this, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Please look at page 117 of Prosecution Document Book XIV. It is page 136 of the English Text. Here we have Document Book XIV.
It is page 135 of the English Text. Here we have Document NO-2178, Exhibit 403. In a letter from the 1st of June, Dr. Volk writes here to the House and Property Ownership, G.m.b.H. and to the Home and Settlement, G-.m.b.H., that effective today he has taken over the tasks of Dr. Hohberg as Chief of Staff W. Doesn't this document show that you were the Chief of Staff W?
A: No, I understand the document meant something different. Here it is stated "By order of Obergruppenfuehrer I have taken over the task of Dr. Hohberg, effective today, as Chief of Staff W." This does not refer to my person; it refers to the person who is taking over the position. Furthermore, this letter has a certain purpose. Dr. Volk wanted the personnel of the enterprises of which he was in charge, who also belonged to Staff W on the organizational chart, to be subordinate to the personnel administration of Ansorge. That was the entire purpose of this letter.
Q: In the same Document Book XIV, I refer to page 23 of the German text and page 29 of the English version. This is document NO-1039. It is Exhibit 384. Approximately in the middle of this document, which consists of several letters, is a letter signed "uncompleted work of Staff W." This letter bears the date of the 3rd of August, 1943. It is on page 29 of the English text. This letter is signed by you. In your previous testimony you have stated that you had left Staff W on the 30th of June, 1943 and that at that time you had completed your activity as an auditor of the DWB. This letter, however, is of the 3rd of August, 1943. Please explain to us this contrast with regard to the time.
A: On the 30th of June, 1945, I left Office W and early in August I became a soldier, and, in the meantime, I stayed mainly at my agricultural property in East Prussia.
Q: The prosecution has offered this letter apparently with the idea that they would be able to show that you were playing a major part in the direction of the Staff. On the basis of this document, the impression might arise that the completion of the 32 points which are contained in this letter belonged to your fields of task and that you left the uncompleted tasks to your successor. Accordingly, this document has been described here in the court on one occasion as the note of unfinished work. Please give us a statement with regard to this document, and please tell us why you wrote this letter as auditor of the DWB.
A: With regard to the methods of reporting used by German auditors and English auditors, there is a very big difference. In the German auditing reports, we usually have a long appendix with recommendations as far as the business management is concerned. In the English auditing reports this is not done. For myself it was a certain courtesy toward Pohl that I briefly wrote down all the points which I considered important for the handling of the business of Pohl. Here we are dealing with matters for which the business management as a whole was responsible. I as a consultant or an auditor could only give certain advice. Either the advice was taken or it was not. If my advice is not taken, then, I of course, do not bear any responsibility. Altogether I wrote down 32 points and I do not know whether I should comment now on each independent point.
Q: Please say something in general about the various points.
A: I believe, Your Honors, this would take too long, and I shall only use one example. According to law, it was necessary that increases in capital above a certain limit needed the permission of the Reich Minister of Economics. That is why I reminded Pohl of it. I reminded him that a number of contracts had not as yet been concluded and according to the German law it is mandatory that these written contracts are there.
THE PRESIDENT: The document is perfectly clear and plain, except for one thing. It appears to have been signed six days after you left the WVHA.
THE WITNESS: Even longer, Your Honor. It's more than a month later.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I want to repeat once more on the 30 of June I left there. Then I withdrew. Then I made a small pause prior to being called up for the military service. I was conscripted in Berlin, and I paid a farewell visit to Pohl and on this occasion I gave this courtesy to Pohl, this report.
THE PRESIDENT: This was kind of a swan song, a farewell letter you wrote after you left the WVHA while you were on the farm?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, it wasn't necessary for me to do that.
Q: I still want to ask you a very brief question Mr. Hohberg. This is the letter with regard to unfinished work. Does this belong to the task of an auditor and consultant?
A: Normally such a compilation belongs in the auditing report. Since, however, I did not turn in my auditing report, I wrote down my suggestions in this way.
A. Pohl wanted to use Baier after Pohl's plans with Professor Jeserich and Dr. Hubmann as intended directors of the concern had failed. Baier was not supposed to replace me, but in a certain manner he took the place which had been intended for the two gentlemen whom I have just named. After all, Baier was not an auditor. For this reason, within the scope of the so-called Staff W, immediately a complete reconversion was effected. That was in accordance with an old wish of Pohl. In place of the auditing we now had a so-called "internal concern reviewing agency". That was not the same thing as the auditing which had been carried out before because the legal auditing still had to be carried out outside of this work. The auditors who had been furnished to me were dismissed, and they were assigned to other agencies or to other enterprises. Baier staffed his department with completely new assistants.
Furthermore, in this document we have a contradiction because Baier states here that "he had been the senior office chief of the so-called Office Group W and that, consequently, he had been Pohl's deputy." I could not be Pohl's deputy for the reason that I was not an office chief, and furthermore because I was not a member of the SS and, of course, I was not the senior person in the office.
Two months after I had left, Baier came to the DWB. He had met me on two occasions, very briefly, as he states himself, and he did not even know my exact name, because he always refers to "Homberg" in this affidavit. I, myself, in January of 1945, was told by Dr. Wenner, a collaborator of the DWB whom I had known for twenty years, that evidence was being collected against me in some form and that it was also being collected against Dr. May. This was most surprising because Dr. May had already been in Gestapo confinement for more than a year. He was also dismissed from the SS.
Q. Did Baier have any contact with you so that he could make any statements about your field of tasks from his own knowledge and experience?
A. No.
Q. And about your position with the DWB?
A. No. After all, he came there only after I had left.
Q. When did Baier begin to carry out his activity there?
A. I don't know the exact date. I think he began his work two months after I left.
Q. At this period of time, did you still have any further contact with the DWB?
A. At that time I was already in the military service.
Q. Can you briefly tell us the basic difference between your position and the position which Baier occupied?
A. I must give you a negative answer here, because I can do that only on the basis of the standard order of procedure which is contained in the documents. However, it must be pointed out principally that Baier became an accountant later on and that he was not an auditor in the DWB and in Staff W while I was an auditor, while I was independent and while I was outside the DWB and outside of Staff W. The positions cannot be compared at all. Here it is shown that this unfortunate title of Staff W is bound to lead to false conclusions and misunderstandings. I would also like you to remember that the date of 30 June 1943 signifies a fundamental change in this so-called Staff W.
DR. HEIM: May it please the Tribunal, in this connection I would like to offer Document Hohberg 14, Exhibit 4. It is on page 26 of the Hohberg document book. This is an organizational chart, according to Document 854, Exhibit 401, and it shows the position of Staff W after 30 June 1943. It shows that a fundamental change in the organization was effected, as the witness has just testified. It is also shown by the documents to which I have just referred.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, was the standard order of procedure which was submitted here by the prosecution already in effect during your time of activity?
A. No, I have seen it here for the first time.
Q. This is Document NO-854, Exhibit 401, in Document Book 14, page 82 of the German text and page 86 of the English. Have you found the document?
A. Yes.
Q. Did this standard order of procedure already apply at the time when you worked there?
A. This standard order of procedure, as far as I am informed, was not even being compiled at that time. It was issued on 24 November 1944. That is one year after I had departed.
Q. Did this standard order of procedure cause any change in the position of the W plants as far as you can see from the document?
A. Yes, it signified a considerable change. I am of the opinion that the standard order of procedure in this form does not agree at all with the existing commercial laws, since it is stated here that this governmental title, Chief of W, goes beyond the concepts prescribed by commercial law with regard to the relationship between the auditor and the chief of a plant, for example, that he can issue orders to the auditor. Let us take an example: The Mattoni A.G. is a stockholders' company. It has certain legally prescribed positions within its organization. One cannot, of course, force the board of directors to do anything against their better judgment unless one just dismisses them. However, it is stated here that the Chief of Staff W and the Chief of the Main Office can give fundamental instructions. According to German law, this is quite impossible.
In addition to this, it has been fundamentally stated in this standard order of procedure that the auditor is subordinated to the Chief of Staff W. According to the law, this is also impossible. Only the auditors who are internal auditors in concerns can be subordinated to the business management. However, this standard order of procedure is a clear violation of German law.
Q. Well, that is sufficient. Witness, does your activity with the DWB, which we are discussing now, have anything in common with the Chief of W, who has been mentioned here?
A. Yes. Baier had some experience in taxation matters and appar ently he wanted to replace me in my activity as a tax consultant.
However, he could not replace me in any other activity which I had previously carried out.
Q. During your activity with the DWB, were you always called "Chief of Staff", or were other titles also used for your person?
A. Aside from very few exceptions, I was never called "Chief of Staff". Perhaps some people called me by that title in order to pull my leg.
Q. How do you explain the fact that Pohl, in Document NO-1954, Prosecution Exhibit 529, which is contained in Prosecution Document Book 22 on page 26 of the German text, speaks of an auditing agency?
I have not been able to find the English document book and therefore I am unable to give you the corresponding page in the English document book. I have just been told that it is on page 20 of the English document book.
Pohl addresses you here as "Auditor Dr. Hohberg". Please make a statement with regard to this letter.
A. I would like to state the following: If I had been Office Chief, then Pohl would have addressed me by that title. The words "auditing agency" can be explained by Pohl's mentality. He fundamentally tried to give a military or a governmental designation to every agency that existed. I am quite convinced that with the word "agency" he didn't mean anything at all.
Q. In the document which we have just discussed, the co-defendant Pohl, on 21 September 1943, ordered the establishment of an agency under the title of Economic Inspectorate with the Chief of the SS-WVHA. I ask you now, witness: Was this order ever carried out?
A. No, it was never carried out. I would like to explain briefly just what brought about this order and what Pohl tried to do here. When I carried out my auditing work, I met so many bookkeeping difficulties that approximately half of my auditors had to be assigned to bringing the bookkeeping matters in order instead of auditing the books. That is how Court.
II - Case 4 it happened that I was unable to keep up with the auditing work.
Pohl would receive auditing reports which were too far behind as far as the time factor was concerned. He fundamentally wanted to receive auditing work which had been done very recently. He demanded that reports should be submitted to him within several days. We were to submit brief reports, and he was trying to be the immediate superior of the agency that carried out this work. He wanted to have this department under his disciplinary authority. I as an auditor was unable to comply with his desire and consequently I turned down the entire matter. This matter was never again discussed.