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.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HEIM: (Counsel for defendant Hohberg): May it please the Court, the witness would like to correct this statement with reference to those factories which employed concentration camp inmates.
WITNESS: May it please Your Honor, I would appreciate it if you would forgive me for making this mistake, but I understand that Appollinaris was not using concentration camp women -- but rather those Russian women I was talking about, they were Eastern workers and probably they were being employed within the framework of the Sauckel Action.
THE PRESIDENT: Sauckel Action?
WITNESS: Yes, they were Eastern workers.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, before the recess we were talking about the term "the man who held the pen." Do you have anything else to say about that?
A. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in Document 1914 there was a certain remark which was inserted by Pohl in handwriting. "I shall deal with the draft personally." That little remark on the margin was not inclosed in the photostatic copy which I have here. From this it results that here Pohl had reserved himself the right to deal with that, to deal with the contracts, and to give his approval for the conclusion of those contracts. I, personally, had nothing to do with concluding those contracts. The DEST was in charge of concluding all contracts.
DR. HEIM: Mr. President, in this connection I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in this document it is stated in the English text the term "the man holding the pen." It is not translated correctly. It is translated there"."... will handle the transaction."
However, as can be seen from the second paragraph of that document, the "man holds the pen," in German. The English translation of that would be "the man who is in charge of the records."
I believe that that word could be translated with "register", which stands for "file". I would appreciate it if the English document could be corrected to that effect.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you speaking of Document 1914?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
DR. HEIM: That is Document 1915 on page 68 of the English Document Book and page 66 of the German Document Book.
THE PRESIDENT: The handwritten note by Pohl on Document 1915 does appear in the English Document Book. At the top of the document it says, "I shall personally attend to the contracts", so we do have the record of that.
Q Herr Dr. Hohberg, how do you understand that term Pohl used in that connection--that he says--"the man who held the pen"?
A I took care of the records from the conferences for informational purposes for Pohl. Practically it worked out that at that time gentlemen from the DEST and all these gentlemen from the Hermann Goering Works brought the results of their conferences to me. Those were the drafts of the contracts, the right to deal with them Herr Pohl had reserved for himself. However, amongst those drafts for contracts, there were no contracts for the inmate labor, as can be seen from the German text on Page 68.
Q That activity -- was that part of your field of task as an auditor?
A The use of an auditor when establishing a new company is something absolutely normal. Apart from that, I had to consult on those things, according to my contract.
Q Those negotiations with the Hermann Goering Works, did they lead to concluding contract with them?
A No, a contract was not concluded. Instead of that Schondorf was officially ordered to carry on negotiations with the Hermann Goering Works. As far as I know, the DEST in order to get through with the entire affair had a small experimental station. That is all that resulted from it, but I personally had not participated in it.
DR. HEIM: May it please your Honors, in this connection I would like to draw your attention to Hohberg Document No. 33, in Document Book No. I of Hohberg. This appears to be Exhibit 35 and it is on Page 73 of the Document Book. That is an affidavit by Paul Pleiger Court No. II, Case No. 4.who has repeatedly been mentioned in the documents introduced by the prosecution.
In this affidavit Pleiger states that he did not know Hohberg and that he therefore in this connection could not have negotiated with Dr. Hohberg. Finally in the last paragraph Pleiger states that business deal could not possibly have been carried out practically during the war.
Q In this connection, Witness, I want you to take a look at Page 67 of Document Book No. XIV, introduced by the prosecution. It is on Page 69 of the English Document Book, Document Book XIV, Page 69 of the English. It is Document NO-1961, Exhibit No. 397. In this document you are advising them not to participate in the transaction, because the WVHA or in the Lebensborn there would be no profit from the fact that inmates would be transferred to the Hermann Goering Works. Shouldn't one assume from this document that from the financial side, you would have a certain part in the management of concentration camp inmates?
A I had been ordered to take care of the records and whatever is contained in there is the result of the conferences. On whose part the objection was made or by whom the objection was made to possibly give them a current transfer of inmates to Lebensborn, I do not know at the moment. Personally I had to look on the entire matter as an auditor and during that conference I drew their attention to the fact that this was nothing but a swindle project on the part of the Hermann Goering Works, because the Hermann Goering Works basically wanted to leave the price for the burned out coal open and they wanted to change it. In other words, the Hermann Goering Works wanted to keep it in their hands to use up the profits, according to their own opinion.
Q After you have told us about these documents with reference to Schlacke Linze, I would appreciate it if you would comment on the statements made by the prosecution on page 84 of the opening speech.
A May it please your Honors, here it says "Hohberg in this particular case saw to it that the raw material was to be sent by the Hermann Court No. II, Case No. 4.Goering Works."
That is not correct. That was an official agreement between Goering and Himmler and then they say that the WVHA was to build the factories. The WVHA is not mentioned at all, but, rather, it was considered who was to build the factories and no agreement was reached about this because all those factories were never built. Then it is stated that I saw to it that inmates of the concentration camp Mauthausen were placed at their disposal. This was based on the official order which was issued by Himmler based on the negotiations with Goering and I didn't have the least influence on that matter. The profit was to be distributed equally amongst the Hermann Goering Works and the WVHA and it is alleged that I was the one who instigated that, which is not correct either. That was already been agreed officially between Goering and Himmler. I was placed before a complete fact. I took the records and I didn't take care of the matter personally and the entire matter never reached its conclusion.
Q I shall now refer to Prosecution Exhibit NO-1287, Exhibit 389, also contained in Document Book No. 14 of the prosecution. It's on page 42 of the German and on page 46 of the English Document Book. This is a record and a file note concerning a conference between the WVHA and the Volkswagenwerk, Fallersleben, concerning the establishment of a foundry. According to that document you were present in that conference. What were the tasks which you had during those negotiations?
A I can't recall that any longer. Mr. Pohl called me up about that.
Q Did you participate personally in this conference?
Q If I did, then only to a very small extent.
Q Was amongst other things in this conference the assignment of concentration camps inmates dealt with?
A Herr Porsche came with a sealed order by Hitler in which it was stated that Himmler was to place inmates at the disposal of somebody in order to establish an aluminum foundry in Fallersleben and I acknowledged that.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Why did Kammler pass on the copy of that conference to you for informational purposes?
A Because I participated in the conference. The conference had as its result a few unclarities and as can be seen from the documents, Herr Kammler was ordered to clarify those unclarities. From that moment on, I heard nothing about the entire matter.
DR. HEIM: Now referring to Document Book No. 3 introduced by the Prosecution, on page 57 of the German and page 55 of the English Document Book, in there you will find Document NO-1215, Exhibit No. 57. It is a latter by Kammler to Pohl, and deals with the results of a conference between Kammler and Staatsrat Dr. Schieber about the transfer of armament factories to the concentration camps, the last paragraph of the document in which Kammler writes to Pohl shows the following: "Refer please those conferences as competent for the WVHA to Dr. Hohberg. Staatsrat Dr. Schieber will discuss the matter with Dr. Hohberg immediately after presentation of it." Witness, I would like to ask you now, were you actually competent for those conferences?
A: From the document which is signed by Kammler it can be seen that Herr Kammler was not at all informed about this. That there were exact regulations or laws in Germany from which most prices result when certain deliveries were made for armaments. He told us a long story namely, that you had to start from the principle that the number of hours for a number of things produced should be used for a basis of calculation or computation of payments, that is absolute nonsense, because all of those things are contained in the law, and Herr Kammler did not know anything about it. I have to assume that Herr Kammler thought I should discuss those things with Herr Schieber. However, that was not necessary. So far as the rest was concerned, a copy of this document was sent to me, and I never heard anything further about the entire matter, because after all I was not competent for those things. I was not interested in them at all.
Q: Did you have anything to do with Staatsrat Dr. Schieber carrying out any negotiations either oral or written ones?
A: No, no, it is a mistake on the part of Kammler. I never did have anything to do with Schieber.
Q: Did you have any negotiations with somebody else who had been ordered by Dr. Schieber to carry out negotiations?
A: No, at no time did I ever do that.
DR. HEIM: May it please Your Honor, in this connection I would like to take the liberty to refer to Document Hohberg's No. 34, page 75, of Document Book I, Hohberg's, which is Exhibit No. 36; that is an affidavit by Staatsrat Schieber mentioned in the document introduced by the Prosecution, and with the permission of this Court I take the liberty to read the second paragraph of this affidavit, as this paragraph is rather short, if you don't mind. I shall quote: "I have taken cognizance of document NO-1215, Document Book of the Prosecution XII, Exhibit No. 57, page 5, concerning the letter of the Chief of Department C to the Chief of the Main Office regarding the negotiations about the shifting of armament enterprises in concentration camps. I believe that I can say with certainty today that I have never negotiated with Dr. Hohberg whose competence is mentioned in the letter in question. A discussion on the questions resulting from this document seems to me out of the question, because the productions mentioned in the document did not come under the Armament Supply Office but under the Technical Office. The question as to whether one of my assistants negotiated with Hohberg, I therefore also have to answer by saying that I think this also unlikely."
BY DR. HEIM:
Q: Witness, were you ever ordered to deal with questions concerning the transfer of armament factories into the concentration camps?
A: No, the transfer of factory in the armament production was only started the very moment when I left.
Q: Down at the bottom of the document of the Prosecution there is a marginal note that I shall quote: "I would appreciate if I would participate in the conference." Does that marginal note come from you?
A: No, that marginal note was written by Dr. Volk, who was also interested in getting an idea of what was going on there, but Dr. Volk neither participated in that.
DR. HEIM: I shall now speak about document introduced by the Prosecution, concerning the pay for the inmates, and I shall now refer to Document book No. XV, introduced by the Prosecution on page 1, both the German and the English texts. This deals with Prosecution Document NO-1035, Exhibit No. 405. The charges made against you by the Prosecution concerning collaboration in the use and utilization of the inmates to the slave pogram, generally speaking, can find some support in that document. This document deals with your letter to Pohl, dated 18 July 1942, concerning the computation of the daily pay for the inmates. According to the contents of that letter, one can draw a conclusion that in your proposal to Pohl, you endeavored to make as high a profit as possible for both the SS and the Lebensborn from the utilization and labor assignment of the inmates.
Q: I would like to ask you now, witness, how far did you, in your capacity as auditor and expert on taxation matters, have to deal with the pay for the concentration camp inmates, and what were the tasks that you had in that connection?
A: Payment and the clarifying of the payments concerning concentration camp inmates which was to be paid to the Reich was part of my task, of course, as an auditor, because I had to give a certificate to the balances.
Q: What were the factories that employed inmates that you audited, and what were the results of that auditing work of yours?
A: I audited the Allach, the Textile and Leather Manufacturers, the DEST and the DAW, and the German Experimental Stations.
Q: What was the result of that auditing work that you did?
A: Allach was one of my first audits, when I did the first auditing work a small number of inmates was working there. Most of them were artists. I did not have any difficulty there with the daily pay for the inmates. I certified the Allach balance. With the Textile and Leather, G.m.b.H., the matter was entirely different. That company actually paid high wages for the inmates, which corresponded to other daily wages which the other companies paid. The DEST on the other hand, and the German Experimental Stations for food, and the German Armament Equipment Works, between that particular period of time when I was doing the auditing work, only paid thirty pfennigs per day per inmate. The food alone for the inmates amounted to more. As an economic auditor, and as an auditor I had to understand from that that as far as the obligations of those factories to the Reich were concerned, they were much higher than other factories. That was the reason why I had to refuse issuing certificates for the balances of those enterprises.