Q And now my final question, witness. You know from the course of this trial that the Prosecution has produced a document where the DEST is expressively called an plant which led to this letter from the DEST to Pohl, of the DWB?
A I don't know anything about this letter.
Q It is document 1276 in the document book 16 page 19 which you have in your hands. It is Document 1276, Exhibit 428. And I want to ask you, do you know anything about the matter?
A Yes.
Q Will you please describe the matter to the Tribunal?
A Here we are dealing with the talking-over of the Gmundner Lime Works, AG, at Gmund, Austria. One day Pohl ordered me to investigate whether these Gmundner Lime Works were an enterprise which could be purchased -
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Just a minute---
INTERPRETER: ...Whether this was an enterprise which could be purchased.
A Witness, the stock of this company belonged to an SS officer, This SS officer had some sort of a position within the WVHA. I ascertained that this enterprise was very highly in debt and the economic conditions of this enterprise were so bad that it bacame apparent that this SS officer was trying to decieve Pohl, and in a certain way to try to turn over this plant to him, the value of which in reality was only a fraction of what he was trying to get for it. That was the reason why the purchase of this plant was disapproved. Just what caused Dr. Salpeter to make a statement of this kind; namely, to call this plant a plant employing inmate labor, I don't know. However, there certainly was no reason for that.
Q Did you discuss with Salpeter or Mummenthey the experiences which you gained, with regard to this enterprise?
A I can't recall that any more. However, it may be possible. It is probable.
Q I am asking you this question because the business management had to be informed from some side if they wrote this letter.
A I compiled a report about that. I sent it to Pohl, and it is probable that Pohl passed it on.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for Mummenthey): I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Prosecution may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, as an expert on German commercial law, I want to ask you a few questions about different types of companies in existence in Germany. I would like for you first to turn to Document Book XIV, if you will, to Exhibit 384, page 16 of the German page 19 of the English, Document NO-1930. It's on page 16, I believe, of Book XIV. There are known to German law the following forms of individual business enterprise which are not legal entities, are there not? The OHB?
A Yes, such a company exists also.
Q The KG?
A Yes, we have two kinds of Kommandit Gesellschafts. There is one on shares and we have a Kommandit Gesellschaft where the person holding kommandits is not based on shares but is actually one of the owners.
Q For the record, would you give us the full German name for the OHG and the KG, please?
A It is an open trade company, the OHG, the Offene Handelsgesellschaft, which is an open trade company where everybody is liable.
Q And the KG, Kommandigesellschaft. It has one or several partners who are personally liable, just like in any trade company and beyond that it has partners which only are liable with a certain amount of capital. However, these Kommandit stocks can also be in the form of shares; then we call it a Kommanditgesellshaft on shares.
Q It is, in other words, a kind of limited partnership?
A Yes, it is a company with limited or unlimited liability.
Q And OHB is a kind of general partnership?
A The partners of the OHG are always liable for the entire property.
Q These are the two main types of individual business enterprises without a legal entity, not possessing a legal independent entity, is that correct?
A Well, in this case we have to consider the individual firm. Then, of course, we have the so-called silent company. That silent company is something between individual firm and the Kommandit-gesellschaft.
Q Before we take up the firms with legal entities, the associations having a legal personality, let me ask you if any of the industries or concerns listed in Document NO-1039 are the type of individual business enterprises which we have just discussed, namely, the OHG and the KG?
A No, here we are not dealing with an OHG, nor with the KG.
Q These are industries with a legal personality. Now in Germany there are several kinds of enterprises with legal personalities. There is the AG, is there not?
A Yes.
Q First for the record will you give us the complete German name for AG?
A The AG, the Aktiengesellschaft is a non-personal company and its stock is divided up into various shares and the stock holders are only liable for the nonimal amount of their shares.
Q In other words, this is a stock corporation?
A However, in Germany, we have stock by names and stocks which are owned.
Q Will you give us a brief description of the body which manages the AG, namely the Aufsichtsrat and the Vorstand?
A The AG, according to the new stock law, has three organs: One is the Hauptversammlung. These are the stock holders who might have certain legal jobs. The second is the business management, which is called Vorstand. It is actually the Board of Directors. The rights of these Vorstand are clearly defined in commercial law. Then we have a third organ, which carries out the supervision over that Board of directors.
That is, the Aufsichtsrat, the so-called Board of Supervisors. The main assembly appoints the supervisors and the Board of Supervisors appoints the directors.
Q And the Aufsichtsrat also has the power to remove the Vorstand, as well as appoint has it not?
A Yes, through a majority resolution.
Q So then, would you say that the Vorstand is the executive Board of the corporation and that the Aufsichtsrat is the supervisory board, that board which supervises the Vorstand.
A Yes, that is quite correct.
Q And an other type of corporations in Germany law is the Kommanditgesellschaft KAG or the KAA, is that correct.
A That is a Kommanditgesellschaft auf Aklein, yes. The Kommanditgesellschaft on shares in practice is a Kommanditgesellschaft, that is to say with partners who are personally liable with the entire property.
Q Excuse me. We don't have any such firms listed in NO-1039. Then still another type is the G.M.B.H. Will you please give us a brief description of the G.M.B.H. and of the manager of that corporation?
A The G.M.B.H. is an enterprise with limited liability. It is abbreviated G.M.B.H. It is also now personal capital enterprise. Its own capital is not divided up to shares, but into so-called partner shares and these partner shares, whenever they are passed on, has to be turned over through a document signed before a notary public. The company stock, therefore, cannot be sold as easily as for example, a share that is personally owned. The G.M.B.H. has the following body there for example, it has the General assembly. This corresponds to the main assembly in the case of the AG. Then it has the business manager.
Q Excuse me, the main assembly is the stock holders, or the share owners, is that right.
A That is right, yes, that is the owner of the company shares.
Q And the second body, you were about to say -
A The second body is the public manager or the business manager.
Q Or Geschaeftsfuehrer, is that correct?
A Geschaeftsfuehrer; in the AG it is called the Board of Directors and in the GMBH they are Geschaeftsfuehrer, business manager.
Q There is no Vorstand in the GMBH?
A No, but this other body compares to it. Only the legal obligations in the stock law and in the GMBH law vary and they are differently divided. However, in principle if is the same. The third party in the GMBH is only a voluntary board of supervisors. The AG must have one, the GMBH may have one. The German Economic Enterprises, the DWB could have had one. However, they did not have one.
Q Did it have to have one according to the law or according to the charter?
A No.
Q Where a corporation, a G.M.B.H. does have an aufsichtsrat, then it performs the same function for the GMBH that it does for the AG, namely, to supervise the Executive Board.
A Yes, that is correct. Only this specific functions varies a little bit in the different kinds of companies. However, the principle remains the same.
Q Now, are there any other types of German corporations that should be mentioned before we go on? We have mentioned three, I believe.
A Well, we don't have to mention the Gewerkschaft; after all, we are not dealing with that question here. The Gewerkschaft is capital company which instead of shares has a special sort of stock, the Kuse and they are limited to any certain amount.
Q I think that is sufficient.
A We have not as yet mentioned the so-called Genossenschaft, a cooperative society. Amongst these companies we have a Genossen schaft; that was the sale store of the Berlin, furniture manufacturing, G.M.B.H. That is a registered cooperative society with limited liability.
Of course, there are various types of cooperatives with limited liability, unlimited liability, and so on. There are various types and we don't have to go into detail here.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q That particular form was under W-4 that you just mentioned?
A Well, in this chart which I was to look at, it is all mentioned on the first page. It is under three, under the German Economic Enterprise of the DEST enterprise, Staff-W.
Q Now referring to this Document NO-1039, except for the one exception which you just pointed out, namely, the furniture factory, all of these corporations are either GMGH or AG, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Can you tell us what the functions of the Prokurist is under the German Law, under the German Commercial Law?
A The Prokurist according to the German Law has the character of a small business manager. We have certain types of business which the Prokurist is not allowed to handle by himself. That is to say, where a board of directors or a business management have to carry out that work themselves. Normally a Prokurist has a certain field assigned to him through instructions, as a general order of procedure.
Q Can you tell us, does the AG Associations and the GMBH Associations have Prokurists?
A Yes, either one can have Prokurists.
Q And they can have a Prokurist at the same time as they have a Vorstand?
A I don't quite understand your question. I understand it to mean that where there is a Prokurist in a company, he at the same time can be a director in another company.
Q No, the fact that a corporation has a Vorstand or executive board does not preclude it from having a Prokurist?
A No.
Q Will you tell us what is the relation of these two organs?
A The Prokurists are automatically subordinated to the business management in the case of the GMBH, or the executive board in the case of the AG.
Q The Prokurist, however, does carry out some executive functions, is that correct under the supervision of the Vorstand?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Under the entire direction of the executive board, that is correct. I don't want to bring that conception of supervision in connection with the executive board, because in all these things according to the German Law one thinks of the board of supervisors.
Q Now I am talking about the Vorstand. Does the Prokurist always act under the supervision of the Vorstand?
A Yes, in the AG he would work under the supervision of the executive board, and in the GMBH he would work under the direction of the business management. The names vary in this respect.
Q Does he have any sphere of action in which he can use his own discretion, or does he have to get an approval for every action from his superior body?
A Yes, that is a normal procedure. However, for the most part he is always authorized to sign documents, or whatever may be necessary. This is fixed by his superiors, and it is quite customary in general that the Prokurists either together with one or Prokurist signs letters, etc., or he signs together with a business manager, or he signs them together with a member of the executive board. Then we have the individual Prokura, however, this is very rare.
Q Then in addition there is what we have heard here as the business manager. Is that a separate official under the German Law from the Prokurist and a member of the Vorstand?
A I don't want to go into the differences according to the Law. The business manager in a GMBH is in his position the same as a member of the executive board of the AG; only the title varies in this case.
Q Here in the case of AG, it is like the Vorstand, you say. Does not he work under the Vorstand, under the supervision of the Vorstand?
A No. According to the German Law, the conception Vorstand, combines on the executive board, only exists with regard the law about shares. The same function, however, with somewhat different defined has the business manager as in the case of GMBH. In the same company we do not have an executive board and a business manager. The executive Court No. II, Case No. 4.board and a business manager.
The executive board belongs to the AG, and the business manager belongs to the GMBH.
Q We have heard from several of the witnesses of defendants, that the DEST in numerous cases had as business manager the commandant of the concentration camp in connection with which the concern was located. Can you confirm that?
A It is completely out of question. The business management is a body according to the commercial law, and generally was not in accordance with the civil law. Pohl, to whom all conceptions of commercial law were unknown, by virtue of a sudden idea wanted, in order to interest the camp commandants, appointed them as so-called directors. Of course, that was something new. However, this was not a concept according to the commercial law. Anybody can be appointed director. That can go for a company of only two people wherever located. Therefore, no functions were connected with his appointments, no functions according to the commercial law.
Q Do you recall Pohl telling us he had appointed the concentration camp commandants in numerous cases as business managers of several of the SS industries?
A Yes, he wanted them appointed to so-called plant directors.
Q And these were the people who managed the concern locally, that is, they immediately supervised production?
A No, I don't think so.
Q Tell us what they did in connection with the SS industries?
AAt the top is the GMBH. The GMBH has a business management. Now we have individual plants. The individual plants have subordinated to the business management, so-called plant managers. They were in charge of the individual plants. Furthermore, Pohl has gave a concentration camp commandant the beautiful title plant director. This is a designation which did not mean anything at all, because the commandants had no authority in those plants at all. They had nothing to do with the administration, and this was only the basis on which they could be paid some sort of compensation. This was to induce them to furnish their in Court No. II, Case No. 4.mates more regularly.
However, this plant director was a bluff so far as the commercial law was concerned.
Q The function he had, as a matter of fact, as distinguished from his position in law, was to supply the inmates to the individual firms. Is that what I understand you to say?
A If you please, I don't quite get the translation. Will you repeat that question again?
Q I understood you to say then that the function of a commandant as a plant director was simply to see that the plant obtained inmate labor?
A No, for example, in the Heinkel Plant, the same request could be made for inmates. This was for the purposes to have the concentration camp commandants see to it that this plant of DEST, for example, did not lose in production as a result of the fact that the inmate labor was not fairly regulated at intervals. For example, they would receive one-thousand inmates today, fifteen hundred the next day, and then they would receive two thousand on the third day, and on the fourth day, they would not receive any inmates at all. Of course, the plant could not function at all in that manner, and that is exactly what it was.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Mr. Bobbins, may I ask this question. You say that giving the camp commandants a title of plant director was only a bluff insofar as Commercial Law was concerned, but it did allow the camp commandants to maintain an immediate control over the inmates, did it not, even when they were outside of the actual barracks of the concentration camps?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I would not want to be asked for more than I know, because I only audited the Central Administration of the DEST. It would perhaps be better to ask an expert about this. In that case it would be Herr Mummenthey.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: OK.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, will you turn to Document Book 15, and if you will Court No. II, Case No. 4.look at Document Book 14 in front of you.
In Book 15, page 48, of the German text, Exhibit No. 413, Document NO-515, page 37 of the English text. Do you have it?
A On page 48 of the German text.
Q This is a list of the W enterprises which employed inmate labor as drawn up as of 7 March 1944. Do you know the author of this work?
A The list is from the year of 1944 when I had already left the office.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Well, I just ask you if you knew who drew it up.
A No, I don't have the slightest idea.
Q When you were with Amtsgruppe W, did these same firms employ inmate labor that are listed on this document?
A So that we shall have no misunderstanding, I have never been in Amtsgruppe W, but I was an auditor in the enterprises.
I have never employed any people and inmates, with the exception of the very beginning of the DWB. Then I recommended several people to Pohl as employees.
Q Excuse me. Will you go into that more in detail? You said you did employ inmates when you were working with the DWB? What do you mean by that?
A When I was an auditor for the enterprises, I never concluded any employment contracts, with the exception of the very beginning of the DWB. And there it is possible, but I don't know for certain, that on one contract it is stated that it contains my signature with the statement, "This contract is valid only if it has been signed by the business manager, Pohl." Pohl had assigned me to do that, and this was for the purpose of obligating these people until he was able to sign. That may have happened on one or two occasions. There I acted upon a special order. They were-
Q These were contracts between the DWB and what other organization?
A No, we are only concerned with the DWB.
Q What kind of contracts were they? Who were the parties to the contracts? When were they made?
A This could only have happened in the case or one or two of the auditors. That was right in the beginning when no personnel was there at all at that time. At that time I was all by myself with a secretary.
Q You mean they were inmate auditors?
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, evidently the translator did not translate your question because the answer is very foreign to it, not Court No. II, Case No. 4.even about the same thing.
I suggest that you rephrase it to see if he can translate so that he can understand it.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, you testified that an one or more occasions you had handled contracts concerning the DWB and the employment of inmate labor. Now I want you to give us some more details about that.
A That is something new to me. I can not remember that at all. Can you give me some point on which to refresh my memory?
Q Just about two or three minutes ago, you said that in some connection -
DR. HEIM: May it please the Tribunal, I believe that we have a misunderstanding here. Mr. Robbins talked about inmates. The witness apparently is referring to concentration camp inmates. In any case, that is how the translation stated it.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Does that clear it up?
AActually I did not conclude any contracts at all, but it is possible--however, I doubt it--that perhaps one or two contracts with auditors who were employed by the DWB. Here I may have temporarily put down my name until the business manager was able to sign himself. That was the way to keep these people obligated for a certain period of time. Otherwise, I never concluded any contracts.
Q What does this have to do with inmate labor, prison labor, concentration camp labor?
A It has nothing to do with it. That is a misunderstanding that arose before.
Q Now, do you have Exhibit 413 before you, NO 515?
A Yes.
Q During the time that you were working as an auditor with Amtsgruppe W, did these same firms employ prison labor, inmate labor, labor from concentration camps?
AAs far as I can recall, besides the Bohemia and besides Golleschau. Perhaps Golleschau was just coming in at that time.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Golleschau was established before you left, before 30 June 1943, wasn't it?
A Yes, but it did not immediately employ inmates, as far as I can recall. An order was issued later on, because it was not intended at all that Golleschau was to employ inmates. Bohemia was not supposed to employ them either.
Q But the other firms listed in this document--NO 515--all employed inmate labor?
A Yes, that is correct. The OSTI was just established at approximately the time when I left. However, the other enterprises were already in operation.
Q Which of these industries listed in this document had as plant directors concentration camp commanders? Is that true in all of these industries?
A Mr. Robbins, it would be more appropriate not to ask me about this, because I can not give you any answer from my own knowledge. I can only make certain assumptions. I assume that all enterprises of the DEST and the German Experimental Institute and the German Equipment Works. However, since I never had the opportunity to see whether the functions of the concentration comp commanders as plant directors were carried out, I can not give you very much information about that.
Q Do you know whether that is true in the case of OSTI?
A I don't know that. I can not tell you that at all.
Q What about the DAW, under W-IV, the German Equipment plants? Do you know about that?
A By virtue of the order of Pohl, I assume that they were amongst that group. That is, where the plant director had something to say in various matters concerning the plant.
Q Can you tell us if the defendant Volk--V-O-L-K--was a member of any of the governing bodies of any of these companies or was Prokurist of any of these companies listed in this document?
A I would say no. I don't think that Volk was a Prokurist with the plant at Golleschau. I don't think that there was any Prokurist at all.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Will you look at the other document in front of you, NO 1039 in Book 14. Was Volk a member of the governing boards or Prokurist of any of the companies listed in this document?
A Yes, Dr. Volk was a Prokurist of the German Economic Enterprise, the DWB. However, he was not a Prokurist in any other company as far as I can recall.
Q Will you tell us what position Volk held in Amtsgruppe W?
A In the DWB, three divisions were maintained. We had taxation bookkeeping, the legal department, and a general administrative department, which was not for the concern, but for the DWB itself. It was under Dr. Volk, who was in charge of the so-called legal department, and the task of this legal department at the time I was there-for at least 90 per cent of the task of that office-was in the field of taxation. The title was Internal Finance Office. That actually was the task of that office during that period of time. Pohl directly gave orders to the directors of the enterprises in the various plants or to the companies direct.
Q Do you know whether Volk ever held the position of an office chief in Amtsgruppe W?
A I have seen that from this document.
Q From what document?
A We have a letter here, according to which Dr. Volk points out to the furniture construction, GMBH, that they had to turn over personnel matters to Ansorge, and here the word "chief of Staff W" is mentioned. As Volk, however, was not replaced later on in that capacity, it does show that this had not been a real appointment.
Q Is that the only documents that you have seen--or that you saw at the time you were working with Amtsgruppe W-
A I have only seen this letter here. I was actually surprised to see it here.
Q And you didn't see any correspondence at any time while you were working with "W" that indicated that Volk was an office chief?
A No, that is quite out of the question.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: We will resume tomorrow morning, Mr. Robbins.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until tomorrow morning at 0930.
(Whereupon, at 1630 hours, 16 July 1947, the Tribunal recessed until 0930 hours, 17 July 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on July 17, 1947, 0930-0945, Justice Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. 2..
God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
HANS HOHBERG - Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, yesterday, I asked you if you know whether Volk held an official position in any of the SS industries and you said that he was a prokurist of the DWB. Would you turn to Document Book XIV, please, to page 13 of the German, page 14 in the English text. It is Document NO-2116, Exhibit 383. Do you have it before you?
A. Yes.
Q. This represents a time subsequent to your leaving your position. Can you tell us what this document is, however?
A. This document is a list, that is to say, of the firms of the DWB concern and gives the names of the business manager and gives the names of the prokurists, and it gives the places where the plants were located.
Q. Will you note the second item on the first page of the document under Public and Dwelling Company. It lists Georg Loerner and Volk as managers. Can you confirm that fact?
A. Yes, I can confirm that. Yesterday's question was different, however. As far as I can recall, you asked me yesterday was Dr. Volk a prokurist. Dr. Volk was only a prokurist on one occasion, in DWB.
Q. And can you confirm the information under the third heading, which I believe is "House and Real Estate?" Can you confirm the fact that Volk was manager of that firm?
A. Yes, he also held that position at my time, as far as I can recall.
Q. And was he a manager or prokurist or did he hold any position in any other company of the S during your time?
A. During my time Volk was the business manager of the Public Utility and Dwelling Company and he was the business manager of the House and Real Estate, G.M.B.H., and, as far as I can recall, he was not a prokurist in any other place, or in any other enterprise.
Q. Or manager or occupying any other position?
A. No, no.
MR. ROBBINS: Then on this, Your Honor, the second item is Gemeinnuetzige, or some such word in German, which means, Public Utility, Dwelling Company.
THE PRESIDENT: Utility, what?
MR. ROBBINS: Public Utility, housing company, or dwelling company.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What was the second?
THE PRESIDENT: Housing company.
Q. Then the third item is HAGRU, which stands for House and Real Estate Company, is that correct, Witness?
A. Yes, that is, House and Real Estate, G.M.B.H.
Q. Then under W-1, in the DEST, Mummenthey is listed as manager of that enterprise. Can you confirm that fact for your time?
A. Yes, I can confirm that.
Q. Can you also confirm that there were plants located in the various places that are listed in the columns under Pfaff for your time?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. You visited the brick works in Oranienburg, did you not?
A. Yes, I did that within the scope of my auditing work.
Q. Were there other plants in Oranienburg of the DEST?
A. In Oranienburg, we had the so-called Stone processing plant.
Q. That is in addition to the brick yard?
A. Yes, however, when I made my inspection the stone processing plant was not operating yet, but it was only being developed and built up.
Q. When did you first learn that the DEST was using inmate labor?
A. I heard that at a very early time, either at the end of 1940, or early in the course of the auditing 1941. At that time, I paid a brief visit to the DEST at Oranienburg and I walked through the plants there.
Q. And did you visit any of the other DEST plants at any time?
A. No, I didn't see any other of the DEST works.
Q. When you were in Auschwitz, didn't you visit any of the DEST plants?
A. No, in Auschwitz, I went with Dr. May, who was in charge of the wood processing plant. Consequently I only saw the plants of which he was in charge.
Q. You only saw DAW plants?
A. Yes.
Q. And you saw those plants at Auschwitz, Lemberg, and Lublin?
A. Yes.
Q. Any other places?
A. On the occasion of this visit, we also visited Buczowicz. However, inmates were never employed there.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, may I interrupt a minute? Will you please explain again the difference between a prokurist and a business manager?
THE WITNESS: The business manager is an official person of the company. The prokurist, however, is not. The business manager fundamentally represents the corporation towards the outside. A prokurist is subordinated to the business manager. He normally only works in certain fields.