Q.- You also say that you had to be careful. One word from Pohl and you would be finished, You mean Pohl could have ordered you to be executed at any time?
A.- It wouldn't have been quite so quick, but I must say if I had acted and had reported these things to the Reich Ministry of Finance or the Reich Ministry of Economic Affairs, nothing very pleasant would have happened to me, I am sure. I would like to say in this connection that Himmler in his Posen speech said, "When I discuss loyalty I mean roughly this: If somebody is disloyal, you see to it that this man will be pushed out from our order; I shall see to it that he shall lose his life." That was Himmler's idea, which came also to the surface in some of his colleagues and collaborators.
Q.- Well, from your affidavit you did not have the best opinion of your superior, Pohl, did you?
A.- I always had a dual opinion of Pohl. Every man has a good soul and an evil soul. Pohl was a very forceful man, also in personal matters, both in the pleasant and in the unpleasant sense of the word.
Q.- That is all you have to say?
A.- Yes.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q.- Witness, did you hear the Posen speech?
A.- I read it here in Nurnberg, sir. When the speech was made I was a soldier.
Q.- Did you know of it at the time or immediately thereafter? I didn't get the answer.
A.- I don't recall the speech anywhere before I came to Nurnberg.
BY DR. HEIM (Counsel for defendant Hohberg):
Q. Witness, it was here in Nuernberg for the first time that you obtained knowledge of Himmler's Posen speech?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. Witness, you said, when the Tribunal asked you questions, that by May or June 1943 you succeeded in getting Pohl to withdraw your declaration as an indispensable man. Did that mean that you finally were separated from DWB at last?
A. No, I had a contract which entailed giving annual notice. The contract continued, therefore. My tendency, however, was to remain with the concern because I expected actually the concern to become a Reich concern later on. My salary was relatively low compared to my claims; I had certain claims and expectations under the law, and when I become a soldier I made a new contract with Pohl, the aim of which was if I should be killed as a soldier my family would be supported in some form. For that reason I concluded a new contract with Pohl when I became a soldier.
Q. On the basis of your second contract with Pohl, were you used again for the DWB in any sense?
A. No.
Q. What was the financial status of the DWB concern at the time when you discontinued your auditing activities of the concern, that is, by the middle of 1943?
A. With the assistance of the contracts for adjustment of profits and losses, to which I referred before, it had been possible to adjust all the big losses which had occurred before. These included the losses which were originally not to be found on the balance sheets even. The Tribunal knows that we always drew up these balance sheets.
When I left, the DWB had, as far as cash on hand was concerned, about 13 or 14 million marks, which was invested in shares. The financial situation of the enterprise could be called extremely good at that time.
When I was interrogated in this building, my attention was drawn to the fact that the concern, when I left, was ripe for bankruptcy - which is quite incorrect.
But I must point but one thing. The profits which now came in were all much too high because the prices had not yet been sufficiently adjusted to the official regulations, on the various directives which I have described before, and something had to be done in order to bring order into that problem. That was entirely up to the accounting system.
Q. Witness, your testimony so far shows the following: Neither your position nor the obligations under your contract as an auditor correspond to the picture draw by the prosecution. While you were an auditor with the DWB, you were not only an enemy of National Socialism, but because of your political attitude and ideas you found stringent opposition among the SS officers in the WVHA and the DWB. Furthermore, your testimony has show that the responsibility for the crimes with which you are charged is not existent.
The documents submitted by the prosecution seem to contradict your testimony. Therefore, I want to discuss these documents of the prosecution and, in accordance with the opening statement by the prosecution, I want to deal with the question of inmate labor, or, as the prosecution puts it, the Slave Labor Program.
First of all, I want to put a few basic questions connected with that problem to you.
Did you have anything to do with Office Group D, the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps?
A. I knew Maurer because he was formerly the chief of the group of firms W-4, Timber, before Dr. May appeared, and that resulted in occasional discussions with Herr Maurer. It became quite clear later on that the main problem was to increase inmates wages, but otherwise I did not have any discussions or contact with anybody of the Inspectorate. On one single occasion I endeavored to get Gluecks and Maurer, through a letter, to save the life of an inmate. Maurer promised to do that. This was not an inmate who was involved in the Heydrich business. But a fortnight later the relatives were told that he had been gassed or shot. That, I think, was my only contact with Office Group D.
Q. With reference to Document Book 3 of the prosecution, page 104 of the German text and 114 of the English version - which is Document NO-126, and Exhibit 76. It is a letter from Office Group D, D-2, to you, and you are informed of the transfer of commandants of concentration camps with reference to the compensation sums involved therein.
Can you enlighten us on the contradiction resulting from this document, and the answer you have just given me?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Counsel, may I interrupt just for one second, please.
Witness, in your previous answer you referred to the Heydrich Action. Did you mean by that the extermination program?
WITNESS: No, I meant the arrests in Bohemia, in Czechoslovakia, after the assassination of Heydrich. Several thousand Czechs were arrested and some of them were executed.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Have you got the document?
A. Yes.
Q. Please tell us about this contradiction?
A. Pohl was the manager of the DWB. In that capacity he ordered the accountants to address to the commandants of concentration camps a monthly compensation which was to be paid to them. That probably was the compensation for the fact that he had appointed them directors of enterprises, and it was to be an inducement to be given to the concentration camp commandants to supply inmates to the SS enterprises in a regular manner. For instance, if an enterprise uses two thousand inmates a day, the commandants would one day send fifteen hundred, and a thousand the next day - completely irregularly, in other words. The managers of the economic enterprises found themselves incapable of working in a normal manner. This money was decided on by Pohl himself probably in consultation with Gluecks and Maurer. Nobody in Staff W had any influence on this and it was completely unknown to us even.
Maurer thereupon called in Herr Ansorge, who was the expert of the department, and told him the sum of money which the DWB had to pay per month.
Changes occurred now every month because people moved, changed their bank accounts, and so forth. Therefore, in the documents of Staff W there must be at least a hundred letters of that type with reference to changes in the actual sums to be paid out. It would appear that Maurer sent two such letters to me, probably because he didn't know who was working as an expert on this problem. The reason for that was that the fields of tasks of Staff W were so completely different from one another, and no one official in charge was available.
Q. When was it for the first time that you heard that in the economic enterprises inmates were used as workers?
A. I knew that from the beginning. Pohl told me that when I signed my contract, but I did not know the extent.
Q. Did you ever visit a concentration camp - and by a concentration camp I mean the actual protective custody camp?
A. The actual concentration camp, in that sense, I never saw from the inside. But I saw what we call the labor camp, which was the Jewish labor camp for the German Equipment Works in Lublin, which at that time had a Jewish camp police of its own. They were usually former Polish officers and non-commissioned officers, and the Jewish inmates went in and out without any guards, in some cases.
Q. Were you entitled to enter a concentration camp?
A. No.
Q. Here I should like to point to Exhibit 38 which is Hohberg Document 39 and Exhibit 40. Did you ask for permission to enter a concentration camp, and did you receive that permission?
A. I didn't ask for such permission, nor did I obtain it at any time.
Q. Did you have the possibility otherwise to study conditions in concentration camps?
A. I did not have that possibility because when I visited the enterprises I did not see anything irregular. What I heard and what I know came only from the stories told by SS officers or other people who had some contact with concentration camps.
Q Did you know anything about labor conditions in the enterprises which employed inmates?
A Yes, I visited several of those enterprises where inmates were working because I was under legal obligation to do so, because as an auditor I had to form an opinion about the legal aspects of the economic conditions. In some cases conditions were good. In some, conditions were bad -- I mean, conditions under which these people worked. There were first rate production halls in some cases and there were very bad ones too.
Q When you inspected these enterprises, were you able to form the opinion that conditions were inhumane?
A From what I saw conditions were not inhumane. The conditions by and large were such, as was the rule in other enterprises as well that in some cases the inmates worked in a too confined space, that is say, in a room where normally only 100 workers should work, considerable more or larger numbers worked.
Q Were you able to make observations to the effect that workers were worked to death?
A No, I made no such observations. I can well imagine that atrocities have occurred, but probably not at a moment when an inspection was being held, and it probably was the guards, but in the enterprises which I visited, it cannot have happened that anybody was worked to death. For instance, if somebody sits at a sewing machine or somebody polishes a table, or repairs a wireless, he doesn't die from that effect.
Q Will you please look at Document Book 3 of the Prosecution, page 59 of the German text and page 57 of the English text. This is Document NO-1216, Exhibit 58. It is a report by Dr. May on a trip which he made between the 1st and 8th of June 1942 to Auschwitz, Lembemberg Lublin and Posen. According to that report you and Dr. May made this trip together. Looking at that document one might feel doubts of the correctness of your testimony so far, namely, that you had nothing to do with concentration camp inmates nor ever entered a protective custody camp.
Furthermore, the document shows that whenever there were negotiations during that trip you were not only present, but you lead these negotiations yourself in some cases. To clear that matter up, it seems to be essential to discuss a few points regarding Dr. May's character and your relationship to him before dealing with the document itself. When you made that trip, did you have an intimate contact with Dr. May?
A He was my friend.
Q What was Dr. May's position at the time in the WVHA and what were his tasks?
A May at that time was in charge of the W-IV, a group of firms which dealt with problems. He held that position together with the position as manager of his own enterprises.
Q Was ther any necessity for you to work together with Dr. May officially, because of your task as auditor of the DWB?
A No. No necessity existed. As an auditor I could inspect and audit his enterprises without him, but I used that opportunity to deal with that matter, together with him, because we could use his car.
Q Did you know what the reasons were which moved Dr. May to make this trip?
A Yes, he had never seen the enterprises of the German Equipment Works which were under him and he wanted to see them.
Q Did you accompany Dr. May on your own initiative or was the trip done at the order of his superiors?
A He made the trip because he wanted to on his own initiative.
Q According to Document NO-1216, first of all you inspected the Buczowicz works. Did you know Buczowic before?
A Yes.
Q Did you have any conferences in Buczowicz and did you lead them yourself?
A Of course, I took part in all sorts of conferences, because, after all, I made this trip in order to acquaint myself, in my capacity as an auditor, with such questions as were concerned with my duties.
Buczowicz, incidentally, was the main work at which we planned to produce better homes.
Q Where inmates working in Buczowicz?
A No, never at any time.
Q The same document shows that the inspection of Auschwitz was made for the German Equipment works. Did you enter the protective custody camp on that occasion?
A No.
Q Did you see inmates working in the enterprises in Auschwitz?
A Yes, in Auschwitz a number of new halls were being established at that time and nobody was working at that moment. Only a small hall was being used.
Q What were the conditions there under which the inmates worked, whom you saw at that time?
A Small complaints were expressed and Dr. Bay made note of them. For instance, the sewage system was at fault and also the dust which results from working on timber is highly dangerous for the lungs and Dr. May did something about it. Otherwise, everything was fairly all right.
Q The document shows that Dr. May and yourself called on Sturmbannfuehrer Hoess. Where did you see him?
A In his office in the commandant's building.
Q Was that building inside or outside the protective custody camp?
A Outside the protective custody camp.
Q Mr. McHaney, bearing in mind that document, asked Witness Kogon the following the hypothetical question, whether Kogan thought that somebody who in 1942 called on Hoess must not have known about the extermination of the Jews in concentration camps. Did you, during this visit to Hoess, hear anything about the extermination of the Jews?
A This was a courtesy which Dr. May had to make and I simply went, because I didn't want to sit downstairs in the car. It can hardly be assumed that either Kogon or Mr. McHaney believed themselves that Hoess as early as June 1942 would make remarks to a total stranger and a civilian at that about the extermination of the Jews. I would like to call the court's attention to the fact that in Hoess' own affidavits, which are part of our documents -- in Book 20 it is Document 2368, page 25 of the English, page 26 of the German -- Hoess says himself that the gassings started in the summer of 1942 which would have been after my visit.
Q On the occasion of that visit to Hoess were questions touched upon which concerned concentration camps or the use of concentration camp inmates?
A No, as far as I remember it, Dr. May and Hoess discussed the question to have the work shops under Hoess' charge transferred, particularly machines and put them at the disposal of the German Equipment Works.
Q The document shows also that the I. G. Farben there in Auschwitz had a man called Dr. Savelsberg. You met him and had a discussion with him. What was that conversation concerned with?
Q This was not a business conversation, but a private conversation with a man with whom I had been to the university. Dr. Savelsberg passed his examination with me on the same day in Cologne. He had been to England meanwhile and for six years in India. We had written letters to each other and this visit was an old arrangement which I finally honored: At Dr. May's request in his capacity as the manager of the German Equipment works, the question was touched upon whether the capacity of the German Equipment Works could produce doors and window frames for the Buna works of the I. G. Farben industry, but these were conversations between Dr. May and Dr. Savelsberg where I acted purely as an intermediary and were held quite casually.
DR. HEIM: If the Tribunal please, I would like to call your attention to Dr. Hohberg - Document 32, which is Exhibit 35. This is an affidavit by Dr. Heinz Savelsberg who has just been mentioned and it deals extensively with that visit and the conversations held on that occasion.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 34, Dr. Heim.
DR. HEIM: I apologize, Your Honor, it is 34.
Q Witness, in your affidavit of 4 February, 1945, which is part of Document I of the Prosecution and it is Document NO-192, Exhibit 16, page 101 of the German, 83 of the English Book, you say that in Auschwitz you saw about 5,000 women walked barefooted to work, women who had been concentration camp inmates. Did you see those women inside or outside the camp?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I saw them from the window of the place where I had been staying for the night, which was outside the camp. I assume that the women went out to their work, but I don't permit myself to say how many, because I could not count such a train of women.
Q Were you impressed by what you saw?
A It was for the first time in my life I had seen anything like it. The women were all of them shorn, they were wearing trousers, and were barefooted, and they were driven on and guarded by female inmates in striped uniforms.
Q According to the document you went into Lemberg next. Were you in charge of conferences, or were you merely present when Dr. May negotiated things?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Pardon me. Going back to your last answer where you said they were driven on. Were any instruments used in the driving?
THE WITNESS: The female guards had sticks in their hands.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness, please answer the question now, whether you had any negotiations yourself in Lemberg, or that you were merely present when Dr. May made negotiations?
A It was a matter, of course, that I was always present, as Dr. May did not know where he could leave me in the meanwhile. I did not lead any conferences, but was present in all inspections.
Q Did you, when you inspected enterprises in Lemberg, see inmates working?
A Yes.
Q What impressed you most in Lemberg?
A I was not actually impressed by the type of work done by the inmates. Nothing particular struck me there, nor did I see any atrocities. Something else impressed me. Immediately next to the concentration camp which I did not enter was a large Jewish cemetery where the grave stones were being transported away all the time in order to be Court No. II, Case No. 4.used for gardens in the outside of the concentration camps.
Q The next stop in your journey was Lublin? Were you present when Dr. May had a talk with SS-Standartenfuehrer Koch?
A No, Dr. May had announced his visit to Koch, but did not find him in. On the next day he was rung up and told to report to Koch very early in the morning. He did not tell me, and I stayed in the billets.
Q What was the reason for the visit to SS-Brigadefuehrer Globocnik?
A I do not know the details here. I believe that it was the obvious thing to do for a higher SS-officer to pay visits of that type on such occasions. Globocnik after all was in Lublin, as an important SS man. Dr. May's intention was to clear up this somewhat tense relation between Pohl and Globocnik in some form or other. To smooth things over. I went with him because I wanted to meet that man, and I had heard so much about him, of what a funny or what a strange character he was; that he had his conferences at the most unusual hours of the night, or morning, or early hours in the morning, and we had to report to him at 2300 hours in the evening.
Q Did you have a conference then with Globocnik.
A Yes, we sat together and talked about the relations with Pohl. He was extremely indignant about Pohl and Globocnik, afterwards he showed us many paintings which he kept in his house.
Q According to the document you went back to Berlin by Posen. Dr. May's report also said that at your suggestion the conference was held in Posen with the defendant Dr. Bobermin. What was the reason for that conference, and what was the conference about?
A We left Lublin rather late, stopped for awhile in Warsaw, and it would have been too late to go back to Berlin in the same day. I had promised Bobermin for sometime to call on him, and I could do that on this occasion, and Bobermin and we had breakfast together, which was the main purpose for the whole meeting with Bobermin, and while we talked to Bobermin, it was said perhaps in thirty seconds or a minute, that he should go and contact Globocnik about a concrete plant, I believe.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
So far as I know Dr. Bobermin did not even do it.
Q Although you yourself had not entered a concentration camp on this trip, nevertheless, you saw a number of things according to your own testimony, which in some cases showed you conditions which were not worthy of human beings in concentration camps. Did you not find it necessary at that time to do something about these things which you had now seen? Would you have been in a position, or would you have the power to bring about any changes in these conditions?
A I did not have the power, nor the facilities. Legal connections must be pointed to here. Inmates were kept by the Reich. Both Dr. May and I were working in the commercial law section. That both of us had been more impressed by what we had seen. Shortly before we reached Berlin, we stopped and went over our memories of the trip, and promised each other to fight against these things radically. Mr. Ponger, who interrogated me, asked me why I had not done anything against inmate labor as such. I did not have a chance to answer back. I would like to state that no single man could have done anything really helpful. The whole system was involved here. If one had helped individual inmates, for instance, the possibility would have existed that ten others would have taken his place the next day. If you want to do anything at all, the only thing you could do was to fight the system as such.
Q What did you do against it, so far as you remember, or were able to do anything?
A Not only I but both of us took ahold of anybody who seemed worthy of our confidence, and anybody whom we could contact, and informed them about these things. Dr. May was introduced to a circle in Berlin, where considerable number of men would turn up, who later on were the victim of consequences of July 20, 1943; before Dr. May's arrest, he and I would meet and would inform these circle of people who met at regular intervals. After Dr. May's arrest, I did it alone. I don't believe there was one among these people who were not profoundly Court No. II, Case No. 4.moved by what I told them.
Q Witness, at the time did you not have the possibility to go and see a competent department, and to say something about these awful conditions?
A What department could I have addressed myself to? I did not know of any. It was always the same story. The whole system as such had to be eliminated, radically.
Q Did you at any time when you were auditor of the DWB have to make decisions on your own responsibility on the question whether or not concentration camp inmates should be used in "W" enterprises at any time?
A No, such decision was not my business as an auditor, and I did not have the opportunity.
Q Did you have any influence on the decisions on these questions?
A No, I was not concerned on any occasion.
Q Who made the decisions of allocating inmates to economic enterprises?
A When I arrived some of the enterprises were already using inmates. When new inmates labor was allocated, I assume that the decision was Pohl's, and the requests for the precise figures of inmates, for instance, were made by what was known as the work managers. I know only by letters concerning that question.
Q The Prosecution charges, among other things, that you not only dealt with the question of allocating inmates to the W-enterprises, but that you were instrumental in arranging and recruiting of inmates and acquiring the space where enterprises for DAW works were to be established. What SS enterprises were newly established while you were with the DWB?
A I have before me a list of 20 companies which were newly added. It would be too boring to read them all. There are three among those 20 companies which employed inmates, but these inmates were not newly employed. They had already been working, and the whole capital investment here was changed into a status under commercial law. Let me call them: the Textile and Leather Works, the German Food Supplies, Ltd, and the Osti, which represented Globocnik's enterprises and was to take over his plants. Later on, without my being told about this and probably after I had left even, inmates were used by another two companies: by the Cement Works Golleschau, and Jewish female prisoners with babies were used in Bad Neunau with the Apollinaris Company, but that was after my time.
In all other enterprises, for instance, drugs, wolfram, furniture and so forth, no inmates were used.
Q Did you have an important influence as to whether such enterprises were to be established or newly constructed?
A No.
Q Were you called in any capacity, as a consultant for instance, when these enterprises were being formed?
A Not always, but quite frequently.
Q What were the questions you had to solve?
A Questions which concerned me, financial questions, questions of the company law, and taxation questions.
I would like to add this briefly. In the two companies which used inmates and which were representing several enterprises -- that is DEST and DAW -- additional enterprises were newly opened while I was working there.
During negotiations for new enterprises, nobody of the so-called Staff W was called in, including myself. To mention a few names, on Dessau, the work in Auschwitz, Hamburg, on even questions of financing these things, nobody of Staff W was called in as far as enterprises of DEST and DAW were newly opened.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to get the six firms that used inmate labor, and I haven't got them all. There was the German Food Industry and Osti, and the Textile and Leather Works, and what was the cement work?
A The Cement Works Golleschau and Apollinaris, a limited company. That was a leased company.
THE PRESIDENT: That is where the women worked?
A Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And the sixth one? Was there another one?
A No, there was not.
THE PRESIDENT: That seems to be five.
A There are five, yes. Mr. President, perhaps you still remember the figure six from yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
A Because I spoke yesterday of six enterprises. Three had already existed; three were added which added up to six, and now another two, Golleschau and Apollinaris, which happened after my time, so, therefore, we have the total figure of eight at a later period.
THE PRESIDENT: Three at first, and then five added?
A Yes.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q You said just now that when questions of financing were concerned, you were called in. Did you have to do anything with questions concerning inmates on those occasions?
A No, that would not be discussed with me.
Q The Prosecution in its opening statement, which can be found on page 84 of the German text -- unfortunately, I do not know the English page -- said:
"Equally typical was an arrangement made by Defendant Hohberg with the Hermann Goering Works about the use on inmates when the Clinker Works in Linz were established. In that case Hohberg called for the raw material to be supplied by the Hermann Goering Works, whereas the WVHA would build the factory, for which it would use inmates of the Mauthausen concentration camp."
The Prosecution attempts to support that statement by submitting a number of documents. These documents are in Document Book XIV of the Prosecution, Page 65 of the English text. It is Document NO 1914, which is Exhibit 395. On Page 69 of the English Text we have document NO 1916, which is Exhibit 397. On Page 75 of the English book we have document NO 1912, which is Exhibit 59. The last document is also contained in Document Book III of the prosecution on Page 63 of the English text. These documents concern Pohl's negotiations with the Hermann Goering Works about the establishment of a factory with the use of concentration inmates. In their opening statement the Prosecution charged that you, together with the representatives of Office Groups C and D, were the moving power in this business. At whose orders did these negotiations come about concerning the establishment of this factory?
A It was a fixed arrangement between Goering and Himmler. Goering ordered Herr Pleiger, who is present in this building, and Himmler ordered Wolff to inform Pohl by a teletype letter which is available here as a document.
Q Who represented the WVHA and who was responsible to lead these negotiations?
A Himmler had made Pohl responsible. Pohl gave the order on to the DEST, and Herr Schondorf acted on behalf of DEST.
Q Why were you called in to these negotiations, and what was the part you played?
A It seems natural for an auditor to be called in if he is present when a new enterprise is being established. I was rung up by Pohl, who asked me to come to the conference, and Herr Pleiger was also present. I had become quite used to the fact of making brief notes of conferences of that sort, and, as nobody had made a report, I passed my notes on to Pohl, and later on Pohl informed me through Dr. Volk that I was to keep him up to date on the further progress of this matter.
I should like to point out one thing. In the index to Document Book 14 it says that I had full authority to conclude the contract with the Hermann Goering Works, which is not mentioned in any of the documents.
Q In Document NO 1915, which is Exhibit 396, on Page 68 of the English text, it is alleged that you were the most important partner in the negotiations. Have you got the document?
A Yes. Thank you very much.
Q Can you explain to the Court what is meant by this term, being "the most important partner", especially as the term is used in Germany is a rare one.
A. The German term "The man who holds the pen", means in German that you are the one who writes the record, which becomes clear from the second paragraph of this letter. It says there only Pohl had caused me to have the duty to inform and keep Pohl up-to-date by making notes. That was all I had to do in other words. Nothing is said about negotiations or even being in charge of negotiations.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)