It was asserted in this somewhat excitable interrogation that the fees laid down in the contract represented a general gift on the part of Pohl. Did you receive your fees from Pohl or from the DWB?
A. The fees that I was paid were paid only by the DWB.
Q. Why could it now have been a present?
A. Because we had our contract, and I had a claim thereby.
Q. What was the fee which you would have been paid as an auditor of the DWB.
A. If I had paid the auditors under me according to the fees which were laid down in the law, my official fees would have amounted to about RM 70.000 after all salaries for the auditor had been deducted.
Q. What was the actual fee paid to you?
A. RM 24,000
Q. Therefore, the continued payment of this fee was an obligation which arose from the first contract?
A. Well, up to a point, because the contract also served the purpose to tie me as a consultant to the DWB.
Q. Pohl also reproached you yesterday with the fact that you had swindled the German Reich by RM 10,000,000 and Pohl apparently was talking here about certain practices usual in certain circles.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't believe I was here at the time. I haven't heard Pohl accuse anybody in the last three or four weeks. You mean Dr. Seidl did?
DR. HEIM: May it please the Court, what I said is, "Pohl had you reproached."
THE PRESIDENT: Oh.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Will you please explain to the Court how in the DWB your auditor saved RM 10,000,000 without any crime being thereby involved in this?
A The losses accumulated by the subsidiary companies reached such a dizzy height that if you wanted to adjust it by profits, so much money was needed that about RM 10,000,000 in taxes need not be paid, because profits were used to make up for the losses. That is a perfectly proper thing to do, which is perfectly possible according to German tax laws by making a formal contract to adjust profits and losses. It depends only on the fact that such a contract has been concluded. Even Pohl, who was all-powerful in this concern, was in a position to conclude and rescind such contracts, which is a peculiarity possible under German taxation law. That does not mean tax evasion or embezzlement. It is right and proper. Every large concern is in a position to do it.
Q Then you were also asked yesterday how you knew about the atrocities in concentration camps, since you had not been inside a protective custody camp at any time. Will you give us a few brief comments on that?
A If you are given news of atrocities, then obviously you endeavor to find out the real truth, and for that reason, I invited a few SS officers and put very precise questions to them. These were SS officers who, from their competence, should know about these things. This was something which not everybody could do. I was in a position to do this because I knew them.
Q Then references was made all the time in that examination to your activity as an auditor with the WVHA, in which case the WVHA, of course, stands for Main Economic Office; it does not stand in the German sense "We get everything for Hitler". My question is, were you active for the WVHA or the DWB?
A I was active for the DWB, not for the WVHA.
Q Finally, the so-called speculation Abbe was dug up and you were reproached with having bought privately these Abbe shares. I am not quite clear whether the Court would regard this as a criminal action, or as a war crime, or crime against humanity, but in order to be cautious in the extreme I would like you to give us comments.
THE PRESIDENT: May I make comment instead -- that it isn't in the indictment. So you need no worry about it.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, Your Honor.
About this reproach caused on behalf of defendant Pohl, I shall on the same point, submit an exhorating affidavit by witness Pohl. I have this affidavit already in my possession.
Q Witness, this morning you said when asked by the prosecution that you had heard that there were guards who had people run around with a large stone tied to their backs, according to the tales, was this merely sadism on the part of the camp guards, or could it be extended to the leadership of the SS?
A May it please the court, I may not be able to say anything about that. I know that a friend of mine who told me about these things after he had audited one of the enterprises, and I know we heard only the camp guards do this.
Q Witness, you said that the transports of Jews from Berlin could be seen quite publicly. Thus, the statement of yours confines itself to Berlin only, or do you wish to speak of the whole of the Reich?
A I didn't see other parts of the Reich. I don't think it could have been any different in any other part of Germany.
Q That is enough. Witness on cross-examination you said that you had a member of the National Socialist League of Lawyers NSRB) Were you obliged to a be a member of this affiliated Association?
A No, the membership was voluntary, but without that membership I could not have applied to become an auditor. It was, any way, late when I joined in about 1935 or the beginning of 1936, and I then reported to become an auditor.
Q Witness, you were shown Document 2346, Exhibit 576. This is a brief letter by you concerning a teletype of a special registered letter of the Reich Ministry of Labor. I would like to ask you. At any time when you were a DWB auditor was the distribution of any letters among your tasks?
A No, that was never part of my duties, but it happened quite often not only to me but to Dr. Volk and others, that Pohl would simply button-hole somebody and ask him to so something for him.
Q If I follow you correctly, witness, neither you nor any one else distributed these letters; they were obliged to do that in their official position?
A No, that was a matter simply up to Pohl, and I merely acted a a messenger boy. I did Pohl a favor.
Q I want to talk about the document concerned with the economic inspector, I have not got the document with me -- I know it is Exhibit 529. It is document 1954, and it is part of Document Book 22.
Witness, was it your duty as an auditor of DWB to supervise the enterprises of the economic enterprises?
AAs far as it was part of legal auditing, yes; otherwise, not.
Q How was that expressed, practically?
A That becomes clear from the certificates, that I am the man who has to report to the Ministry of Economic Affairs whether or not the economic conditions of the enterprises are in accordance with legal decrees.
Q Was, in that document, any change intended on the part of Pohl, as far as your present activities were concerned?
A Yes, total change. I would not have acted as a legal auditor, but apart from that I would have had to report privately to Pohl. The latter I did not do.
Q If I have understood you correctly you at no time, when you were the DWB auditor, carried out any economic supervision apart from the one to which you were obliged on the basis of the law, as an auditor.
A That is quite correct.
Q In that letter does Pohl express anything about this activity, and does he insist on a change?
A Yes, he does. Within the scope of my auditing work it had become clear that several cases of auditing were not possible, because the amounts were in disorder. I therefore had to send my auditors there in order to correct and improve the bookkeeping accounting. That is why I fell behind in my auditing work, and Pohl, quite rightly became disinterested.
Q Did this economic supervision which was part of your legal auditing activities--did you do that entirely for the sake of the DWB, or for the sake of the Reich Ministry of Economic Affairs?
A The auditor works for the interest of all concerned -- both for the supervising agency as well as for the owner of the capital and the creditors. The auditor is the man who woks for everybody's security.
Q Dr. Hohberg, now let's talk about the question of the Office Chief. I believe that today we have misunderstood Mr. Robbins. The title and designation "Office Chief", which Pohl gave you without your wishing him to do so, was that rescinded in any form for sometime?
THE PRESIDENT: Was it what?
DR. HEIM: Rescinded.
THE PRESIDENT: He answered that both on direct and cross examination. He said it was never formally rescinded. It was just ignored.
WITNESS: May I just point out here that the question was put differently to me this afternoon. It was not rescinded as far as all the other members of the WVHA were concerned. That did not happen as little as did the official announcement. Pohl took it back as far as my own authority and agency was concerned, in a long letter which explained everything.
Q Now, let us talk about Document 2371, Exhibit 578. The document was used by the Prosecution this afternoon and it deals with the consumer goods for the SS industries. On page 1 of the document there is a letter of yours to Ansorge. Did you, at that time, ask Ansorge to do this, or did you order him to do so?
A We had our joint mail conference, and within the scope of that discussion everybody took care of what was part of his duties. Dr. Wenner would talk about taxation nutters, or I would take part of that, and other dealt with other matters, and so on. The case was that he, Ansorge, advised me on these things. I must make a correction here. It is out of the question that Ansorge was present at that mail conference. I find just now, because I wrote to him. Normally, he-- everybody would collect his own mail, and here apparently he was away on a trip or something.
Q Were you in a position to give Ansorge any orders?
A He was my auditor at the beginning, in which case I was in a position to give him orders, but later on by orders Ansorge did a certain type of work with DWB when DWB did not yet have any employees officially appointed by Pohl. I still had the right to issue order to him. That was the foundation period of DWB. But when he had procurists I had, of course, to resign, and logically. I, so to speak was the godfather of this baby, and then I withdrew.
Q Is this letter of June 1943 to Ansorge, signed by you, on page 1 of the document?
A Yes, the name is there.
Q Does it, under your name, say Amtschief -- Office Chief?
A No.
THE PRESIDENT: We can answer those questions by just looking at the letter.
Q. I shall now have reference to page 9 of this document, in the German. I do not know the English page, unfortunately. This is a letter signed by Ansorge of 17 June 1943. Did you ever see that letter when you were the DWB auditor?
A. I don't remember it. Why Ansorge should have signed this letter, I really don't know. It is possible that he wanted to show off a little. I don't know.
Q. The prosecution has maintained today that you had been Pohl's deputy, Witness -
THE PRESIDENT: Don't waste any time on that, Sir. Don't spend any time on that line of questioning.
DR. HEIM: Thank you.
Q. Dr. Hohberg, I shall now discuss the letter which was submitted by the prosecution, but was not given a number. This is the letter addressed to the printing works.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the one I mean. Don't waste any paper on the printing works. We've heard all we want to about that letter and we attach no importance to it.
DR. HEIM: Very well.
Q. Did you, Volk, and Pohl make any arrangement, however, that Dr. Volk should be Chief of Staff W?
A. I don't remember anything about that.
Q. Please explain to the court briefly when the appointment of a member of the Board of Supervisors is valid.
A. Under German law, such an appointment is subject to consent. I did not consent to the will expressed by Pohl.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, we understood sometime ago that he didn't consent. He told us repeatedly he did not consent to the appointment on the Board of Supervisors.
Next -- next question.
Q. Did you have anything to do with the confiscation of Apollinaris?
A. Not with the confiscation.
Q. You didn't actually administer that property?
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether during the war in Allied Countries enemy property of other nations was confiscated as it was in Germany?
A. Yes, I assume that.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll tell you now that the United States had an Alien Property Custodian so did every other country. We understand that rule of war.
DR. HEIM: Thank you very much. I have no further questions of this witness. Well Dr. Haensel, which would you rather do in the morning, make the motion on the conspiracy count or ask the witness some questions?
DR. HAENSEL: Both, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: You want to do both?
DR. HAENSEL: I will want to see the indictment with my colleague Dr. Heim.
DR. HOFFMAN: I have several questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, think it over overnight, and if you insist, I mean, if you cannot be pursuaded to change your minds, we will give you a little time in the morning, not much, just a little.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until July 18, 1947, at 0930 hours.
Official Transcript of Military Tribunal II, Case VI, in the matter of the United States of America against Oswald Pohl, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg Germany, on 18 July, 1947, 0930, Justice Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal. No. 2.
Military Tribunal No. 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will indicate that the Defendant Scheide is again absent from the session of court, because of illness. The trial will proceed in his absence by leave of court.
Is there any cross-examination of this witness?
DR. HOFFMANN (Attorney for the Defendant Scheide): I have been thinking all night, but I am afraid I will have to put a few questions to the witness.
HANS HOHBERG - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q Witness, first of all, I would like to ask you, did you have any connections, when you were with the WVHA, with the Defendant Scheide?
A No.
Q As far as you know, you met him here for the first time?
A I don't think I ever talked to him before. I did not know who he was and here I found out he was Scheide.
Q Witness, I am very interested in the questions of secrecy. You said yesterday, if I recall rightly, that, however, you were informed by the SS officers about various conditions, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Let me ask you first, when did this happen?
AAt various times. To sum up, at the beginning of 1943, perhaps.
Q Was Moeckl included among the people who informed you?
A Yes, he was my main informant.
Q Who was Moeckl?
A Moeckl was the successor of Burger as the administrative officer in Auscwitz.
Q When did he become administrative officer in Auschwitz?
A It must have been a few months previously.
Q Previous to what?
A Previous to the talk we held.
Q And when did you have these talks?
A With Moeckl I talked and he was my precise informant, at the end of 1942 or beginning of 1943.
Q What did he tell you in detail?
A He explained the gassings to me.
Q Was it your impression that he talked to you alone, or did he spread the stories?
A No, he didn't spread the stories, but I had particularly asked him to come and see me in my flat to have these things explained to me.
Q Was Moeckl determined to tell you these things, or do you know whether he was obliged to keep his mouth shut?
A He was under extremely strict obligation to observe secrecy and for that reason I couldn't talk with anybody else usually, because the subject was so risky.
Q Were you and Moeckl friends?
A No, we were not friends at all. Moeckl was formerly in charge of food enterprises, which is the reason why I know him. He was the co-manager of a former acquaintance of mine, Weissenbach, with Mattoni. On the basis of a business matter he, at my instigation, and my visit to Pohl, was dismissed as a manager and also as a member of the Board of Mattoni. He did not have a reason to be particularly nice to me. Nevertheless, Weissenbach sent Moeckl officially over to see me.
Q Now, how did you manage to get these things out of Moeckl -- was he a talkative man, or what was the position. Did you have a nice social evening... was he drunk?
A No, he was not drunk. I told Moeckl I would like to know what this is all about, and under the seal of secrecy he told me these things.
Q Was he quite sure you would not pass these things on?
A He must have assumed that, yes.
Q What did you do with that knowledge you obtained?
A I put them to the fullest use at once, as far as people were concerned, whom I regarded as reliable.
Q Witness, I would like to show you from my Document Book, Document Scheide, No. 40.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Dr. Hoffmann, just a minute. The witness explained to you how the gassing was done. I wish he would give us the information he gave you, how the method was employed to gas the inmates that he told you about.
WITNESS: This is what he told me. There were gas chambers. People were driven into them. Then the doors would be locked, the gas would be inserted - what type of gas it was I only learned here - and Moeckl made the false statement that the whole thing was cover in a minute and a half. I heard here that I took longer. And that then the inmates - the corpses of the dead - would be taken to the crematorium. This is what Moeckl told me.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Did he give you any estimation as to about how many he had known that were gassed?
A No, but he told me that on some days many hundreds had been gassed. To give a small example which I remember, he said all Gypsies had to be gassed. One day there was an order from Himmler that among the Gypsies there were some alleged to have racially valuable blood and the gassing should be discontinued.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Racially what? I didn't understand that.
WITNESS: Racially valuable blood. At that time there were in Auschwitz allegedly seventeen thousand Gypsies who at the time, with the help of special food rations were given additional food. I remember the figure, that these remaining seventeen thousand were given three thousand liters of milk every day. That is what I remember from that conversation.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Can you tell us for what purpose they gave them all this milk? For what purpose?
WITNESS: Yes. The purpose was to preserve those men who were declared racially valuable, and their health was no longer normal they should be brought back to normal health.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What is the date of this conversation?
WITNESS: I think it most have been at the beginning of 1943.
BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q Witness, how many people do you think were informed by you about these reports?
A By me directly about twenty-five, at least. That was roughly the circle of persons who frequented my house in Berlin and the circle of people I met with Passmann.
Q Do you think these people spread the stories, or were they afraid to talk about these things under the then conditions?
A The latter certainly applies. Everybody was afraid. But I would like to emphasize one point. Several people to whom I told these things said I was not normal.
There were a number of people who thought I was lying to them but as a matter of fact, naturally, my reports were completely authentic.
Q Witness, there is a document in my Document Book which is Scheide No. 40. It says: In 1942 or 1943, certainly at a time when Jews were evacuated from Berlin to the East, a man was denounced who had spread the rumor that Jews were to be gassed in the East, and killed. If that statement was incorrect the men should have been sentenced under paragraph one of the law, to prevent malicious attacks, of 20 December 1934. In my position in the Reich Ministry of Justice I was given a report about this case and the local prosecution intended to indict the man. I regarded the statement as an enormous lie. (He now means, of course, the gassing of the Jews, witness.) But all the same I asked the Gestapo whether any truth was in these statements, and any real occurrences at the back of it, which would have make the trial a doubtful enterprise because it was my experience that facts were found out in those investigations which give an important background to the trial and once could find out how such rumors came about. My query was answered in the negative by the secret state police office, which confirmed that this rumor had no basis in fact.
Do you think that is possible, witness?
A Yes, I think that is entirely possible. I am quite aware of the fact that throughout that period, to put it simply, I was skating on thin ice. Had I made one false step I would have had it.
Q Did any of the defendants in this dock tell you anything about these things?
A No, I did not talk to any of the defendants about these things.
Q Witness, I want to read you something from the IMT trial. It says there, when they talk about the political leaders and the sentence:
"On 9 October 1942 a confidential circular was addressed to all Gauleiters and Kreisleiters which was to talk of measures for the final solution of the Jewish question in Europe. Rumors concerning conditions applicable to the Jews in the East. In that circular it was stated that returning soldiers spread rumors concerning the conditions under which the Jews in the East were living, and that some Germans could, perhaps, not understand this fully. It was then explained how the official wording of these matters should be formulated."
The IMT then goes on to say that by that circular the secrecy in an untrue form was maintained. That you heard rumors, and others heard rumors, becomes clear from the facts and this document, but I would like to ask you... How much do you think were these rumors so substantiated that a larger circle of people would regard them as true, or was the position that one could only hear the truth from case to case?
A Dr. Hoffmann, I am unable to answer you that question. Reports which I could pass on to the very souls of other people were so frightful that at the first moment nobody would have believed me. And I don't believe that people would then, on the spur of the moment, spread these stories. You have to think these things over first. I don't believe that this grew into a rumor which would be passed on automatically. It was too unusual for that.
DR. HOFFMANN: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination by other counsel?
DR. HAENSEL: I have no questions to put to this witness, but I understand that Mr. Robbins wishes to ask a few questions. After his examination I want to say something. Perhaps a useful service would be served.
DR. GAWLIK (for the defendant Dr. Volk):
Q Witness, was Dr. Volk at any time employed by DEST?
A No, but I heard that only here. Dr. Volk was never working with DEST but within the scope of group firms III-A in connection with the trusteeship east for the administration of the enterprises. I made that mistake because I always used to describe anything connected with III-A as DEST.
I didn't know really what Dr. Volk was doing in detail before.
Q And that is the reason why you made that mistake in your affidavit, is it?
A Yes.
DR. GAWLIK: Thank you very much. No further questions.
MR. ROBBINS: I only have one or two questions. I think, witness, that some confusion was introduced in some recent questions about the seizure and confiscation. Do I understand your testimony to be that neither the WVHA, nor any of the industries affiliated with the WVHA that these agencies never used or operated property of any kind which had been seized? As distinguished from confiscated?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Several properties had been confiscated and seized by other agencies of the Reich, they had hot been confiscated but had been purchased or acquired, otherwise. For instance, Gerstl in Prague, the furniture factory, for that purpose, the Petrug itself, a subsidiary company of the German Trusteeship Company AG decided on the purchase price, taking into consideration the value and the substantial capital, and then the price was then paid to the agency concerned, which then had the order to deal with that.
Q Witness, is it your testimony, though, that the WVHA, nor any of its affiliated industries, never used property which had been taken away from persons either Germans or non-Germans, and operated that property, and which property was not paid for? Is that your testimony?
A I can speak here only for the DWB. So far as I know, and there it never happened either, that all properties were bought, or they were administered under the trusteeship basis, or else they had been leased, but the taking away without compensation was not done.
Q And when you say they were taken over under a trusteeship, or under lease, they were confiscated, is that the word you used?
A Quite. Confiscated and now the administration of it was being supervised.
Q And by what agency were they confiscated?
A The block property, such as in the case of the Eastern Bricks Works, it was the most important confiscated property that were confiscated by the main trusteeship East, and an administrator was appointed, and his name was Poh, and Pohl appointed a sub-administrator, and his name was Dr. Bobermin, but those two had no influence on the ownership of the property.
Q You know it was taken over by some one else, but do you expect us to believe that the property which was taken over and operated by the OSTI was supposed to go back to the original owners; that a provision was made for these properties to be returned to the Polish owners? Is that what you want us to believe?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A No, I don't believe that at all, but the question is, who did the actual confiscating. I can not imagine that any agency of the WVHA carried out an actual confiscation.
Q I did not ask you that. I asked you, did the WVHA, or its industries, operate property, or use property which had been confiscated? Now can you answer my question?
A In the case of the OSTI, it is exactly true, it was confiscated property, and it was used and operated.
Q And do you know of any other such property which was seized, where the owner would not receive compensation, and would receive no protection?
A I only know of the case of the Apollinaris, but where the WVHA did not come into it at all, but the RSHA.
Q Well -
A May I just finish Mr. Robbins. When that became the connection, I thought something was foul here in the confiscation by the RSHA. The DWB became active, and attempted to have the confiscation rescinded, with the result that later on the Custodian for Enemy property could exercise control against the RSHA, but an actual seizure was not effected.
Q Witness, you know when you signed the sub-power of attorney for the Apollinaris, the Gestapo or the RSHA had made a confiscation, and not the Alien Property Custodian. You knew when that confiscation was carried out that the owners would not get the money, that they would have no protection; that they would have no recourse to law from the action of the Gestapo. You knew that the reason that the Gestapo had taken over the property was not because of any interest inimical to the Reich, but because this mineral water firm rather that Himmler wanted to take over as head of the Gestapo, and head of the SS, was the outcome of a fanatical idea of his, with which you are very familiar already, to make people drink mineral water instead of liquor and hard drinks. You knew all of that, didn't you?
A Mr. Robbins, that is entirely different to me, and I must say Court No. II, Case No. 4.that my answer would be as long as your question.
It is entirely different. If the Tribunal please, the Custodian for Alien Property really became interested and quite so Mockel knew the property had been confiscated, and, his intention was to acquire that enterprise. The RSHA investigated the question, and supplied the idea that large additional values, and currency embezzelments had occurred, which proved to that extent that the firm was not in a position to defend itself, thereupon, the firm was confiscated by the RSHA, but not seized, and, therefore, the blocking of the property, and the supervision of the property was no longer up to the Custodian for Alien Property but the RSHA. With that the RSHA wanted to appoint a new administrator to replace the old one, which was to be me. When I saw that an official auditor was already the administrator there, I could not possibly be moved to chase this man out of his position. Then the RSHA issued an order, after they had found out the confiscation had been done without a good reason, and the order said, "Please pretend as though no confiscation had occurred. In other words, everything must remain as it is." Thereupon, Dr. Volk managed that this confiscation was rescinded, with the result that before and afterwards the Custodian for Enemy Property exercised supervision, and no seizure was at all effected. Only one thing happened which was to lease the enterprise for the duration of the war, and in order to calculate the sum involved there, I was called in as the expert, and, as I felt I did not want to be the only one responsible here, I informed the Institute of Auditors, where I had been working before, because it was extremely difficult to find out the actual value of same when you work out a lease contract. Here we have a question of the overhaul of the enterprises, which is very difficult in Commercial Law.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: With all justice to Mr. Robbins, I would say that your answer was longer than his question.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q You don't know of any other property then, do you?
A No, I don't know of any other at the moment.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q You don't know of any other property that was used in any way by the WVHA Industries that was taken from people where no compensation was made?
A Without compensation I know nothing, no.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I should like to offer the Apollinaris documents in evidence. The Power of attorney dated 5 March 1941, I should like marked as Exhibit No. 580.
THE PRESIDENT: We don't have these, Mr. Robbins.
MR. ROBBINS: No, they have not been translated, your Honor. I will have them translated just as soon as possible.
THE INTERPRETER: There seems to be trouble on Channel No. 3, again.
MR. ROBBINS: I shall have marked all three documents as one exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, Mr. Robbins, channel No. 3 is involved again.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, during this time may I hand to the Tribunal the letters that we referred to yesterday, which was signed by Dr. Hohberg, and were sent to the printing firm. I just want to make one remark about that letter, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Gentlemen, channel No. 3 is out of commission, and Mr. Robbins, it will take ten minutes to fix this, so we will recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for ten minutes.
(Recess.