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."
Q Then the third paragraph deals with a per diem, which you were to receive, and will you read the last paragraph, please?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Mr. Robbins, are we going to get an English translation of this document?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Why is it necessary to occupy all the time having him read it?
MR. ROBBINS: I think perhaps the last paragraph is not important.
Q (By Mr. Robbins) Will you look at the letter of the 7th of March, 1941, the report there that you made. Do you say that Himmler has ordered the confiscation of the Apollinaris firm and has ordered your commission as administrator of the company, is that right?
A He had ordered me to become an administrator. Nothing came of it later, and that was SS-Oberfuehrer Moeckl.
Q Will you read the second paragraph? I believe it is short.
A "The Secret Gestapo Office of Koblenz has carried out the confiscation on 5 March 1943 and appointed Dr. Hohberg as the administrator of the Apollinaris A. G., including the Rheinaar Glass Factory."
Q Now, it is your contention that after Pohl ordered you to take this over and after Himmler ordered you to take it over, that you did not do so?
A No, Mr. Robbins, it was quite different.
Q You signed the subpower of attorney to Bode, did you not? This is your signature on the letter of the 5th of March, 1941?
A Yes. Could I now explain it, please?
Q Make a very brief explanation.
A Very brief, certainly. One day Moeckl asked me to accompany him to Bad Newenaar in order to, as an administrator of Apollinaris A. G. start my work. I was officially appointed by the Gestapo, which acted then as an agency of RSHA and were allegedly responsible for the appointment. Shortly after that I went to Bad Neuenaar for a second time, saw there that an administrator had been appointed, an auditor called Dr. Wirth of Cologne, who had been appointed by the Reich Commissioner for the Administration of Enemy Property, whereupon I officially resigned at once. I never did any work. I gained a small compensation for it afterwards inasmuch as the Custodian of Enemy Property asked me and ordered me to estimate the value of the property, because it was planned to have the enterprise leased to the Sudentenquell Company, which I did. I was appointed, did not do any work, resigned officially when I found Dr. Wirth there, and later on I only made an estimation.
Q And when you made the power of attorney to SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Bode, you knew that the property had been confiscated by the Gestapo, didn't you?
A Yes, I knew that.
Q And you also knew that no payments had been made to the owners of the properties?
A If you confiscate something you don't seize it -
Q If you confiscate something it is the same thing as blocking property on the basis of law 52. The point here is who was to have the supervision in this enterprise. Up until then the custodian of enemy property had the supervision, and he appointed an administrator, and I was to take his place, but I did not do it, so the appointment was to be rescinded, because the old appointment was still enforced with Dr. Wirth. My sub-power of attorney which I had given was as it became clear later on useless.
Q You say in your report that the property was confiscated because the owners of the property had shown to be an enemy of the state. Will you tell us very briefly what that means?
A The property is British. The shareholders at the time were, I believe, the Gordon Hotel Company of London. The foreign exchange agency with the President of Cologne took the view that the enterprise, because it kept its prices too low had for years acted against paragraph 33 and 34 of the Income Tax Laws, and had paid profits under cover to Britain.
Q I think that is enough. You told Dr. Seidl yesterday, in response to a question, that you have made certain profits in certain speculations with regard to the industries, is that right?
A Yes.
Q What was the extent of this profit?
A About the profit you must make a difference between private profits, and profits made on behalf of the capital concern. Would you like me to tell you of this?
Q Just tell me just how you say that you made certain profits from the speculations. Did those profits accrue to you?
A I was doing a job there which I invented myself.
Q Excuse me, did they go to you personally and not to one of the industries. It was a personal profit that you made, wasn't it?
A Quite right.
Q Let me ask you this. Was it permitted that a public auditor makes profits from speculations with a company that he is auditing? Isn't that prohibited?
A No, that is not. Yes, it is certainly prohibited with the companies which I am auditing, but not otherwise.
Q Weren't you auditing these SS industries that you made the profit from?
A No, you are misunderstanding me. As auditor I am not allowed to speculate on my own leaders. As an auditor I am not allowed to speculate with the Mattonishares and the Wolfram shares because with those shares you cannot speculate on the stock exchange, but on this property with which speculation was carried out had nothing to do with the economic enterprises. This was a matter completely outside of these things in the property which Pohl handled outside the economic enterprises.
Q Are you telling me that you never made any profit in speculation on the SS industries?
A No.
Q You testified that Dr. Horn wrote you quite frequently with regard to the personnel problems of the OSTI. Will you tell me the extent of your authority with regard to personnel matters?
A I have not had any authority, Mr. Robbins. The position was that Dr. Horn went quite alone, and with his auditors to Warsaw and Lublin, and he wanted to have a few typists, and for that reason he addressed himself to me and to Ansorge later on.
Q And did you help Dr. Horn with his recruiting problem, and recruiting men for him?
A No.
Q Did you handle any of the personnel problems of Dr. Horn's?
A He asked me whether he could have allocated a few young ladies, and so far as I know he got from the German Economic Enterprise, or some one else of the Main Office, perhaps, one lady, but I had nothing to do with that.
Q You told us all that you had to do with the personnel of the SS industry. You had nothing else to do with it?
A No.
Q Will you tell us very briefly what contact you had with people in Amtsgruppe-B?
A I knew Herr Loerner, because he would be present at meetings when we discussed interest and capital, and so forth, and then I knew Herr Lechler.
Q Did you have any business conversations with Lechler?
A Certainly, because I audited his enterprise.
Q And did you have any contacts with any one else in Amtsgruppe-B?
A Koeberlein, whom I see in the right-hand square. I don't know, I see him here. I knew what he looked like. I don't know Herr Weckel, and Scheide I must have seen in Berlin sometime, but I did not talk with him so far as I remember.
Q Did you have any contact with any one in Amtsgruppe-C?
A I knew Dr. Kammler.
Q Did you have any business conversations with Kammler?
A I don't think I had any business conversations with him, but I know that when Kammler would pass me in a store or on the street he would say a few kind words.
Q Did you ever have correspondence with Kammler?
A I should not think so, but I have seen in the document that Kammler wrote to me once or twice, but that he made a mistake because he did not know my competence.
Q Did you not know that Amtsgruppe-C was carrying out armament enterprises with underground factories belonging to Amtsgruppe-W?
A Mr. Robbins, I think I know quite a lot about that, because later on in the work what was known as Gewaltaktion 162, Kammler had special orders to establish I think about sixteen to twenty subterranean work shops, built. I believe that was a special order which he received, but that it was not anything to have to do with Office Group-C.
Q Did you know that as a fact, or is that just an assumption?
A It is not an assumption, but I should think it is probably ninety percent proper. I can only say that from the fringes, because I had no actual contact.
Q Now you knew that Kammler had this underground construction in Amtsgruppe-W?
A Yes.
Q And the same with the Messerschmitt plant, they were also located in underground factories of Amtsgruppe-W?
A Yes, I think so.
Q Well, while you were working with ME-162 - - was it 162?
A Yes, it was 162.
Q Did you -
A Heinkel - 162.
Q It was not the Messerschmitt?
A No, the Messerschmitt was 262, and Kammler was commissioned in general for the 162.
Q And the Heinkel industry also had underground factories, did they not?
A Yes, indeed, but not in our program. They only produced wooden wings, and had a factory where no inmates were working.
Q Do you know if inmates were used by Heinkel in the Amtsgruppe-W factories?
A I know that Heinkel used inmate labor. In the assembly plants of Office Group-C, within the scope of Kammler's special order, I don't know.
Q You also knew that Messerschmitt used inmate labor in the W's underground factories?
A I can not tell you that from my own knowledge, because I only was connected with Heinkel and not with Messerschmitt.
Q I only have one more question, witness. Will you turn to Document Book XIV, Document NO-1290, on page 46 of the German, and page 49 of the English, it is Exhibit No. 60. You see the distribution stamp on this document?
AAre we now talking about Document No. 1290?
Q Yes.
A Yes, I can see it, the distribution.
Q Can you tell us what these various letters mean, just for the record. What does St.W.L. mean?
A Mr. Robbins, it is not a distribution list. It is the incoming stamp, as the distribution list is lower down. The office distribution list is Offices W-1, W-3, W-4, and so on.
Q What was this stamp?
A The stamp meant the distribution with the incoming mail within the DWB, of the auditors.
Q. And what does S T W L stand for?
A. That was I at the time. It means director, and Mr. Robbins, may I just speak for thirty seconds about that?
Q. Well, if it is something that you haven't already said, very well, but don't go back over anything that you have already said.
A. The stamp can only be understood if you know that the DWB were founded without anybody being present, and its tasks were only taxation tasks. It had no employees of its own at the time because nothing was to be done. No other work was to be done except taxation work.
Q. What does St W S T stand for?
A. That was the auditor at the beginning who temporarily handled the tax matters if and when they arose. On the whole, he audited.
Q. It stands for S W and what does the St... What is the whole word there?
A. "Steuer" --"tax".
Q. And what does S T W R stand for?
A. That means law -"Recht".
Q. And "V"?
A. Administration.
Q. And "P"?
A. That did not exist at my time. It must be a now stamp. I'm so sorry. I withdraw that. I think it probably means "auditing." The stamp was changed after my time. "P" stands for "examining"--"Pruefung".
Q. This stamp is on a letter dated 22 January 1943, so it must have been during your time.
A. Then I must have the wrong document. My document says "22/11/1943".
Q. Yes, that is what I said. You were there during that time.
A. No, not in November 1943.
Q. Oh, I'm sorry. My document says January 1943. I think you are right. It is November '43. Is there a mistake on my copy? You say that "P" -- that the "StwP" did not exist on the stamp when you were there?
A. Yes, it was contained there.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Robbins, the document that we have is dated January 22, 1943, Oranienburg.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, mine is also. I see that the distribution stamp is 30 November 1943, so very likely the date January 1943 is a mistake.
A (By Mr. Robbins): Can you throw any light on this witness? Do you know whether it is '43 or '44? Did this come during your time? Did you see it?
A. It can not have been at my time, because it says care of SS Oberfuehrer Baier.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, I think the date should be 1944.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Do you want to change that?
MR ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor, 22 January 1943, on Document No 1290 should be 22 January 1944.
Q. You originally designed this stamp, did you not, witness?
A. Yes, that was my idea. This was at the time when the DWB had no employee of its own, and the stamp was kept.
Q. Ant it was continued in use all through your time with the DWB?
A. Yes, for the following reason, Mr. Robbins: There was no other way than to have the daily mail conference about taxation matters jointly, because the whole thing was much too difficult otherwise.
Q. And the mail that reached you was designated StWL?
A. That was our stamp, and Ansorge probably did it.
Q. And that stands for Staff W Leader, is that right?
A. Yes, it does.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
DR. HEIM: With reference to the submission of the document books for defendant Hohberg, I would like to make this statement:
Quite obviously not every Defense Counsel seems to know yet that document books are not being distributed by Defense Counsel, but by the Defense Information Center, without the Defense Counsel having any influence on this. Now, in the case of Hohberg's document books, if they are not available in German as yet, this is not my fault, and I therefore will not stand for any assertion that I am not prepared to part with my document books. As soon as Document II is available in German and English, I shall offer it here.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: We have it now.
DR. HEIM: May it please the Tribunal, I have not yet been given one single copy of the German text. I have been given three copies of the English, of which Copy 1 is in the hands of the Court and Copy 2 is in the hands of the Prosecution.
MR. ROBBINS: I might say that the Prosecution has received the English copy, and I daresay that there wouldn't be any objection from Defense Counsel for going ahead and offering the documents now.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Now, Dr. Hohberg, Pohl's Defense Counsel talked a lot about the second contract you made with Pohl.