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.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, you are not as innocent and ingenuous as you pretend. Do not refer to the affidavit which has not been received in evidence. I have told you plainly how you can get this information. Now don't do it again.
Q. Do you know anything about the speculations of the WVHA, Witness?
A. What do you mean by speculations? Do you mean by speculations with shares?
Q. I shall give you an example. Did you hear of speculations with Saba shares?
A. Yes, I believe that was the only speculation which was carried out there.
Q. And you made a profit of 27,000 marks, is that correct?
A. Yes, quite so.
Q. This morning you testified about a resistance circle around an officer whose name was Passman, I believe. And you also testified that officers belonging to that circle with which you were in contact personally as a member of a res-istance movement and that they were executed as a result of events of the 30th of Juno, 1944, can you give me a few names of such higher ranking officers with which you were personally in contact in connection with a resistance movement?
A. I can't give you any other name except Count Von Schulenburg. The reason was that it wasn't quite the way you put it, namely that there was a resistance movement, but rather, it was a house where all sorts of people met at regular intervals and they all had the same ideas. I endeavored to be able to play a certain part in those resistance movements myself, but I didn't succeed in doing so.
DR. SEIDL: No further questions to the witness.
BY DR. CARL HAENSEL (Attorney for Defendant Georg Loerner):
Herr Hohberg, I would like to refer to this document here, but not in Document Book No. II, which was introduced by my colleague Heim, I am referring to that secret document book, which was introduced by Dr. Heim, the secrecy of which he is trying to keep so much to himself, but, rather, I would like to refer to the document book which was introduced by the prosecution, and it is Document Book No. XIV. You will find a copy of commercial register of the DWB. This is not the German resistance movement, but rather the German economic movement and from this commercial register excerpt, the following can be seen: the date of the establishment of the GHMB is the 14th of August, 1940. please remember that date, the 14th of August, 1940. The next entry is by agreement of all the share holders on the 6th of July 1941, Georg Loerner was appointed Second Business Manager. That is entered on the 23rd of July, 1941. All I wanted you to do was, if you could possibly clarify those two dates, because at the time you sot the date I can understand very well that after all you can't remember all the things, of the time of the establishment of the DWB, Loerner had become the second business manager. Now please convince yourself about those two dates and you will tell me then that he only became second business manager later.
A. Yes, it took one year. It was one year after the establishment.
Q. You stated, Herr Hohberg, that in the WVHA there were actually only soldiers who were working.
Would you recall that? It was during the examination this morning. Now, this Georg Loerner, was he one of those soldiers too?
A Yes.
Q When you say soldiers, do you mean to say they were the people who had come up from a military career as opposed to civilians from commercial professions?
A Yes, I wanted to compare the two together, the civilian and the Army soldier.
Q Then you spoke about Document Book No. XVII where there is a list of letters which you dictated. You don't have to refer to the letters. You remember that answer. You said there that the letters had been dictated by you and that Dr. Weller or somebody else had signed them. All I wanted to find out was the difference between you and Georg Loerner as far as those letters were concerned, because Georg Loerner would have signed or that Loerner would have dictated; in that connection we didn't receive them. The prosecution did not introduce them. May we then understand that you dictated various letters, although you didn't have the right of signature in the DWB and that Loerner had the right of signing in the DWB, but didn't use it.
A Yes, I can say that particularly as far as the letters of taxations were concerned.
Q You told us that on one occasion when you paid back the credit, you signed that yourself.
A Yes, as Chief of Staff W.
Q Why was it that you didn't get Georg Loerner's signature and after all you could have gotten it very easily, or do you think that Loerner would have gone to see Pohl first. Do you think he could have done such a thing with Loerner?
A I believe that Loerner would have refused to sign it and I believe that he would have referred me to Pohl. Loerner was outside of the DWB, apart from a few conferences and apart from discussions concerning the establishment he didn't appear too much.
Q You stated that during the new establishment you were asked to go to see Pohl on certain offcasions. Now, was Loerner called to these preliminary discussions or was he outside of these too?
A Yes, I believe that he was present on such discussions. There weren't too many of them. 20 new firms were established in three years and I am sure that he was present on quite a few occasions.
Q Did he participate actively, or was he just there?
A He said something now and then, but I believe he was there for the statistics.
Q In your testimony you repeatedly stated that you thought to turn all those enterprises over to the Reich later on, shall we say, to remove them from the SS and give them to the Reich. Did you also have the idea since it was the SS was composed of soldiers who would not be suitable to direct an economic enterprise?
A No, that was not my starting point, but my ideas were entirely different ones.
Q However, if you wanted to stay in later when it was to be transferred to the Reich would you have put a man in charge; would a man like Loerner have been taken into that enterprise as a man who had a capacity which could not be used or that he should have remained outside?
A Herr Loerner is not as silly as you describe him. He is a man who thinks calmly and I believe he could have been used for that purpose.
Q Yes, well, I didn't ask you if he could have been used for something. I am asking you if he could have played a certain part in your plan?
A My plans were not so far advanced as all that, because the person who would have to decide this later on would have been the Reichs Finance Minister. I didn't think that far.
Q Yes, but I hive to ask you a question are you of the opinion that person should direct an enterprise who puts the money in it, who is in charge of
A The man who according to the statute would be entitled to it, which would be the one who had the fact of saying so in the matter.
Q Yes, and so far as I understand it, sofar this Reich money did not come in as an increase in capital but rather as a loan?
A No, the capital majority on the part of the Reich was not in part a Reich fund, and not as a loan; they were used only here in increasing the capital.
Q That was done at the time?
A Yes, the ratio was 8.5 million of the Reich and 7.5 million of the Party that were distributed. The 30 millions were here simply to reinforce the Reich position to assert itself in the enterprise.
DR. HAENSEL: I have no further questions. Thank you.
DR. FRITSCH: Dr. Fritsch for the defendant Baier.
Q Witness, I have only a very few questions to ask you. You introduced a few charts through my colleague Dr. Heim. One of these bears the caption "after 30 June, 1943". I don't believe I have submitted that chart, but I believe you know which one it is, and by saying picture. That was the time after you left?
A Yes.
Q You had quite set up this particular chart according to your own knowledge of affairs after 30 June 1943, or what do you base your knowledge on about the conditions as described in this chart?
A In the affidavit attached to the chart, I took the liberty to point out that I only referred to statute of the business as contained in the document, and not according to my own knowledge, because I was not there after all. I had to make this chart because I wanted to give you the difference between the method before the 30 June 1943, and the one afterwards.
Q The attached affidavit is not known to me at least. I know, however, that you testified in the witness box that the conditions changed immediately and fundamentally, is that correct?
A Yes, quite.
Q You based your knowledge on this fundamental change, however, and on the particular business directive?
A No, the fundamental changes I also base on my own experience because Herr Baier was a Prokurist. Baier was not an auditor. I was. The auditors who worked together with me were all released. New auditors were introduced who only worked with me on the framework of the Internal Revision Department. That was the change which according to my opinion was total, and I could see it through and quite close up.
Q One more question in this connection. When did that business directive go into effect, do you know that?
AAfter what I heard, it was on 1 January 1945.
Q That was one year and a half after you left?
A Yes. All I can tell you about that is what I got from the documents.
Q How do you know that Baier became a Prokurist?
A I know from the report submitted to me by Dr. Volk.
Q Do you know when Baier became a Prokurist?
A No, I have no knowledge about that.
Q You don't know that it was in March 1945?
A No.
Q A Prokurist is a manager with authority to handle business affairs of a concern. Yon just mentioned that the auditors were released. Would you bring that into any connection with the intended fundamental changes which were to occur?
A No.
Q I can state then, that basically those were a reconstruction of all those facts later?
A Yes, quite so, quite so, by reason of the business directive.
Q Herr Dr. Hohberg, in this connection you also spoke about the Internal Finance Office. Will you please be kind enough to explain to us here very briefly what you mean by that?
A Before the corporation charters were established, every one of the members of a company could correspond directly with his finance office locally. After the corporation charters were assigned, these affiliated companies, which were included in this corporation charter, in fact, no one were to use the finance offices but to deal directly with the DWB, that is, with the exception of taxation, namely, the property tax, and similar taxes. During the first few months, or at the beginning, the DWB had nothing to do with the taxation office, but after I left they carried out certain computations for the various affiliated companies in order to show how much money could be made in those corporation charters.
Q And Baier was the man in charge of this internal finance office?
A First was Dr. Wenner, and then Herr Baier became his superior, therefore, Baier was the man in charge of the internal finance office.
Q Now, Dr. Hohberg, I shall now ask you to point out what was testified to this morning about the Equalization Treasury. This is contained in a document which is entitled "Unfinished Work." First of all, you stated what was contained in that treasury; if I am not mistaken you said it contained over ten million Reichsmarks at the end of the war. May I ask you where you found out about that figure?
A From Dr. Volk, that figure was written down in reports; in the Mindener report which I completed.
Q You did not obtain figures from any other source?
A No, I had no further source of information after I left.
Q You know that the defendant Baier turned over all his files which was at his disposal to the American authorities?
A Yes.
Q When you wrote down your memoirs to make the Mindener report, did you have any such documents at your disposal?
A No, we had no documents whatsoever at our disposal. The only document which we had was the photograph copy, rather the photostatic copy of that which I left in Berlin, and Captain Walker from the British Royal Air Force has it, and I can take a lot of figures there, so far as remaining figures are concerned, just as I remembered them from memory.
Q Therefore, no figures have been mentioned about the Equalization Treasury from which an actual figure could be shown, namely, about three million marks?
A No.
Q You brought this point in connection with concentration camp inmates, witness. Do you know of any single case where from this Equalization Treasury funds were paid to any affiliated company when an inmate did not appear for work?
A The Treasury was only established at about the time when I left. What I mean, was, while I was working as an auditor for the DWB this was not possible, but I believe that there is something contained in one of the document books to that effect.
Q You furthermore spoke about a Red Cross loan. Do you know there was still a Red Cross loan after you left?
A Separated into various branches there were eight million. I don't believe that there was another loan on the part of the Red Cross later on, I think that it is out of the question that there was one.
Q You said these loans were paid back?
A Yes, I intervened to that affect and it happened one or two days after I left.
Q Witness, I shall have to come back to one point. During your direct examination you repeatedly mentioned that Dr. Wenner, and Dr. May were your personal friends?
A Dr. Wenner, no. He was a friend of mine until he joined the SS. We had a very vivid quarrel and then he separated from me spiritually.
Q Because he joined the SS?
A Yes, I guess so, but amongst other things, there was also a question of my influence and my observation upon his work with taxes, and so on, which was not welcome to him.
He went his own way, and I could not assert myself with him, because of the fact I had no command with the DWB, and I assume this was one of the reasons that he did not have to run the danger of my giving him any orders or advice which he simply had to accept. He was very proud of his uniform later on.
Q You personally stated that Dr. May was arrested and imprisoned by the Gestapo for over a year. Then you stated that somebody gave him a pat on the back and told him, "Now, Herr Dr. May, you can go again, it was all a big mistake." Was Dr. May arrested on a second time?
A No.
Q You don't know of it?
A No, that would be something new to me. But everything is possible.
Q You spoke of a collection of evidence against you witness. Was that generally after you left or before you left?
A It was already before I left.
Q However, you said that Dr. Wenner left because of the instigation and the jealousies of other SS leaders. You said that was the reason, is that correct?
A No.
Q You spoke about the degradation of Dr. Wenner, and you said that Dr. Wenner, who was your friend had been attached in the same way that you were attached?
A Yes. According to Dr. Wenner's statement, that was the case. There was the following incident. Dr. Wenner together with Dr. Hoffman was on the supervisory board of the Wolfram factory near Iglau, in Czechoslovakia. And as members of the supervisory board they received a bonus. Dr. Wenner stated that the bonus had been paid into his bank account, and that he at the beginning did not notice anything at all, because the bank did not inform him about it. However, it was held against him, that against the order of Herr Pohl he had accepted the bonus. Wenner told me that was the reason why he had such difficulties.
Q Yes, however, witness, this does not show that evidence was gathered against you. What I was driving at, was, you said prior to your departure -- and after you departure -- certain evidence was being gathered against you?
A Yes.
Q Will you tell us anything more about it. Can You tell us who did that?
A Before my departure Dr. Schmidt Klevenow was collecting evidence against me, and after my departure I was only informed by my defense counsel here that due to Dr. Schmidt Klevenow there was another arrest warrant issued against me, and there was also additional troubles. Furthermore, I had another series of sources of information, because I received quite a few additional information.