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.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, those figures had nothing to do with wages to be paid to inmates, did they?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, let me say the following in brief terms: Hereon the one hand you have the commercial enterprises. On the other hand, you have the inmates, and in between the two you have the particular Reich authority which is in charge of the inmates. Now, if inmates are placed at the disposal of a commercial enterprise, than the Reich puts those inmates at the disposal of the commercial enterprises, and it asked for that a certain price, or a certain amount of money, which is to be paid to the Reich. That is to say, the same method as is use all over the world, so far as prisoners in jails are concerned, when they are loaned out to third parties. Within the frame of my practice I saw the same thing done by relief organizations. Now it is up to the Reich to see to it that the inmates under the circumstances also receive part of that money. The factory as such would exert no influence in that matter, that one must assume that an inmate will not receive very much when thirty pfennigs are paid out, is a natural thing, and that was one of the reasons not only to eliminate the special privileges of the SS I tried with all the power to have these enterprises pay something to the Reich, which amounted to exactly the same amount as other enterprises also had to pay to it. According to those documents contained here, there were quite a few in Germany. What the Reich did with it neither the enterprises nor I could decide.
THE PRESIDENT: What the Reich did was to loan these inmates to the industries, just as they would loan so many machines, and all they gave the inmates was maintenance;
they just kept them alive. They did not give them the money that they earned, or any part of it, did they?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is exactly the way it was. Your Honor, how the things were in detail can also be seen from the documents that were introduced by the Prosecution. Here we saw for instance, that, the Reich Finance Minister somehow had a fight with the Reich Ministry for Occupied Territories. They had a fight or a struggle about those millions that resulted from the utilization of inmate labor. It can be seen from that fact only that the man who was sitting in the factory had no influence whatsoever on what the Reich did with the money.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Reich, we'll say, had 5,000 human machines, just as it might have had 5,000 motors, and it said to the factories, "We'll rent these human machines to you for so many Reishsmarks per day."
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is the way it was.
THE PRESIDENT: Just as they could have rented 5,000 motors for so many Reichsmarks per month.
THE WITNESS: Yes, quite so, exactly the same thing.
THE PRESIDENT: The 5,000 human machines just got food and shelter.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And nothing more.
THE WITNESS: No, nothing at all.
THE PRESIDENT: And you say that is a system that prevails all over the world?
THE WITNESS: No, not this system. Your Honor, I started from the point of view that the relationship between the inmate or prisoner and and the factory is about the same; in other words, that there is not a contract between the inmate and the factory, but, rather, there will be a contract between the agency which will place the inmates at the disposal of the factory, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, you have a legal right, a legal relationship between the agency which places the inmates at the disposal and the inmates themselves. There is no direct contact between the inmate and the factory.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no contract between the inmate and the factory.
THE WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but is it your idea that, for instance, in the United States, criminals who are in prison are made to work for factories and get nothing for it?
THE WITNESS: Well, I hope they do get something, because after all, we are all against that system that we had in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you said that this is a system which exists all over the world but not to the extent that the prisoner gets nothing for his labor.
THE WITNESS: No, of course not. I am talking about the relationship so far as the contract was concerned. The method, of course, is entirely different from this one here.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't want you to get the impression that, for instance, in the United States-
THE WITNESS: No, no. definitely not.
THE PRESIDENT: --prisoners are rented out to factories and don't get any money for it, for their work, because they do.
THE WITNESS: Yes, of course. I hope that the same case does not apply over there as it did here. Your Honor, I would, however, like to draw your attention to one consequence. The factory actually did not have any influence on what the Reich did with the money, nor did I have any influence over that. That is the same as if a tax consultant to a firm pays its taxes on time, and the tax consultant is not to be responsible for what the Finance Office does with the money.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand that; that is quite clear.
THE WITNESS: However, the problem is entirely different even if the it had been the way you say it was, namely, that the inmate was to be paid a daily wage and the pay had accumulated. Then what use is it to the inmate if he dies later or if he is gassed or something similar? That is the reason I say that all those things are not primary but secondary. The idea was to eliminate the entire system.
THE PRESIDENT: I can agree with you wholeheartedly on that. We do not disagree on that at all.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, we stopped with the answer to the question; What were the reasons which made you refuse a certificate to the balance of the factories?
A. In the DEST there was the additional fact that the factory was indebted. Quite a large part of their own capital had been lost in it. In the DAW it was a question solely of pay of the inmates and the conditions prevailing in Lublin, which conditions I became acquainted with when I went on that trip with May, and with the German Experimental Station it was again the same thing; namely, the wages for the inmates, and the additional fact that I had to interrupt my auditing work because their bookkeeping was entirely wrong.
Q. Did you have to refuse the certificate to other agencies and affiliated companies of the DWB?
A. Yes. In one company I had to interrupt the auditing work, and that was with the Sudentenquell GmbH because the prices were too high, and, they were absolutely against the law, and even my auditing work never helped in any way.
Q. On the basis of your activity as an auditor, what do you know about the pay of the inmates of the DWB factories as far as inmate labor was used in those factories?
A. I saw the amount of daily wages paid to the inmates, and as an auditor I had to give my opinion on what these enterprises should pay to the Reich, and this should be entered on the debit side of the balance.
Q. Did the amount of the daily wages of the inmates have any influence on the inmate himself?
A. Not so far as 30 pfennigs were concerned, I am sure. If the daily wages for the inmates had amounted to the normal amount, then, at least, the Reich would have had the possibility to place part of that daily wage at the disposal of the inmates.
However, as there was no actual connection between the enterprise and the inmates, the commercial enterprise as such could have no influence whatsoever on the fact of whether the Reich will pass on his daily waves to the inmate or not.
Q What were the reasons that made you suggest the increase in the daily wages for the inmates?
A By this low daily wage, the SS enterprises, compared with private enterprises, had a definite economic advantage. If the SS enterprises had been taken care of in an administratively correct manner, if the price had been based on the so-called LSOE, such low pay would have resulted that the private enterprise could not possibly have competed.
Q Therefore, you suggested the increase in the daily wages for the inmates. Did you have any other reason in connection with this suggestion, apart from the reason which you stated in your letter to Pohl?
A Not only did I suggest that, but I actually tried to get that increase through with force, in order to eliminate this privilege on the part of the SS enterprises which was not justified; The reason was that why if all the inmates were loaned to all these enterprises, should the pay be smaller or lower with the SS, and I could not see why.
Q In your letter to Pohl, you suggested placing this amount at the disposal of the Lebensborn, entirely or partly. What were the reasons which made you make this suggestion to Pohl, which you illustrated by a calculated example.
A For a year and a half I tried in vain to bring the daily waves for inmates to a normal level. You can imagine that the business managers of the enterprises were strictly against it because at the same moment it was asked that they work more economically in their enterprises. When I saw no other possibility to help me get along with my ideas, I made that suggestion to Pohl in order, at least, to show him the entire matter in a different light and make it agreeable to him.
I would like to point out that I am from the tax field myself and that at the time it was already known to me that the differences which I computed here for the Lebensborn were corrected according to the various laws which existed here, taxation laws and war laws, and that they would all have gone to the Reich in their entirety, the reason being that the investment of capital was zero. The loaning to third parties of inmates, according to German law, was a taxation matter. May it please Your Honor, I would like a tax expert to prove this to you later on, because by this document I feel very much accused. Here Pohl, as he stated in his testimony, immediately threw that suggestion of mine into the wastepaper basket.
I would like to point out in connection with this that a few days after that an additional suggestion was made by me. In this particular case it deals with Lublin, namely, to transfer the entire profit made on the utilization of labor of concentration camp inmates to the Reich. Pohl officially approved that and actually gave approval to it.
Q. You stated that at the time you had to make your suggestion agreeable to Mr. Pohl. What was the reason for saying that?
A. That Pohl, just like the business enterprise managers, reacted, or did not react to increase the daily wages for the inmates to such an extent that they were just as high as those other private enterprises had to pay. I didn't succeed in doing so because the first pay wages for the inmates, which were increased, and which were given out by Amtsgruppe D, were definitely too low.
Q. Didn't you believe at the time that Herr Pohl would understand that your proposal could not possibly be carried through?
A. The proposal or the suggestion could have been carried through, because after all it was nothing but a trial to do so, and if I could have done it, fine. In any case it could not be continued and kept up the way it was so far, namely that thirty pfennigs were paid for the daily work of a man.
I shall now refer to Document Book No. XV, introduced by the Prosecution, on Page 5 of the German and Page 4 of the English text. This is NO-1289, Prosecution Exhibit 406. The first part of that document is a letter by Pohl to the commanders themselves of the concentration camps, and to the chiefs of all W offices. This letter deals with the new wage scales for the prisoners, and the fixation of those wage scales. Did you have anything to do with this new wage scale for the concentration-camp inmates?
A. Apart from the fact that I insisted on increasing their daily wages, no. This letter has as its purpose, or shall we say "had" as its purpose, to inform W offices and all the other enterprises about the new wage scales which were to be paid to the concentration-camp inmates, effective the 1st of January, 1943. You can see from the prices that the wage scale for the inmates was still too low. This particular set-up here still means that the SS enterprises were privileged compared with the private enterprises.
Q. The second part of that document is a letter which you wrote on the 22nd of December, 1942, to Maurer, the chief of Amtsgruppe D for "Dog". That deals with the wage scale for the prisoners, for the inmates.
In this document you are speaking of finding the profits derived from the utilization of Jewish labor. What did you have to do with that, Witness?
A. On our trip to Lublin, on that particular morning when Dr. May was with Dr. Koch, I dealt with the bookkeeping of the DAW Works in Lublin. I found out the following: however, I would like to mention this is the only case which I know, I found out that inmates were transferred and loaned out while nothing was paid for them. In other words, it was nothing but white slavery. When I returned I immediately informed Pohl about it, and as it was impossible to separate the inmates who were working for the DAW from those who were loaned out to a third party, to private enterprises possibly, Pohl agreed that the entire profit, which could be figured out by bookkeeping, with respect to the entire matter, which was not very agreeable, was to be transferred to the Reich entirely.
Q. Was the computation of the wage scales for concentration-camp inmates, fixed by you or at least in agreement with you?
A. No, I was never asked anything about the wage scales as such in their amount. No one else from the so-called Staff W was ever asked about it. If it had originated from me I am sure that the inmate wage scale would have amounted to much more.
Q. The amount which was paid to the concentration-camp inmate, did it have a particular influence in this particular case here on the inmate himself?
A. No, not in this particular case here. However, this was a matter of integrity.
Q. Who was in charge of fixing the wage scales for the inmates?
A. You are asking me a little bit too much. In any case it must have been a Reich's authority. Undoubtedly the Price Commissioner, the Reich Labor Ministry, and the Reich Finance Ministry would have participated in this.
Q. Did Staff W, at your time, have anything to do with that?
A. At my time one cannot speak of tasks performed by Staff W because the fields of task of the individual sections which belonged to the Staff W differed entirely from each other. However, neither I as an auditor who was outside of the Staff W, nor anybody else from Staff W, had anything to do with fixing the wage scales and the amount of the wage scales for the concentration-camp inmates, apart from that suggestion which I made and which was discussed before.
Q. In Document Book No. IV by the Prosecution, on Page 46, would you take a look at that document there. It is on Page 34 of the English document book. It deals with Document NO-517, Prosecution Exhibit 608. It is a file note for Chief W for "William" dated the 23rd of March, 1944.
A. That concerns the regulations for the concentration camps and for the inmates, and therefore the camp regulations also. As can be seen from this document the main office chief had ordered that Chief W had to work in computing the regulations for the concentration camps.
Q. Were you still working as an auditor at that time for the DWB?
A. No, I had already left that office for nine months. At my time no preliminary work was done for those things.
Q. Did Staff W, concerning the regulations of the concentration camps, already work on those things before the 30th of June, 1943?
A. I would like to draw your attention to the fact again that prior to the middle of 1943 one could not speak of actual tasks of Staff W. As far as I can recall neither the legal department nor anybody else dealt with any such questions at the time.
Q. I shall now refer to Document Book No. III introduced by the Prosecution, Page 51 of the German and Page 46 of the English document book. This deals with Document NO-1292, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 46. That is a letter by Kammler to the Inspector of the Concentration Camps. As it is stated at the end of the letter, this document also circulated to Amtsgruppe W.