A. In order to get to know them.
Q. How did you know before the organization at all that something was illegal? Who told you that?
A. Oberfuehrer Moeckl of the SS told me that. That is a man who ordered me to carry out this work. At that time embezzlement was suspected.
Q. Since when had you know Oberfuehrer Moeckl?
A. I met him approximately two weeks before the auditing work, through my friend Weissenbach.
Q. And he was also a member of the resistance movement, like you, and he told these things after two weeks' contact?
A. Your Honor, could this question be asked in another manner? I was not a Party member, and I do not like to be addressed in this manner.
Q. You stated that you had received that information from Oberfuehrer Moeckl. You further stated that he told you about this at a time when he had known you only for two weeks. I must draw the conclusion from your statements that this Oberfuehrer Moeckl, just like you, was a fanatical opponent of National Socialism. Is that correct?
A. You misunderstood something of what I have stated. I said that Moeckl pointed out to me that perhaps some embezzlement may have taken place, or some other financial irregularity.
Q. What position did SS-Oberfuehrer Moeckl occupy at that time? After all, he had still the rank of a Major General in the SS.
A. Moeckl was at the time the Chief of Office III-B.
That was a group of firms with the Mineral Waters Enterprises of the SS, and furthermore, Moeckl before that time, when the enterprises had been owned by the Party, carried out some reviewing work, and he used several bookkeepers in order to carry out this work.
Q. What impression did you have about the political attitude of SS Oberfuehrer Moeckl?
A. Moeckl had the Golden Party Badge, and, as far as I know, he was one of the Senior SS officers of that time.
Q. You did not have the impression that he was a fanatical opponent of National Socialism?
A. He was a Very strict SS officer.
Q. What was your attitude toward him? Did you reveal yourself as a fanatical opponent of National Socialism to him, or did you hint at the fact that actually you wanted to have some business contact with any business organization of the SS?
A. Moeckl, together with Weissenbach, had ordered me to come to Berlin for the following reason: Moeckl had to supervise this circle of firms that was included in III-B, and Weissenbach wanted to give me the opportunity to make myself independent as an auditor in Berlin. Just how Moeckl received the assignment with regard to the Reich Organization, I don't know, but Pohl probably knows about it.
Q. As a result, in any case, we can say that Although he was a convinced National Socialist and SS officer, toward you he still hinted that something was wrong with the Reich Organization at Prague?
A. Yes, he hinted to me that perhaps some embezzlement was taking place.
Q. Although he had know you for only two weeks and knew that you were not a member of the Party or the SS?
A. After all, I am an auditor. In such things he probably gave me his confidence. Nothing can be changed on that.
Q. Were you able to determine any embezzlement in the Reich Organization at Prague?
A: I determined that the business manager of the Reich Organization, SS Oberfuehrer Kurt von Gottberg, who at the same time was the commissioned director of the Land Title Office, or Real Estate Office....
Q: You don't have to make long statements. You can answer this question with yes or no
A: Yes there was an embezzlement of one point three millions.
Q: And although you were a fanatical opponent of national socialism, and although you were able to determine this embezzlement at Prague, you still did not hesitate to make an auditing contract with the WVHA and with the defendant Pohl?
A: No, to the contrary. Now, at least, I was able to gain an insight into these matters. After all, nobody else would take the risk. May I point out that I was warned from all sides not to do that. Moeckl himself was exactly informed about my personal attitude.
Q: I would like to put something to you. It is contained in an affidavit. It is contained in your defense document book. This is an affidavit by Ernst Martin Schmidt, and I quote:
"Later on, I believe in the year 1941, he told me (he is referring to you, Hohberg), on the occasion of the visit that as a result of his professional activity as an auditor he had to audit economic enterprises of the SS, and that there he discovered irregularities which put everything that had ever happened before into the shadow. Upon my question just how he was able to carry out such an assignment in view of his attitude he stated to me that when he accepted the order to carry out the auditing work he still did not have any insight into these conditions. Now, after he had received an insight into the matters which were handled so fondly by the SS he was firmly determined to give up this activity as soon as possible."
End of quotation.
I now want to ask you, witness, does it not become evident from this affidavit, which your own defense counsel has offered... doesn't this show perfectly clearly that what you have just told me cannot possibly be correct?
DR. HEIM: I object to the admission of this question. This is Document Hoberg 42, which has not as yet been offered. It is on page 94 of the Document Book II. This affidavit is not from the defendant Hohberg, but it comes from a certain Martin Schmidt. In this affidavit Schmidt states what Dr. Hohberg told him at the time. Therefore, it is out of the question that the defendant can give his opinion with regard to the statements made by Schmidt.
DR. SEIDE: I asked this question because this affidavit shows quite clearly that it is an open contradiction to what the defendant has stated here today under oath, and it contradicts the statement which he had made towards this witness at the time. Only one of the statements can be correct. Either the witness has stated the untruth today under oath and that will be that; or otherwise he was telling the untruth to this particular affiant. Then, of course, the value as evidence of this affidavit is zero.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you should start from the beginning, Dr. Seidl. Read a particular statement from the affidavit and ask him whether it is true.
DR. SEIDL: Your Honor, I have already read paragraph two to the witness, and I asked him whether it is correct. I asked him whether it was correct what he told the Tribunal today, or whether it is correct what he told the witness Schmidt at the time.
WITNESS: May I please take a look at the document?
DR. SEIDL: According to the contents of this affidavit
THE PRESIDENT: The first question is, did you tell Schmidt, did you make the statements to Schmidt, which he relates in his affidavit. That is the first question.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, your Honor, that is correct.
Q: Will you please answer the question, first of all?
A: Your Honor, it is asking too much that I should now recall precisely what I told to the family Schmidt in the course of many conversations.
THE PRESIDENT: Just read the second paragraph of Schmidt's affidavit. Did you make those statements to Schmidt? Either you did, or you didn't, or you don't remember.
WITNESS: That is the last paragraph, your Honor, the third paragraph.
DR. SEIDL: It is the third paragraph if you count the introduction, the oath.
A: I will make the following conclusion from this paragraph --
THE PRESIDENT: No, not the following conclusions. Did you say to Schmidt what he has said in the third paragraph of his affidavit?
A: Certainly not in this form, because this is quite incorrect!
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. SEIDL: I didn't understand the answer, your Honor.
A: I didn't say it in this form because it is not correct at all. Furthermore, I would like to point out -
THE PRESIDENT: No, no; no further comment.
DR. SEIDL: Well, this settles the question, your Honor.
Q: After you carried out the auditing work you entered the WVHA. That is to say, you worked in the DWB. You concluded the contract that you would carry out auditing work. This happened after you already had noticed that embezzlement had already taken place with the Reich Organization at Prague. I now want to ask you, did Oswald Pohl, or anybody else, force you to conclude this contract with the WVHA or the DWB?
A: No, in a certain sense I actually wanted to conclude this contract.
Q: You actually wanted to?
A: Yes, in a sense.
Q: Because you were, already in 1940, a fanatical opponent of national socialism?
A: I have given several reasons for that in my previous testimony, and these reasons are already contained in the transcript.
Q: Before you concluded your contract with the WVHA or with the DWB, did you audit any enterprise which was under the control of the WVHA?
A: No, I only audited the Reich Organization; no other enterprises.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Dr. Seidl, while you are talking about the contracts he had with defendant Pohl, it has never been stated to us whether or not the two contracts he testified that he made with Pohl were in writing, or whether either one of them were ever reduced to writing, in part, or not. We would like to find out whether or not they were in writing.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q: Witness, were the contracts which you concluded with the WVHA or with Pohl in writing, were they oral agreements, or were they put down in writing, in part?
A: Both contracts, the one I concluded in 1940, as well as the one I concluded in 1943, were put down in writing. I lost the first contract, and the second contract the British Air Force Captain Walker took, and he came to see me here on two occasions, and my defense counsel asked him to turn over the contract to me. And he stated he had already turned it over. That was the original contract. My defense counsel also asked Captain Walker to inform the General Secretary of this fact. I don't know whether this has been done.
Q: You have testified, witness, that you did not audit any enterprise before you entered the WVHA -- which was subordinated to the WVHA.
A: No, the Reich Organization in its entirety was only subordinated to the WVHA later on.
Q: Very well. In the document Book on your defense there is an affidavit of a certain Dr. Max Wolf. It is on page 2 of the German text. The following is stated, and I quote .. it is at the bottom of the page -
THE PRESIDENT: Whose affidavit?
DR. SEIDL: It is the affidavit of Dr. Max Wolf. It is on page 106. It is stated at the bottom of page 2, and I quoted "Dr. Hohberg agreed to carry out in the end the auditing of the SS economic enterprises because this gave him the opportunity to become independent as an auditor, and, on the other hand, because he became very much interested from what he had learned from the first audit, and therefore he wanted to bring the irregularities in the SS enterprises into the open". End of quotation.
Q: I don't know. In any case, what he states here is correct. That is my exact ideology.
Q: Witness, if before you did not audit any enterprises of the WVHA, and therefore if you did not have any knowledge of the connections of the SS economic enterprises, and if you did not know whether any matters had to be cleared up here, just how could you have that intention already at the beginning?
A: Here we have the same case as it was with Dr. Schmidt. Dr. Wolf fundamentally also throws together the SS enterprises with those of the Reich organization and there he is quite right. Dr. Wolf here talks about enterprises; you talk about enterprises of the WVHA. For the outsider that is the same thing.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, Dr. Wolf will appear here on Thursday or Friday as a witness, so we can ask him these questions under cross-examination. I believe that he is the man who is best qualified to answer these questions.
DR. SEIDL: It will not do me any good if the witness Wolf comes here on Friday and if, in the meantime, the defendant Hohberg has already returned to his seat in the defendants' dock. I believe that I should ask these questions now, at this time. They should be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will it do you any good to have some lunch, Dr. Seidl? Let's do that.
(The Tribunal recessed until 1330 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 16 July 1947).
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HANS HOHBERG---Resumed.
EXAMINATION (CONTINUED)
DR. HEIM: Dr. Heim for the defendant Hohberg.
Document Book II for the defendant Hohberg has not as yet been submitted in German, and we only have three copies of the English document book, of which two are with the Tribunal and one with the Tribunal and one with the Prosecution. Accordingly, not one single document from Document Book II Hohberg was introduced by me and accepted by the Tribunal. I therefore object to the fact that these documents from Document Book II Hohberg are part of the examination of the defendant. As a witness in his won behalf it is not clear as yet whether and how far I will introduce those documents at all and if these will be accepted. Apart from that it is clear today already that a series of documents cannot be accepted because the people who signed those affidavits can be examined here in this Tribunal as witnesses for the defendant Hohberg. Therefore I move to rule right now about the question if documents which have not as yet been introduced and accepted can be part of an examination of a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, without reference to the document, to an affidavit, a witness may be asked whether he made certain statements which appear to contradict his testimony, whether those statements were ever put in an affidavit or not. The counsel who is crossexamining does not offer these affidavits and they are not evidence, but there is nothing to prevent his asking the witness whether he made a statement which is apparently contradictory, difficult statement to a certain person. I think that disposes of your objection.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, if I understood you correctly then a reference made to those affidavits or documents which as yet have not been introduced or admitted is not permissible. Is that the way you meant it, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't understand quite the first part of your question.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I understood you to say that it is permissible to ask the witness questions, which questions are the following: Did you make that and that statement at any time? Now, if I understood you correctly, your Honor, then it is not permissible to refer to any document which as yet has not been introduced or admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not permissible to read from a document which has not been offered in evidence. It is not permissible to read into the record from a document which has not been admitted in evidence. However, there is nothing to prevent the attorney from reading the document to himself and then asking the witness whether he made similar statements to those contained in the document.
DR. HEIM: In other words, it is not permissible to refer to the document, is that it?
THE PRESIDENT: He can think about the document.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, your Honor, I see what you mean.
BY DR. SEIDL (For the Defendant Oswald Pohl):
Q. Witness, when was it that the second contract was signed which was signed between you and the WVHA or the Defendant Oswald Pohl, respectively?
A. The contract, as far as I can recall, was dated the 8th or the 10th of August, 1943. It was sent to me quite a few months after it was signed, and I believe it was sent to me to my house in Eastern Prussia.
Q. After that time did you still work for the WVHA?
A. Apart from that promotion by Commissioner Kessler as a liaison officer I don't believe there was anything else.
Q. Did you or your family, based on that contract, receive any allowances from the WVHA or from Pohl respectively?
A. Yes, the contract was singed for that purpose, so that in case I should be killed in the war my family would have received something from them, and all my allowances were paid to me subsequently with the exception of what had drawn before.
Q How much did your family receive per month on the basis of that contract--although you no longer worked for the WVHA?
A I never did work for the WVHA-
Q Excuse me please. How much did your family get monthly?
A Nineteen nudred and sixty-six marks.
Q In other words, roughly 2,000 marks?
A Yes.
Q And it was more of gift--right?
A Yes; because of the fact that I saved about 10,000,000 marks to the economic enterprises by giving them advice. That was the reason why I was given that money.
Q Do you mean to tell me that you saved ten million marks to the economic enterprises with your advice on taxation matters?
In other words you took away from the Reich ten million marks in doing this, is that correct?
A No, it is incorrect, by the corporation charters I succeeded in making the claims valid again which had already been lost for the Reich. Two of the largest enterprises were almost ready for bankruptcy. For instance, these eight million marks which I told you about from the Red Cross would also have been lost if I had not intervened.
Q And all that happened out of your fanatic attitude against National Socialism?
A On amount of my fanatic opposition to the National Socialism I saw to it that the enterprises no longer remained SS enterprises-but a Reich enterprise. I actually intended to remain in connection with those enterprises, and I intended that very strongly. I had no reason whatsoever not to carry out that contract.
Q And for that, your work, the defendant Pohl gave your dependents two thousand marks per month at a time when you were already with the Wehrmacht for a long time?
A It was not very much, compared with the field of tasks which I had before, Mr. Defense Counsel.
Q Did Pohl have a legal obligation to relieve you of the maintenance of your family, and to give them two thousand marks per month?
A No; Mr. Pohl did that on a voluntary basis.
Q And you had no misgivings whatsoever to receive that gift?
A Mr. Defense Counsel, that was not a gift. If you would have listened to my testimony during my examination you would have heard that my salary was much less than I aught to have received.
Q Excuse me witness. I would not like to interrupt you, but you just stated that there was no legal obligation.
AAfter I had the contract there was a legal obligation.
DR. HEIM: (Counsel for Defendant Hohberg): Mr. President, I would appreciate it if you would see to it that the witness be given an opportunity to finish his answer completely before he is asked another question by simply interrupting him in the middle of his answer.
THE PRESIDENT: (To Dr. Seidl) If you ask the witness a question you will have to let him answer it whether you like the answer or not.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Apart from those allowances which you received, did you receive for Christmas 1943-1944 from Pohl, or from the DWB respectively, also gratifications?
A No, I don't think so; but I would have to find out while looking at my bank account. I don't think so.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I just didn't catch that word: What was it that he was to have received at Christmas?
DR. SEIDL: You can call it a Bonus, Your Honor.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q On Christmas, 1943, didn't you receive two thousand marks as a bonus?
A No, I don't think so; I don't think I received it. I am sure I didn't receive it, and as far as the rest is concerned against the agreements on the contracts, all my allowances were stopped in January, 1945, upon one of the collaborators' suggestion in the DWB.
Q In Document Book No. 2, which your Defense counsel introduced there is an affidavit written out by a Max Wolff, and I have mentioned it this morning. It is stated therein, amongst other things-
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no. In the first place, it has not been introduced, and, until it is introduced, you need not ask the witness. You may not ask the witness to discuss its contents.
DR. SEIDL: I am sorry, I simply want to ask the witness if he actually made the statement which is alleged here towards that witness.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, you can ask him whether he made a certain statement, which you can put into words--but don't read it as having been made by someone else when that fact has not been proved.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Did you ever tell Dr. Wolff that the defendant, Oswald Pohl, was the greatest criminal in the world history?
A Whether I used that term I don't know, but I have to stress one point which I think is rather important; namely the following. That up to that moment when I was in Minden--and in collaboration with Mr. Mummenthey and Dr. Volk--I wrote out that report, the Mindener Report. I always started out from that particular point, that Pohl was the sole responsible person for all things that were done in the concentration camps. I heard here that there is a second person who is responsible, namely that both the RSHA (The Reich Security Main Office) as well as Amtsgruppe D were responsible for the concentration camps, and every one of them for their own respective parts. I was not as surely informed about those things as I am today; and my statements concerning Mr. Pohl were definitely stronger than they would be if I would have done it based on the documents introduced here.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I didn't get the answer to the question that you asked him, as to whether or not he made the statement that you asked him if he made?
I would like to know whether or not he made the statement before he makes explanation.
WITNESS: It is quite possible that I made a similar statement, but the prerequisites when I made that statement would not have been the same at the time as if I would have given a statement today, after knowing all the circumstances. I didn't know anything about Amtsgruppe D.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Therefore, you wish to say that you, on that statement, regardless of whether or not it was the same, you started from wrong prerequisites, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Witness, after your conscription into the Luftwaffe, did you have any correspondence with Pohl, and did you visit Pohl voluntarily at that time?
A Mr. Pohl's secretary had been my secretary before, and once in a while I would write to her--every two months usually--because, after all, I was interested in what was to happen. It was through Pohl's secretary that I was invited on one occasion to write him a short letter, and to tell him all about myself and how I was doing. I was working with a reserve unit at the time, and I didn't like my life there. The assignment was not too good, and I wrote him that letter. Mr. Pohl took that letter, added another letter to it, and sent them to General Field Marshal Milch. I had only disadvantages from that letter which he sent to Milch. I asked Milch here in the Courthouse if he remembered anything about it. This letter was probably dealt with by one of his collaborators because he didn't recall anything about it.
Q Upon whose suggestion was it that you received your working leave in 1944?
A It was only done upon the exclusive suggestion of Dr. May--but I have to add that Pohl, upon my request because I wanted to evacuate my family from Eastern Prussia, also granted me a wording leave which lasted for two or three weeks.
My family at the time was already quite close to the front line and I simply wanted to save them. But I did not receive my leave upon Pohl's suggestion--but only upon General Engineer Hermann's suggestion.
Q Wasn't it you who, in 1944, suggested to Pohl to incorporate the SS enterprises into the Figher Program?
A Yes. If you would have listened to me this morning, Mr. Defense Counsel, I told you all about it explicitely. It was kind of short but it did tell you all about it.
I went in to see Pohl and I asked him to incorporate his enterprises into the jet-propelled fighter plane. Pohl refused. Then he found that little trick that Obergruppenfuehrer Berger and Obersturmbannfuehrer Klumm, who has his technical advisor. We got a deal through with Himmler, that Pohl actually had to join this program which was the ME-162, the jet-propelled plane.
Q What were the reasons for doing that? After all, the result could only have been that the war potential would have been increased, and the war would have been prolonged.
A The reasons which made me do that were the following: That was a special request given to me by Dr. May. Four SS leaders of the WVHA, while Dr. May was in the Gestapo custody, took the Grupo, AG away from him, which was some factory in Buczowicz, without his receiving a nickel out of the deal. Dr. May liked that factory very much. Dr. May, through detours, wanted to use this factory for the 162 JetPropelled Fighter program. He wanted to participate in it.
On the other hand, Dr. May wanted to become an honorary SS leader. That was the reason of my visit with Pohl. It was nothing but a personal favor to Dr. May, and he actually was allowed to again join the SS as a leader, I must say unfortunately.
Q Although you were a fanatic opponent of the National Socialism you actually accepted these disadvantageous side effects.
A No; disadvantageous effects seemed up for me. It had only a side effect on Dr. May.
Q Do you recall that Pohl, together with a few Amtsgruppen chiefs, in 1942, visited the Reichsbank in Berlin, and that Reichsbank president Funk invited him for breakfast? Did you participate in that visit? Although the circle of those invited was certainly very small?
A Yes, I was at Reichsbank president Funk's because that was a special honor which Pohl wanted to let me participate in.
Q. Do you believe that the participation of a auditor of an enterprise on such a representative occasion is usual?
A. Quite possible. Why don't you ask Herr Dr. Volk? He was the man who was the I.G. Farben auditor/ It is quite possible, but at the time it was still the idea of Pohl to take me into the Waffen-SS as an SS Leader. Personally I was very glad about it, because it was very interesting to be with the Reichsbank President. We visited all the installations of the Reichsbank and that was the entire idea of the visit.
Q. However, you still stick to your statement that within the WVHA you had a subordinated position?
A. Oh, no, I never did have the opinion. On the contrary, I am of the opinion that I had a very important position, but not in the WVHA. I was the auditor of all the managers in the economic industries.
Q. According to an affidavit by Dr. Max Wolf, which we know already, you told him in 1942 with great horror and indignation about the inhumane conditions in the concentration camps, and I would like to ask you, Witness, where did you gain that knowledge concerning the cruelties in the concentration camps, if you, according to your own statement here, were never in a protective custody camp?
A. Mr. Defense Counsel, I hope you are not going to cut your finger with that question, if I may say so. There were a number of SS leaders who informed me about all things exactly.
Q. Did you ever speak to Pohl about it?
A. No, I could control myself.
Q. I didn't ask you if you could control yourself or not, but I asked you if you did speak to Pohl on one single occasion about such things.
A. No, I never did, because I know that would have led to grave consequences.
Q. And with other SS leaders there were no unpleasant circumstances?
A. No, not in part.
Q. Not in part? And they were all of the same opinion as you were?
A. Yes, the fact that everybody knew my attitude was indicated by the fact that as a result of this that a whole number of SS leaders gathered against me and vilified whereever they could. I was very well informed of what was going on.
Q. Defense Witness Max Wolf said he received from you a list of prominent SS - which you made -
DR. HEIM (Attorney for the Defendant Hohberg): Mr. President, I have to object explicitly against the fact again that Dr. Seidl is reading from an affidavit which has not yet been introduced, i.e. that he is referring to it.
DR SEIDL: Your Honor, I don't think I am reading it. I am just using my own words.
THE PRESIDENT: No, you are not. You are quoting the affidavit sufficiently that it can be identified. You named the person who made the affidavit. You gave us his name, isn't that true?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, that is quite correct, but if I put an assertion contained in the affidavit to the witness, then it seems to me right that I should tell the witness at least who made that statement, because otherwise he would not be in a position to give appropriate answers, Mr. President.