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?
Court No. II, Case No. IV.
A I don't know that. It does not say as the Deputy here, but he says, By Order of. I.A.-
Q He is referring to you, isn't he -- I.A. -- By Order of?
A Yes, that can be assumed.
Q Well, its perfectly clear, isn't it, from the two letters. You have given him the task by the letter of 4 June 1943.
MR. BOBBINS: I think before going further I had better identify this document NO-2371, and I will mark it as Prosecution Exhibit 578 for identification.
Q (continuing) You have given him the task by the letter of 4 June 1943, of compiling a list of the SS industries which produced goods for the SS, and this list is to be submitted to Pohl...
A Yes.
Q ... to the various industries, and says the Staff W has been commissioned with the listing of all economic goods produced. Then he signs "By Order of the Chief of Staff W."
A Yes, that is how Ansorge signed. Yes, but you will be able to see that I myself did not sign it this way. I just put my name down there.
Q And that is true on the 17th of June 1943, from Ansorge to the OSTI industry? Will you refer to the listing of Staff Office W which lists as Chief of Office SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Volk. It is on page 10 of the English copy, and I believe it is marked on page 1 of the original. Do you see that?
A Yes, I see that. However, this is a very funny document, and I think these various letters do not belong together. If Dr. Volk, who, after all, was never an Office Chief, had signed this letter in any way then this could only have happened within a period of time which was allocated in July 1943.
Q You told us this morning that you had never seen any papers which listed Dr. Volk as Chief of Office W. This came to your attention, didn't it?
A I have never seen that. I have never seen a document to that Court No. II, Case No. 4.effect.
Q This document here did not come to your attention?
A I have never seen these last four pages in my life. Mr. Robbins, it is out of the question that Dr. Volk should appear as Office Chief in Staff W at a time when nobody was even thinking of such a thing.
Q Which was just about the time when you were preparing to leave and before Baier took over the tasks?
A I left as an auditor on the 30th of June.
Q The letter is dated 16 June from the OSTI to the Staff W, and presumably these other documents were in response to Ansorge's letter. I guess the information that Ansorge requested, which was to be turned over to you, and in turn you would turn over to Pohl -- you mean to say you didn't receive the report that Ansorge requested?
A Certainly not. Otherwise, I would have seen something of the kind.
Q You just dropped the matter after Pohl told you to compile the list? You didn't follow it up any further?
A Mr. Robbins, our work was done as follows: Fundamentally, in the discussion about the material tax matters were discussed and such things as had to do with bookkeeping.
Q Don't go back to anything you told us. If this is something, new, all right. But don't go back over the same thing.
A Mr. Robbins, this letter is written -- it is impossible that such a list could have been submitted in June. It must have been something else.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is Volk's name, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: It is on page 10 of the English, your Honor -Staff Office W.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I request that the prosecution should give me the original, and not a photostatic copy. I have just looked at the last four pages of the photostatic copy and they do not show that these four pages originally belonged together. These four pages could Court No. II, Case No. 4.also have come from various documents, and they may have been compiled here.
In order to clarify this matter, it therefore would be necessary for the prosecution to present the original document and I further request that before this original document is presented, the document should not be discussed up to that time.
MR. ROBBINS: I will make available the original document to Dr. Heim. I don't see how there can be any objection to my asking the witness, though, if he recalls having seen this document, of which he has a photostatic copy.
THE PRESIDENT: If the witness has a photostatic copy of the original, that can't be wrong. I mean - it must be an exact duplicate of the original. What is your point, Dr. Heim - that something has been added to the original document?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I did not claim that the prosecution intentionally had added to the document with any bad intentions on their part. However, the last four pages of the original document are compiled in the following manner: The fourth last page is a letter from Ansorge. I believe it is addressed to the OSTI. Then follow three pages, where the third last page is numbered page one, and it is not shown from this letter of Ansorge that the three last pages of the document actually, originally, belonged to this letter which is written by Ansorge.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe I can clarify the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
A In the first letter of Ansorge I have just seen my own hand writing on that particular letter, on the draft, and I have added on this letter "Office Chief of Staff W Dr. Volk." Just what caused me to write that down I don't know. I don't see why I should have promoted him to that position.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q That is in your own hand writing, there?
A Yes, it is my own hand writing. After all, I really wasn't authorized to promote Dr. Volk.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Do you recall ever signing documents for Pohl, By Order of Pohl? You did that quite frequently, didn't you, as Pohl's deputy?
A I have been described here as Pohl's deputy. However, it is known to all of the defendants that not on a single occasion did I occupy a position of that kind.
Q Well, I am asking you if you ever signed as Pohl's deputy?
A That would interest me very much indeed.
Q Did you ever sign on the order of Pohl, or for Pohl?
A Only behind his back, when I tried to achieve something. That is possible.
Q Let me show you a document here. I am sorry I do not have it processed, but it is the original document with your signature. You are signing here as his deputy, are you not?
A No, "I.A." does not mean deputy.
Q What does it mean?
A "I.A." means something quite different. "I.A." means "Im Auftrag" in German. That is, By Order of. That is to say, I had the authority to write that, in a certain case. I received the authority to write that in this particular case. That also is done in firms where, for example, one signs for the business manager, and he signs it without any title to his name, and the Prokurist signs it G.B.A.
Q Did you sign this document behind his back?
A Yes, I signed this document. That is a typical case where I did something behind the back of Pohl.
Q And he didn't know you were signing it on the order of Pohl?
A No.
Q Are there any other instances where you signed letters in that manner?
A Yes, I assume there must be several. After all, I frequently tried to do something without giving Pohl any knowledge of it.
MR. ROBBINS: I would like to identify this document. It does not have an NO number as yet. It is a letter signed by Hohberg on the 31st of March 1944 to the firm Gallus Printers, and I will mark it for Court No. II, Case No. 4.identification as Exhibit 578.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: 31 March 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: You said 1944.
MR. ROBBINS: I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Nothing of importance in the letter, is there?
MR. ROBBINS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: In the text of it?
MR. ROBBINS: Nothing important in the letter.
THE PRESIDENT: We will now take the recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
Tribunal II is again in session.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, we were discussing your letter of 31 March 1941 to the printing firm just before the recess. What reason was there that you had for signing this letter behind Pohl's back? Wasn't this a rather unimportant matter, this letter to the printing firm?
A. At that time during the war no orders to printing firms were carried out without priority being allocated to it by a government department or the army. The printing works insisted on a certificate that the letterheads were to be printed for the DWB and that was for militarily important purposes of national importance. This is the reason for that letter. This is a certificate of priority.
MR. ROBBINS: I think if the Court please, I will withdraw this exhibit. I think the only important thing is in the record, that is that the witness signed the letter I.A. by order of Pohl, in order to avoid the translation and processing of the document.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins) Witness, referring once more to Document NO-2371, which was Exhibit 578, you saw Ansorge's letter before it was sent to the various industries, didn't you? You saw the draft of the letter?
A. Yes, he submitted it to me, of course, because I made corrections on it, but I would like to point out that when I called Dr. Volk, Office Chief of W, it was at least strange. Perhaps I was making a joke. I don't know what it was for.
Q. The actual fact is, isn't it, that it had been agreed upon by you and Pohl and Volk that Volk was to succeed you in the position of Chief of Staff, isn't that right?
A. No, Mr. Robbins, Volk could not succeed me because in order to carry out my task you had to be appointed officially, and what is more, he was not a taxation export.
Q. I think you told us that you never held any position in any of the SS industries, is that correct?
A. No, I never had a position in an SS industry.
Q. I want to show you a document which is NO-4052, which I haven't had time to have translated. It is a-- Perhaps I had better let you describe it.
A. I know what this is about. I needn't look at it.
Q. It is true that you were in this contact, that you were a member of the Aufsichtsrat of the Eastern Building company, isn't it? The Eastern Building Works were built under W-II. That is true, isn't it, that you were a member of the Aufsichtsrat?
A. May I say something, Mr. Robbins? Pohl did this without asking me. In ten minutes after I heard about this a letter was immediately sent to the Eastern German Building Works which said the following: "I am an auditor, and therefore I cannot be a member of Aufsichtsrat. Please replace me by somebody else at once." It is not my fault when Pohl, without asking me, makes a decision of that sort. I immediately had it changed. I was never actually an Aufsichtsrat, because you have at least to give your consent. Perhaps you would be kind enough later on to ask Dr. Bobermin about that.
Q. Was this point ever formally rescinded?
A. Yes, at once. Dr. Bobbermin caused this and I had nothing to do with it.
Q. So it is true then that on occasion when Pohl changed his mind he rescinded the orders at your request. Why wasn't it possible for you to have him rescind the other orders, the orders appointing you Chief of Staff W and the economic inspector? How is it that you could have him change one order and not another?
A. The others would not impede me in my professional activities. All these things were under commercial law. How unimportant these designations were became clear from what you read just now, namely that Volk was called the Chief of Staff W, which in actual fact he never was.
Q. Will you tell us for the record what the document that you hold in your hand is?
A. This document which is now in my hands represents my election as a member of the Board of Directors of the Eastern German Building Material Works. You have to give your consent for that election.
Q. It is signed by Pohl, is it?
A. Mr. Robbins, you can't order somebody to become a member of the Board of Supervisors.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it signed by Pohl?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
Q (By Mr. Robbins) What is the date on it?
A 16 April 1942.
Q And will you read for the record what the NO number on the document is, please?
A 4052
Q I would like to mark this document as 579 for identification.
A I would like to protest against this, Mr. Robbins.
Q I think that is a task for your attorney.
I would like to show you another document, Witness, and ask you of this refreshes you recollection.
The documents just handed to the witness are three different documents, a power of attorney dated the 5th of March, 1941, a letter from Pohl to the Gestapo dated the 6th of March, 1941, and a short report on the matter of Apollinaris signed by Hohberg dated the 7th of March, 1941.
These documents show that you were made administrator of the Apollinaris firm, do they not?
A. That I was about to be, to become that. I didn't become it. May I comment on this, Mr. Robbins?
Q Just a moment, I have a few questions to ask you. Do you have the document dated the 5th of March, 1941, which is the power of attorney before you?
A Yes.
Q Would you read the first paragraph, please?
A "After the property of the firm Apollinaris in Bad Neuenaar.."
Q No, excuse me, the paragraph before that.
A "By decree of the secret state police, the Gestapo, in Koblenz, of 5 March, 1941, I, Dr. Hohberg, the auditor, of Berlin Lichterfelde West, have been given the following authority." Then follows the text of the authority.
Q Now, if you will read that slowly, please.
A Certainly, "After the fortune of the firm Apollinaris A. G., Bad Newenaar, as well as the subsidiary companies, including the Rheinaar Glass Factory, Limited, have been confiscated on 3 March 1941, you are hereby, by order of the Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police, with the Reich Ministry of the Interior appointed as the temporary administrator of the above-mentioned firms.
It is your right and duty as an administrator to do everything which is necessary in order to maintain the capital in its economic aspects and to exploit it properly."
Q Then read the last paragraph, please.
A "The authority given me I hand over as a subauthority to SSSturmbannfuehrer Kurt Bode of Berlin Zehlendorf or Ahnezeile, for the present at Bad Neueraar at Hotel Astoria, Hotel A."
Q And this is signed by you?
A Yes, it is.
Q Do you have a document dated 6 March, 1941, from Pohl to the Gestapo before you?
A Yes.
Q This was dictated by you, wasn't it?
A Yes
Q And has you dictation mark on the first page?
A Yes, it does.
Q And is that little pencil mark right at the end of the letter just before Pohl's signature, does that indicate also that you dictated the letter?
A Yes, it does.
Q You usually put that on the letters you dictated, did you not?
A Yes
Q What is that mark, is that "Ho"?
A It means my name.
Q This is a letter dated the 6th of March, 1941, to the Gestapo at Koblenz. Would you read the first three paragraphs, please?
A Yes. "Dr. Hohberg and Sturmbannfuehrer Bode are so closely connected with my main office that special fees for their activities are not necessary, but I think it is important that the potential fee to be paid to the two gentlemen should be put to the benefit of the Reich Leadership-SS by having the contract of the DWB G.m.b.H. of Berlin Lichterfelde-Sest, Unter den Eichen 127, transferred to the economic enterprises of the Reichsfuehrer-SS."