Q Did you hear anything about the utilization of textiles and clothing from Auschwitz and Lublin?
A No, I didn't hear that.
Q About the utilization and the confiscation of foreign currency at Lublin and Auschwitz?
A No, I didn't know that. Mr. Robvins if I had heard that, as I handled things at the time and the propaganda which I did, it only would have supported my own case very strongly. Unfortunately, I am tempted to say I unfortunately didn't hear it.
Q And you told us that you had breakfast one morning with Pohl ad Funk. What year was that, and if you can remember, what month?
A It must have been in '42, '41 or '42.
Q You have seen from Pohl's affidavit in Document Book XXII that he says that he discussed during '41 of '42 on several occasions with Funk the utilization of the textiles and personal property of the Jews from the east. Was that matter discussed when you were with Funk and Pohl?
A No, these matters were not discussed at that time when I was present. When I was present, which was at the big table where Minister Funk was sitting too, we talked exclusively of the purposes and the scope of the so-called SS enterprises, which, after all, was the purpose why Pohl had taken me along to this occasion, because I was the man who knew about the financial background in 1942, and I could, therefore, give information.
Q Why did he go to see Funk about the purposes of the SS industries? What was his business with Funk?
A I don't know. The only purpose of the visit to the Reichsbank was a different one as it occurred quite frequently. Men in charge of government departments or men in charge of large enterprises were invited by the Reichsbank at regular intervals in order to inspect the completely new vaults of the Reichsbank which, it was alleged, were still more favorable and sound then the well-known vaults of the Bank of England.
We were officially invited on inspect the Reichsbank?
Q And did you inspect the Reichsbank?
A Yes, we inspected it.
Q And you, did you accompany him?
A I believe we were six or seven and each one of us was accompanied by a director of the Reichsbank. As I recall it, Pohl was accompanied by Mr. Puhl, and Funk was not present himself. We went to the office and each one of us had somebody to accompany him.
Q Pohl says in his affidavit that when he went to the Reichsbank with Puhl he was shown the loot that he been taken from the east, gold teeth, glasses, etc. You weren't shown any of that?
A What we were shown were a number of gold bullions which were exhibited on wooden frames, gold from South Africa, South America, Russia, etc. Then the bank notes were shown to us, and I recall particularly that Puhl. because we were divided up in small groups of two each - each one of us had a Reichsbank director at his elbow - took me in, together with others, and said, "Would you like to have several millions in your hand?" And we took a large packet of thousand-mark notes and lifted them up, which was the only common remark made down there to all of us. Otherwise we were all separated.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until 1:45.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, July 17, 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the record show that the Tribunal has a report from Captain Martin, the prison physician, that the Defendant Scheide is ill and will be unable to attend this session of court. He is accordingly excused from attending.
HANS HOHBERG - Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, did you have any contacts with the Defendant Frank, other than those you have told us about?
A I am convinced of the fact that whenever I talked to Frank -when I was on the stairs, for example -- that I always exchanged a few words with him. However, aside from that I didn't have any contact.
Q You did talk about the Reinhardt fund?
A Yes.
Q But that is the only contacts you had with him otherwise?
A Yes.
Q Did you have any contact with the defendant Fanslau?
A I cannot recall any discussion which I ever had with Fanslau. I did not talk to Fanslau. Whenever I met him I would say "hello" to him.
Q Was your personnel file kept in his office?
A Well, he did have a personnel department. However, I don't know exactly what he did there. I don't know exactly how the fields of task were distributed.
Q Did he keep your personnel file in his office?
A I personally did not keep any personnel file.
Q No, I think you didn't understand the question. Were any of your papers, any of your personnel files kept in Office A-V?
A That would interest me, but I don't think so.
Q As far as you know, they were not?
A It wasn't the case as far as I know. It could only have been if he was interested in any of my work and if he wanted to know anything about us behind my back. However, normally no.
Q Did you have any contact of any kind with anyone else in Amts-gruppe A?
A Yes, I had contact with Hans Loerner for the following reason: The part of the so-called "Gewaltaktion" which dealt with the construction of wooden wing sections in 1944 gave a Christmas party and at that time I was with Herr Loerner and I obtained his approval there that the post exchange could give us cookies and some liquor for this Christmas celebration.
Q Is this the only contact you had with Hans Loerner?
A Herr Hans Loerner is just shaking his head. It may be that it was somebody else. I can't remember at the moment. However, I went to see a number of these people and I asked their approval. I was successful.
Q Do you remember any contact with the Defendant Vogt, V-o-g-t?
A No, I did not have any contact at all with Vogt.
Q Did you have any other contact with anyone else in Amtsgruppe A?
A Not as far as I know.
Q Well, you must have had some discussion with Melmer, didn't you, about the Reinhardt fund?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Tell us what you talked to him about?
A Frank sent Dr. Wenner and myself to see him and he informed us what factories he was going to transfer these 30,000,000 to. I urged very much that the loan from the Red Cross should be repaid, because those were the last days of my activity there. Other things, except the time limit of the repayment of the funds, were not discussed.
Q Was that in connection with the Reinhardt fund or the Red Cross loan?
A That is the same thing.
Q And the Red Cross loan was repaid from the Reinhardt fund?
A It was paid on approximately the same day I left. I was just able to complete my work.
Q And it was repaid from the Reinhardt fund?
A I believe it was repaid directly, that is to say, Melmer was ordered to make the payment directly to the Red Cross, that is, as far as I can recall.
Q And you had very close contact with Melmer at that time, didn't you?
A I didn't know him at all before that, and I met him on this occasion for the first time.
Q I said you had very close contact with him, many contacts with him at that time in discussing the Reinhardt fund?
AAs far as I can recall, two conferences took place. Each one of them may have lasted at the most from two to three minutes. After all, he only had to answer the question just when he was transferring and to whom he was transferring.
Q And you wrote to him several times?
AAt the moment I cannot recall any letter, but it is possible that somebody wrote to him in that matter. After all, I was urging the matter very much at that time.
Q You said, I believe, that you yourself did not handle any matters concerning the utilization of Jews from the East, the use of Jewish labor, is that correct?
A No, I had nothing to do with these things.
Q I would like to show you a document and ask you to explain what you had to do with the matter of Jewish labor. This is Document NO-2346, and I will mark it as Prosecution Exhibit -- can the Secretary General give me the number of this exhibit?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: 576.
Q 576 for identification.
THE WITNESS: May I have this letter, please?
MR. ROBBINS: Don't you have it?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I have it here. "There is a letter, which is addressed to the Reich Minister of Labor. It is a special delivery letter concerning the employment of Jews in the Warthe Gau with the request to consider whether the proposition of the Reich Minister of Labor can be used. May I see what it says there?
DR. HEIM (Attorney for the defendant Hohberg): Your Honors, I have to object to the presentation of this letter. It is an accompanying letter to the special delivery letter of the Reich Minister of Labor. The witness can only express his opinion and comment on this letter if the special delivery letter is shown to him and when he has gained knowledge of the contents of this special delivery letter. I believe that after such a long period of time has passed, it will be impossible for the witness to still recall today the contents of this special delivery letter.
THE PRESIDENT: No question. What was your question, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: I am going to ask him what he had to do with this matter and also if he can remember what the letter of the Reich Minister of Labor said. Unfortunately, the prosecution, I might say, is not in possession of the accompanying letter.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal can't rule unless there is a question upon which the objection may be based. Will you put you question first?
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Do you recall, Witness, what you had to do with the matter that is mentioned in this letter, NO2346?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, is it his letter?
Q Is this your signature to the letter?
A Yes, it is my letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, the other question.
MR. ROBBINS: Do you recall what you had to do with this matter?
A Nothing at all. I can only make the statement that the same thing happened which happened often and which, for example, resulted in the organization of the plants under Himmler, that is to say, that on the occasion of some conference or other Pohl handed a document to somebody and said, "Do pass this document on." I can't explain this matter otherwise. I never dealt with these matters.
Q And he used you for the purpose of passing a letter on to the other offices, is that right?
A That is quite possible. After all, here we are dealing with the economic enterprises, not offices.
Q Why was it they you found it necessary to put the mark, "Staff W" on the letter?
A Well, that is the person who passed this letter on. Pohl asked that in the inter-office correspondence the title "Staff W" should be used, and the abbreviation of that was "St. W". You will find that in all the letters.
Q And that was the mark that you used in all of your letters, wasn't it?
A Yes, it was used on all letters. This was done by the special request of Pohl.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Mr. Robbins, may I ask you to inquire regarding that first sentence, which reads: "Enclosed is a copy of a special delivery letter" which would suggest that there were various copies made and someone had to supervise that mechanical process. Did he have charge of that? It wasn't merely the submission of one letter.
Q Yes, there were, apparently, copies sent to each of these offices. Did you supervise the making of the copies? Copies went to III-A, III-B, C, D, & III-E.
A Yes, possibly. However, that is a matter which did not concern me, nor did it concern anybody else, as far as the people concerned who worked with the DWB. You will probably learn from the other defendants that it happened quite often that Pohl would pass on a letter and say, "Just see to it that this letter is passed on and have this or that done." In this way, Mr. Robbins, the letter to Dr. Bobermin was brought about, as far as the brick works in Lublin were concerned.
Q I fail to see why it was that Pohl chose you to pass on this particular letter, do you know?
A I believe that this was only a real-estate matter; in this case, he only used me as a messenger in order to have me relieve him of the burden and he passed this document on to me in the course of the conversation, which he used to do quite frequently.
Q Do you recall what the special delivery letter of the Reich Minister of Labor concerned? Do you recall the contents of the letter?
A I really don't have the slightest idea.
Q You have some idea. It concerned the employment of Jews from the Warthegau. Do you remember anything else?
A I assume that here we discussed methods, that is to say, just what kind of work these Jews were supposed to do. However, I would not have an idea about that. However, this is a special delivery letter which I immediately passed on upon Pohl's order just as it happened to arrive. We never dealt with these matters.
Q You said that it dealt with the SS industries. Do you remember what it had to do with the SS industries. It concerned the employment of Jews in the industries, didn't it?
A This letter shows that the leaders of the firm groups were to express their comments on this matter. Nothing else is stated in this let+er. I really cannot recall anything from the Reich Minister of Labor's letter. You would have to show me some more documents about the matter.
Q Will you turn to Document Book 22. It is on page 20 of the English. I am sorry that I don't have the German page. It is NO1954. It's the document which appoints you the Economic Inspector. It's page 20 in the English Document Book 22, Exhibit 529.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, I want to ask the witness one question about the document you just identified. 576 - Document 2346. Witness, if you were the auditor for these concerns, why would you be having anything to do with labor. An auditor doesn't ordinarily have anything to do with labor, does he?
THE WITNESS: I didn't actually have anything to do with labor.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Why were you transmitting a letter concerning labor, if were just auditing the books?
THE WITNESS: Such things actually were never discussed within my scope of work.. After all, I would have heard something about it on the occasion when the letters were discussed.
I would like to state, in this connection, that there is no other possibility than that Pohl just cleared his desk with one movement of his hand and told me to please pass this on to the firm groups and it couldn't have happened any other way. Pohl did not on a single occasion discuss a labor problem with me. Never.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Well, Pohl had an office in the organization there that dealt with labor exclusively. Why didn't he send it to them, instead of giving it to the auditor?
THE WITNESS: Your honor, it would have been correct if Pohl himself would have dictated a letter and mailed that letter to the firm group leaders. Apparently, at that moment he didn't feel like doing so and he said here is someone who can handle the matter for me. There could be no other way that it happened. I had nothing to do with these things. However, things like that happened quite often, Your Honors.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Do you have NO-1954 before you?
A What page is that, please?
Q I don't have the page in the German book. I believe you have an index in the book. It is the eighth document in the book. I believe you testified that you never formally accepted the position of economic inspector, is that correct?
A Yes, that is what I testified to.
Q However, it is true, isn't it, that you carried out the duties prescribed in this order without accepting the title? Well, look at the paragraph No. 1, carry out the legally prescribed examinations of annual balance sheets. You carried out those functions, didn't you?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q And paragraph No. 2, the constant almost daily supervision of all economic enterprises, and so on, you carried out that task?
A What sentence was that again, please.
Q The a paragraph number two?
A The translation here is different. "The reports came in so late that they are of no use to me, and the happenings are so far back"... Is that correct?
Q You don't deny that you carried out these duties prescribed in that paragraph, do you?
A Yes, I do deny that.
Q You mean to say that you did not supervise the economic enterprises with the aim of regularly informing Pohl as quickly as possible about all proceedings within these enterprises in every respect. That is, from the point of view of finance, organization and legality. Is not that part of your task?
A No, it was not part of my task. The attempt was made at that time to put Dr. Horn in charge of this task directly. However, this was never done, and on my part, I only carried out the work of an auditor.
Q Will you turn to the next page of the document, that is, that you have unrestricted access to all offices, factories and store Court No. II, Case No. 4.rooms.
That was true in your own case, wasn't it, that you were entitled to inspect the books of the plants?
A Well, I was already entitled to that as an auditor. Pohl gave me a pass which authorized me to enter the bookkeeping offices, which in turn authorized me to look at the necessary documents. However, this was all. For example, if I audited the DEST, and whenever the auditing work was completed -- after that moment on, I was not entitled to look into the books any longer.
Q Weren't you authorized to inspect and read correspondence, as well as vouchers, contracts, and the books of the company?
A Yes. Pohl entitled me to do that by virtue of this letter. If I had accepted this title, I would have automatically become a subordinate agency of Pohl's.
Q I mean, you have told us that you had the authority and the capacity, if you claimed to be an auditor, to inspect the books, vouchers and contracts and correspondence of the various firms, is that right?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Now I ask you, was this order of Pohl's of 21 September 1942 ever formally rescinded?
A No, it was never rescinded. You will even find that in the case of Pohl, that Pohl had a sudden idea and would perform some act, and then some days later he would do something to the contrary without rescinding the old one. The matter in practice actually was forgotten immediately, but not quite as far as what Pohl wanted to do was concerned to carry out a thing after I left by establishing an official such department later on that was the concern reviewing department of the DWB.
Q Now I have one more question about this document that concerns the paragraph number two. I don't believe that I got a clear answer to that. It is true, isn't it, that you carried out the supervision of economic enterprises for the purpose of informing Pohl about the finance, organization and legality of those organization?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A In this form I can not answer your question with: yes. I carried out the auditing which was prescribed by law, and then I submitted the results of my auditing to Pohl, and, therefore, Pohl was also informed about the financial and economic conditions. However, that was not the primary purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: That is exactly what this document says, exactly. You supervised the economic enterprises from the point of view of finance, organization and legality?
A Yes, that is correct. There is only one difference, your Honor. My supervision is different. It extends over a certain period of time and is carried out for a time limited to one year as prescribed by law. This is something quite different, your Honor. This action here was to create primarily a constant supervision which would guarantee to Pohl that everything was done. What I did was something quite different. I audited a certain item within 1942, for example, that is, the time limit was between 31 December 1941 and 31 December 1942. I did not care about the rest.
THE PRESIDENT: You did the same thing, but you only did it for one year?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Is it provided in the contract which you signed with Pohl that you would be at his disposal for the execution of special tasks?
A In my contract, it was stated that I had to carry out the auditing work which was prescribed by law, and that I had to advise the business management on economic question.
Q I am sorry. Was it provided in your contract that you would be at the disposal of the chief of the Main Office for the execution of special tasks outside of the auditing work?
A No, the only thing that was stated in my contract was what I had just stated, but that was different from the paragraph which prescribed the field of work.
Q There was nothing in your contract at all about the special tasks?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A No, nothing about that was stated in my contract.
Q Was it provided in the contract that you could contact the enterprises directly without going through the office chiefs?
A Nothing about that was contained in the contract. However, I can tell you the following in this matter. On several occasions we went into the plant to carry out some auditing work there in order to carry out the auditing prescribed by law, without informing the firm group leader, or office chief, and they submitted a complaint about that. I can also tell you that the so-called NSOE lists which were necessary in order to determine the price whenever goods were delivered to public assignment, had to be established in the plants. I did not succeed with the wood processing plant to use my auditor there, although it was necessary.
Q Did Pohl tell you that it was not necessary to contact the office chiefs before you contacted the factory directly?
A I can not recall that any more.
Q And you said you did not have that understanding with Pohl?
A It was not specified in the contract. I only know that I had some very disagreeable disputes about that.
Q Was it always your practice to contact the office chiefs?
A I did that for the most part.
Q You received your salary from the WVHA?
A I did not receive any salary. I received a fee which was paid by the DWB. Before authorized by the DWB, the German DEST paid me.
Q The money that you received came from the WVHA?
A No, it did not. The money did not come from the WVHA, but the money came from the DWB. The DEST later on, after the DWB had already been established, had themselves compensated for the fee by the DWB what they had paid for me.
Q Then you received the money that you did receive from an industry of the WVHA in the SS enterprises?
A First of all, that is correct, but later on, it was repaid. However, any entire fee was paid to one DWB exclusively during the time Court No. II, Case No. 4.when the DWB was not even in existence.
Q What do you mean it was repaid. Repaid to whom?
A The DEST at the beginning paid the fee to me. When the DWB was established, the DEST maintained the point of view that this was not their business, and that they requested the DWB to repay the money which they had paid to me for my fee. The DWB then actually paid my fees to the DEST.
Q Then the DWB paid your fee, is that it?
A Yes.
Q And the DWB is a SS Concern, is that correct?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Well, I have stated here that this was a Reich concern. However, let us call it an SS concern now.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: How much was your monthly fee from the DWB?
THE WITNESS: I received RM 2,000 per month, as specified in my contract. I was entitled to keep this fee so low because the contract which I had was extended itself automatically. The normal fees would have been higher. Of course, there were difficulties, your Honors, whenever auditors were furnished me and they were soldiers, it was very difficult for me to account for them with a normal fee. For this reason, we didn't do any accounting on that matter, and I only received my fee.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I understood you to say in your direct examination that you received RM 5,000 per month, and that out of this you paid your auditors and the other expenses of your audits, which left you approximately RM 2,000 over and above your expenses.
THE WITNESS: That is not correct, your Honor. The auditors were furnished me, and no accounting of fees was done in this respect, so that the RM 2,000 which I received as a fee did not have to be used for the auditors, but they remained for my own use.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: In other words, your contract called for a fee each month of RM 2,000 for your work?
THE WITNESS: Yes, but it was a little different. Well, it was PM 14,000 -- same thing.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What did you get? That is what I asked you.
THE WITNESS: Every month I would receive RM 2,000.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q And you did not pay your auditors out of the monies that you received?
A No, I did not. That was specified in my contract.
Q Didn't you tell us the other day that it was the normal practice for an independent auditor to receive a certain amount and from that amount to pay his auditors?
A No, that was not the case at all. It could not be done in Court No. II, Case No. 4.any other way because they were soldiers.
We did not have an auditor in Germany, or an auditing company, which could employ soldiers as auditors who had been detached for that duty. There was no other way.
Q Not all of your auditors were soldiers?
A Well, there were some civilians amongst them.
Q You told us that many members of the WVHA and of the DWB misunderstood your position. They thought that you were an employee of the WVHA, didn't they?
A Yes.
Q And they did not recognize your independent status?
A They did not only fail to recognize it, but their tendency was to make an employee out of me, so that in the disciplinary sense I would have had to subordinate myself to the SS authority. I fought against this up to the end, and I succeeded in maintaining my independence. But -- it was very difficult.
Q And they thought that you were a part of the management of the DWB?
A I don't think so. I don't think that anybody could have retained that thought. After all, everybody knew that this was not the case.
Q You don't think that anyone ever assumed that you were chief of staff?
A Oh, yes, it was quite likely that this was the case. After all, the whole house consisted practically of soldiers, and, after all, there were 1,500 men, and nobody knew exactly on what task the other person was working. If anyone had an office at that house, then the layman who did not know the various fields of task there had to reach the thought quite automatically that the person who worked there was closely connected with the other offices there and belonged to one of them. Therefore, that is a conclusion that is forced. But it was different.
Q You know, don't you, that a good many of the office chiefs in Amtsgruppe W thought that you were chief of staff?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I don't think they thought that. After all, then they would have treated me differently. Then, in the special case on the occasion of Pohl's birthday, I certainly would also have been invited to the official taking of pictures of all the office chiefs.
Q You have told us about that. It is true, isn't it, that the people outside of WVHA often addressed you as Chief of Staff W, addressing mail to you?
A I don't know whether outsiders understood that. However, frequently letters arrived because something like the appointment which I received by order of Pohl actually spread like wildfire amongst these 1,500 men. It was never rescinded officially. I am actually happy that in spite of everything I succeeded up to the end in that I was not subordinated to that authority.
Q And the order appointing you chief of staff was never rescinded?
A No, it was never rescinded. Everybody forgot all about it, just as in the case of the Economic Inspector.
Q I should like to show you a document, witness, and ask you if this refreshes your recollection in any of the respects that we have been speaking of. Is this your signature on the letter?
A Yes, it is.
Q And you signed the letter as Chief of Staff W, did you not?
A Yes.
Q Is this the only letter that you ever signed as Chief of Staff W?
A No, in exactly the same matter, that is to say, in the question of the repayment of the Red Cross loan, you have already presented two letters which are signed in exactly the same way.
Mr. Robbins, I have already pointed out just why I did that. It was the last moment, the very l**t moment, and in the last month; you see, that comes from the June 1943 -- when I was still able to see to it that these eight millions which arose from the 20 Pfennigs collection and which were invested in the economic enterprises of the SS Court No. II, Case No. 4.could be repaid, as far as I was able to exercise any influence over that.
I dictated all my letters without any exception when soldiers were concerned, and when I knew that they could not react differently, I signed all the letters, three of them, with "Chief of Staff W", consciously and after I had considered the matter carefully. If I had not done that, the Red Cross loan would not have been paid back up to this date.
Q The only letters that you signed as Chief of Staff W are the three which are before the Court; is that right?
A I am firly convinced that there are still others. However, there can not be too many of them.
Q Well, tell us about the others.
A I cannot recall any letter in detail, but I am convinced that there are still others in existence. This must have been on the date or at the time when Pohl made this appointment and when the secretary thought it was particularly important. However, I cannot recall any letters in detail. However, it is possible.
DR. HEIM: May it please your Honors, I request the Prosecution to state whether the two documents, NO-2346 and NO-1040, have been offered as evidence or if they have only been offered for identification. I would also like the Prosecution to state what exhibit numbers these two documents are to receive.
MR. ROBBINS: I would like to mark Document NO-1040 as Exhibit 577 for Identification. The other document, NO-2346, has already been offered as Exhibit 576 for identification. They are offered now for identification and will later be offered in evidence.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q About how many times, witness, would you say you signed as Chief of Staff W?
A I personally can not recall a single case. If I did that, then I must have had a certain reason for doing so. Perhaps I tried to impress somebody.
Q You say you signed as Chief of Staff W immediately after you Court No. II, Case No. 4.were appointed Chief of Staff W by Pohl; about what date was that?
A I think it was early in 1942.
Q You don't recall how many times in 1942, around the time when you were appointed, that you signed as Chief of Staff W?
A No, I can't recall that. I would be grateful if I could see it.
Q I should like to show you another document, witness, and ask you if this refreshes your recollection. You see that on the second page Ansorge has signed as "Deputy for the Chief of Staff W". There he is referring to you, is he not?