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.
Q. Why wasn't this order of Pohl executed?
A. I think I understood what Pohl was trying to do here. I believe that he was trying to bring me under his authority in this matter. I did not take over this work, and I must assume that this was the reason why four months later quite suddenly from one day to the next all my auditors who had been assigned to me in order to carry out the mandatory auditing as prescribed by law were taken away from me. Pohl gave me the reasons for removing the auditors by referring to the Unruh action in that connection. That was General Unruh who was recruiting soldiers for front-line duty.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I regret that in this complex of questions I have to go into some more detail. However, in this case the fault is not with me but with the Prosecution because they have submitted innumerable documents on this subject in their indictment and in this case with regard to this state of affairs. I cannot do anything but to have the witness make statements with regard to these documents.
Q. (By Dr. Heim) Witness, why couldn't you be the business manager of the DWB as it has been alleged by the Prosecution?
A. I had not been appointed business manager, and I was not listed in the trade register.
Q. What shows beyond any doubt that you actually were not the business manager of the DWB?
A. The Prosecution themselves have submitted the excerpt from the trade register. I am not listed in that register.
DR. HEIM: May it please the Tribunal, I offer from Hohberg Document Book I on Page 64 Document No. 29 as Exhibit No. 22.
This document shows that the defendant was never the business manager of the DWB, and that he could not be the business manager because the excerpt from the trade register which was presented by the Prosecution shows that he was never listed there as business manager.
Q. (By Dr. Heim) Dr. Hohberg, did you carry out any other functions in the business management of the DWB?
A. No. I was not a bookkeeper and I did not have any executive powers with regard to the business.
Q. Did you ever carry out any supervisory activity over the directors of the DWB or one of its affiliated branches? This has also been alleged by the Prosecution.
A. No, I have never carried out any such functions. I only gave considerable advice to the chief of the taxation department, Dr. Wenner, as was specified in my contract, and it was my duty to do that. I had to do that because I had such a high liability with regard to my property.
Q. Is the profession of the auditor so little known that one could conclude that you had such an influential position as has been alleged by the Prosecution?
A. I described already on Friday afternoon that the auditing profession only exists since 1931 and that there were so few people in that profession that outsiders and laymen are hardly informed about this work. This applies to the defendants, at least part of them, and it also applies for all the persons who were within the WVHA.
Q. If I have understood you correctly, several members of the WVHA never clearly recognized your activity as an auditor?
A. Yes, that is correct. Only very few persons correctly evaluated my activity, and that is why we have the various conclusions and misunderstandings here.
Q. The Prosecution has further stated that you were an accountant and authorized to carry out business in the DWB, is that correct?
A. I have just stated that I did not occupy that position.
DR. HEIM: In this connection I offer Hohberg Document No. 23 on Page 53 of the document book. I offer it as Exhibit No. 23. I further want to offer Document No. 24 as Exhibit 24. Finally, I want to offer Hohberg Document No. 30 on Page 65 of the document book as Hohberg Exhibit 25.
Q. (By Dr. Heim) Witness, I now want to turn to the development of the SS industries, and in particular let us discuss the capital and the ownership conditions. In its opening speech the Prosecution has stated, and I quote: "The SS industrially, commercially and politically, and from the military view wanted to become a state within the state." The Prosecution alleges that together with other persons you also were one of the chief economic experts, that you were an industrial captain of the new order, whose aim it was to convert the fundamentals of business and economic activity to the National Socialistic ideology. "Fanatical National Socialists became fanatical businessmen. Their purpose was profit for the SS State and for themselves, as a result of the decreasing amount of income of the SS industries." That is the end of my quotation of the statements by the Prosecution In order to explain your activity, and under consideration of this count in the indictment, it is necessary in this connection to clarify the question: to whom did the so-called SSenterprises belong: who was the business partner and who was the actual owner?
In this connection I would like to ask you: to whom did the shares of the companies belong before they were converted into the holding company?
A. This question is very difficult to answer. We had a whole number of companies and they appointed a partner, and he was called the trustee. However, it wasn't stated who this trustee was. He was always called the Reichsfuehrer-SS. The people furnishing the funds were leagues or organizations, and in part these organizations were financed by the banks. I have already mentioned this morning that the capital owned by the companies was extremely small, and I would like to demonstrate this again by means of an example. The DEST had 20,000 marks capital. The parter was Dr. Salpeter. He was a trustee for Mr. X. However, the DEST had already 20,000,000 marks in debts. That is to say it had a thousand times its original capital in debts.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Counselor, you read a paragraph from the opening statement of the Prosecution which is an indictment against the SS as an economic enterprise. Now, do you intend to have this witness defend against that proposition, and if so, how does that apply to him directly, since you claim he had nothing to do with the economic enterprises insofar as individual participation was concerned?
DR. HEIM: The Prosecution in its opening speech had expressly mentioned the name of the defendant, and with other defendants it has named him as one of the chief economists, as an industrial captain who was to develop the new order of the SS, that is to say, the state within the state.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Then you intend from his answer to elicit information directly pertaining to him and not general ly as defense of the SS, is that right?
DR. HEIM: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: If that is true then, of course, I can understand the reason for it.
DR. HEIM: May it please the Tribunal, in the examination when, with regard to this field of questions, I have the witness describe the capital status of the DWB, I have two reasons for doing so. First of all my client is the first defendant whom the Prosecution has brought into connection with the Office Group W, so that up to now this complex of questions has not been discussed in detail.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Very well, I understand your proposition
THE PRESIDENT: Let's take a recess now.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes (A recess was taken.)
BY DR. HEIM:
Q: Before the redess we talked about the ownership conditions of what is known as the SS Economic Enterprises. Witness, were these firms later on incorporated into the DWB.
A: Yes, the firms existing at the time which were owned by Mr. X were incorporated into the DWB.
Q: In your testimony so far you have told us that the basic capital of the DWB was 100,000 marks. How did things develop after that in the DWB?
A: Several increases in capital were affected. 1.7 million; later on 5.3 million; after that 7 million; then 12 million and in the end when I left it was 16 million. The source where this money came from for the capital was the Reich mainly, at the time. That is to say of the 16 million about 8.5 million marks came from the Reich and 7.5 million came from the Party. The Reich had a slight majority.
Q: What about relations between the Reich and the Party concerning property conditions after the last increase of capital to 16 million marks?
A: In order to confirm what I have said just now that the Reich had a small majority, I would like to mention the various sums from which the capital was taken. But, I believe we can do without that because that is contained in detail in the Minden report.
Q: You keep talking about the Reich and Party as capital owners but the indictment calls it SS enterprises. Will you please clear up that contradiction?
A: The SS did not own anything independently. If I mention that it was financially part of the Party inasmuch as the Allgemeine SS was concerned and the Waffen-SS was financially speaking part of the Reich.
Pohl, for instance, was the deputy of the Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP on behalf of the Allgemeine SS. As far as property law is concerned there were no SS enterprises, neither at the beginning nor later on. Therefore, they could only be Reich enterprises or else they were Party enterprises. If Pohl was listed in the Commercial Register as SS trustee for the Reichfuehrer SS it was completely unclear in what capacity Himmler was to be regarded in this case. Privately he could not be a partner because he didn't have that much money and as an official the question was what agency he represented. In the end he did not represent any department which could own property; to speak therefore, from the legal point of view only any reference to Reich Fuehrer SS as owner is pure bluff.
Q: Was there a Reich law to be expected on the basis of which the SS could own property independently?
A: I don't know. But, the tendency existed on the part of the SS to own, legally speaking, property as independently as possible. I deduced that from remarks made frequently by Pohl: "The law which applies to the SS is yet unwritten!" I personally looked on the matter in the following was: That the whole of the economic enterprises of the DWB concern was maintained only for that time; then the SS, through a Reich law, would become the official owner of property and capital and until such time this large economic complex had to be camouflaged in some manner. For that reason, it appeared as Reich property, if the Reich wasn't interested. That moment when the SS would independently own property would not occur before the end of the war. In fact the DWB, at the end, was a Reich company tut within the scope of the development it was at one time property of the Party and on another occasion it was Reich property.
Q: How do you conclude that at the end the DWB concern was the property of the Reich?
A: I deduced that from the conditions at the back of the fund which were used to increase the capital of the DWB. I only have to add up these things.
Q: That is sufficient witness. Was Pohl a partner in the DWB concern?
A: Yes, according to the Commercial Register he was the sole partner but for the purposes of his own tax declarations he was not charged with that because he was only a trustee. On whose behalf he acted, as a trustee, was not clear to the public; Actually in the end it was the Reich.
Q: Did you have any influence on the manner in which the capital was used?
A: Not really, but of course I was very happy to see that a Reich fund would be used to increase capital of the DWB; thus the claim of the Reich on the DWB became stronger.
Q: What was the result of the fact that the Reich and not the Party or a third person became a partner in the DWB?
A: Since the Reich became a partner in the organization of the DWB, the management of the DWB was now under the obligation to observe all Reich laws concerned. That would not have applied if the DWB had been a party firm. About all it was impossible for Pohl to take even one penny from the DWB concern without the consent of the Reich Minister of Finance.
Q: Would Pohl or Himmler have been in a position to ignore the Reich laws and use the money of the DWB concern to finance the SS?
A: We must differentiate here between two things. When an economic fortune is being invested into a commercial enterprise then without defaulting it is impossible to take out money from that company for the purposes of the partner or for any purposes not connected with the firm itself. German commercial laws were extremely severe in this respect. If a limited company of a share-holding company wants to take out one million from its funds, for instance, a meeting of the partners had to be convened and a decision had to be reached, certain terms had to be observed, and newspapers have to publish the fact, the creditors have to voice their opinion, and only then is one allowed to take something out. As a result of the fact that the property, was invested in the form of a company it was impossible for the SS, Himmler or Pohl to use anything for the purposes not connected with the firm. It is quite different with profits. The share-holders meeting and partners meeting passed a resolution about that but since Pohl acted as a trustee for the owner, which was the Reich, he was not allowed without consulting the Reich, to distribute the profits. When I worked with the DWB as an auditor the DWB was not deprived of one penny for alien purposes. I have found out by asking questions that this did not happen later on either and only by chance when I wast downstairs next to Sievers did I hear that a small sum was given to the Army as a gift. You can think about that what you like but there is no doubt that the manager or the head of a company can give a gift if he can give a good reason for it.
Q: That is sufficient, witness. In your affidavit of 4 February 1947 which is document No. 1924, Exhibit 16, page 101 of document book I of the Prosecution and on page 82 of the English text you say and I quote: "I was the only man who was able to do something against Pohl and I was the only one who would have been in a position to take the whole of the money away from Pohl. One knew, however, how extremely powerful Pohl was. One word from him and somebody was done for. I had to be extremely cautious but meanwhile, until I left, I collected material and evidence against Pohl." Witness, what did you mean when you gave that statement in your affidavit?