Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. ROBBINS: I believe that Dr. Heim did not get any remarks before the recess.
DP. HEIM (For Defendant Hohberg): May it please the Tribunal, I move that the document now on the bench should not be discussed until the Prosecution have offered it as evidence or for identification. I also request that the Prosecution be asked to furnish us with copies of that document.
MR. ROBBINS: I was about to mark that document as Exhibit 581 for identification, and certainly copies will be furnished as soon as possible. I was just saying that I think this document, coupled with the statement of the defendant that he had signed in this manner on several occasions, has some evidentiary value. The Prosecution contends that this defendant was the top man in Amtsgruppe W and acted for Pohl. The fact that he signs "Chief of the WVHA by order, Hohberg," I think has some value to prove that. As far as I know, the contents of this particular letter are not important, but he defendant states that he signed in this manner on other occasions. Also he contends that he had no authority to issue orders or receive an order. The fact that he signs as "Chief of the WVHA by order, Hohberg," also bears on that condition, so for that reason I would like to offer the document for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: You think it may have some tendency to prove that he was deputy chief of Amtsgruppe W?
MR. ROBBINS: That he was the superior in Amtsgruppe W and acted on behalf of Pohl in Amtsgruppe W; that he was immediately under Pohl.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this letter purport to be signed on behalf of Staff W? The signature of which is only in German, of course, is "Der Chef VW". What is that?
MR. ROBBINS: That is the Verwaltungs und Wirtschafts Hauptamt, WVHA, the main office immediately preceding the WVHA.
THE PRESIDENT: I observe the date now. Well, the document will be marked for identification Exhibit 581, and when translations are avail Court No. II, Case No. 4.able, the Tribunal will entertain your offer to submit it in evidence.
That is, you understand, Dr. Heim, this document is not admitted in evidence at this time.
MR. ROBBINS: I would like to ask the defendant one question.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, did you ever sign any of the letters which you did sign in this manner without knowledge or permission of Pohl?
A Mr. Robbins, that is a question which is general and does not refer only to this document which you have just submitted, and I ventured to say yesterday that in this case we had to have a priority certificate, if you like.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, the question was very simple. Just answer the question, please.
A I don't think so. Possibly yes, in similar cases, but I can't recall any such case, but after all you have all the letters and it must show there surely. You should be able to find something there.
MR. ROBBINS: I should like to state for the record, I think probably I should offer further proof for this fact, that the Prosecution is not in possession of all of the files of Amtsgruppe W as some of the defense counsel seem to think.
THE WITNESS: But at least a few boxes full.
THE INTERPRETER: He said, Mr. Robbins, "At least a few boxes full."
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
DR. HEIM (Counsel for Defendant Hohberg): May it please the Tribunal, I would like to state here and now that Defense Counsel are perfectly aware of the fact that the Prosecution have twelve boxes of evidence concerned with Office Group W. We have made our statements not on an assumption, but we base ours on fact.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness, you, on cross-examination, were asked about a document which is now on the bench. I believe it has been given Exhibit number 581. Mr. Robbins spoke about the document without giving you a chance to say something about it. I have a few questions about it.
Can you recall from the knowledge you obtained of the documents yesterday what important matter this matter is concerned with?
THE PRESIDENT: He told us that yesterday. It is a priority for some paper--some printing. That is all.
Q Before you signed that letter, did you go and see Pohl and ask him for permission to sign that letter?
A I signed it in a hurry because it was too ridiculous to go and see Pohl about a matter of this sort. This was a small prank which I did behind Pohl's back. I was not justified in doing so.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer should have been No.
Q When you signed that letter, did you regard yourself as Pohl's deputy?
A No, I did not regard myself as Pohl's deputy.
Q The Prosecution have talked just now about confiscation or seizure of properties. I believe that when that interrogation took place, matters were not cleared up. Can you tell us who carried out the confiscating and seizure of enterprises already existing?
A May I ask what area you are talking about?
Q In the Eastern territories occupied by the Germans?
A Reich laws regulated these matters. When, therefore, Globocnik founded or took over enterprises, either he carried out the confiscation and seizure or somebody else before him, perhaps. I don't know. And thus the property became Reich property. Within the scope of OSTI that Court No. II, Case No. 4.Reich property was given a status under commercial law, and it had to be Reich property for that reason.
OSTI changed only the legal aspect, therefore.
Q Who was it who carried out the seizure and confiscation of additional enterprises?
A To continue with my example of OSTI, if OSTI opened additional enterprises, it had to get the machines and other things they needed and buy them quite normally. If it took over machines from Warsaw from empty factories they had to buy it as well. Whether it was done and to what extent it was done, I don't know because it all happened after my time as an auditor. But no conclusions must be drawn from the fact, please, that I, without my knowledge, was called into those two conferences by Pohl. And this fact must not be interpreted as having a share in the plan. Nothing had to be planned there because the whole thing was an order by Himmler.
Q One more question on that point. Was the confiscation of the Appollinaris property carried out by the RSHA on the basis of Reich laws which were in accordance with the Geneva Convention?
A From the formal point of view, yes; but the reason was so vile that the confiscation had to be rescinded later on. The DWB was at the back of that; particularly Dr. Volk was the one who achieved it later on.
Q Three brief questions. To whom did you address yourself in order to rescind the election done by Pohl without your knowledge when you were to become a member of the board of directors of the Eastern German Building Material Company?
A Not Pohl, as Mr. Robbins seemed to assume yesterday. I sent a registered letter immediately to the Eastern German Building Material Works, and I informed Pohl on a suitable occasion. I still remember that he was not in the slightest impressed because he couldn't even remember it in detail.
Q Did you obtain permission to receive a lower fee as an auditor by the Institute of Auditors because, compared to the normal auditor's Court No. II, Cape No. 4.fee, it was lower?
AAs an auditor I must contact the Institute of Auditors in any case. If I deviate from the fee prescribed by law, this must be done; which I explained to them about the special condition, and I was given full approval. I negotiated at that time with Dr. Becker, who was the first manager.
Q A final question. Is it usual in Germany to call this speculation? Namely, the free purchase of shares and the sale of those shares eight or eleven months later?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, I suggested yesterday that he is not charged with improper speculation in the indictment, and it is unnecessary to elaborate, to talk any further, about that.
DR. HEIM: If the Tribunal does not regard this speculation as incriminating, I need not put any further questions.
BY DP. GAWLIK (Counsel for Defendant Dr. Volk):
Q I have a few questions which arose through the re-cross examination particularly caused by wrong translation. I wish to clear up a point.
Witness, were the enterprises of the Eastern German Building Works confiscated or seized, or were they, as it is called in English, confiscated?
A No, they were put under somebody's administration. I compared that yesterday with Law 52 of the Control Council, which is exactly the same thing. A custodian is appointed and no actual change in the ownership is affected.
Q Who ordered those measures to be taken, that it should be put under somebody's administration?
A You mean for the Eastern Brick Works?
Q Yes, the brick works of the Eastern Building Material Works.
A Dr. Bobermin should know more about this. As far as I know, it started from the Four Years' Plan, and within the scope of the Four Years' Plan it was the manager of the trusteeship agency East. He was the Custodian-General for the Eastern Brick Works, and he appointed Pohl Court No. II, Case No. 4.as the special custodian.
The sub-custodian under Pohl was Dr. Bobermin. "The property status had not changed at all.
Q Will you please tell the Tribunal what the Four Years' Plan agency was? Was that an agency which belonged to the WVHA, or what?
A The Four Years' Plan department was in the nature of a Reich Ministry. It was a Reich department which had nothing to do with any special organizations.
Q Who was in charge of that agency?
A Reich Marshal Goering.
Q Thank you very much; I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: No further questions by Defense counsel?
This witness may be removed from the stand.
(Witness excused)
DR. HAENSEL: Carl Haensel for Georg Loerner-
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Dr. Haensel, before you go on to matters of more importance--the witness Hohberg who was just on the stand, near the end of his testimony, in answer to a question, made the following answer: "I was skating on thin ice, and if I had made one false move I would have had it."
Now you, being a man of letters, we thought it best to inform you, and for your edification to tell you, that the expression "I would have had it" is not considered to be the best of English--but is a most comprehensive G.I. expression.
DR. HAENSEL: Following these kind words from the Tribunal, I now wish to start on the same level. We, in Germany, have a dramatist, who comes nowhere near Shakespeare, but who might have become a sort of Shakespeare, had he found a broader stage, such as the Elizabethan Era. This was Christoph Friedrich Bragge, and Bragge wrote a play which is called, "Joke, Irony and Deeper Meaning", which in German means, "Scherz, Ironie, und Tiefere Bedeutung". It seems to me that this thought is extremely good, because it does not contain any contrasts in itself. A joke and irony are not opposed to keeper meaning, but joke and irony are being interpreted there. A joke and irony exist only and are important only if and when they have a deeper meaning. Therefore, every joke should have a core for the joke which can be conveyed more quickly than, perhaps, a long-winded speech. My colleague Heim is only too aware of this.
Yesterday, I spoke about the secret document books. I must point out here that in the German language the word, "Heim", has a slight connection with the word, "Geheim", which is "secret." For instance, my colleague Heim's office might be called a "secret office", and that is how I described these books, as secret document books, but not only facetiously, but with a deeper meaning. That deeper meaning colleague Heim has now seen, and he refused to answer it, but, as this matter is of practical importance to us all. I must just briefly refer to the secret Heim documents.
The rule applies that a document which you offer here must be shown to the other side, that is to say defense counsel must show it to the Prosecution, and vice versa, twenty-four hours ahead of time. The document books by colleague Heim were submitted in the normal way to the Secretary-General, but, when here in court paragraphs were read from these document books, defense counsel had not yet received their copies. Therefore, the situation arose where, although the English translation was in the hands of the Tribunal and the Prosecution had their copy, they were aware of the contents, but we were not. That would not be too tragic normally if defense counsel were a united group, but, if these document books contain things which concern the other defendants and even incriminate them - I need only recall the question of knowledge and a few other things which we heard through Dr. Seidl about the document books - it is an extreme hardship and an impossible situation, if the other defense counsel do not know what the document books say which are being given exhibit numbers.
And it is possible that the documents contain other things as well, which are regarded here as submitted already, but are not known to the defense.
To talk more about the term, "secret" does not mean " unknown". "Secret" means something which one man knows and the other man does not know. That is what secret means. We have the situation that we didn't know things and still don't know them, which were known to all the other members of this trial.
This does not concern all documents, but quite a few of them, and that is what I attempted to oppose and I would therefore be grateful, in order to give the matter a concrete form, if we should be allowed, after we have now revealed the secrets of the document books, to comment on the contents of these documents. If this can be expressed, we would be in the embarrassing dilemma that we cannot comment on documents already submitted, although we are now compelled to, but we would be prevented from putting further questions to Dr. Hohberg, because he is no longer on the witness stand.
I have only expressed the subjective effects as to what happened to the document books, not a subjective accusation, and I do not wish to say that this has been caused by a deliberate interfering with fate, "corriger la fortune." This is what I feel and I hope that the Tribunal will give us a chance to come back to these documents, if and when they are important to us.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, have you received a German copy of the socalled secret document book?
DR. HAENSEL: No, we have not received any at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you like one?
DR. HAENSEL: I would be delighted.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sure Dr. Heim will respond and see that you get one. Am I right, Dr. Heim?
Yes, he has it all ready for you. Then, if you find anything in it, about which you wish to ask Hohberg, he can be recalled to the witness stand. I hope this doesn't happen, but I won't prevent it, if it becomes necessary.
DR. HAENSEL: Thank you. That is entirely satisfactory.
May I use this opportunity to make a motion about the question which has been referred to the Tribunal sitting on banks, the question of conspiracy in war crimes, and crimes against humanity. I need not repeat the reasons which I gave before. I merely would like to speak briefly about what perhaps is a perfectly natural question namely, why these problems at this moment were discussed at all.
The Chief of Counsel has said, apart from his arguments, and I quote, "And finally, these attacks against conspiracy which I made, did not occur to any of the defense counsel before the IMT. This idea was never expressed on behalf of any of the defendants, and, therefore, no discussion or deliberation was taking place while the IMT was sitting." I wanted to use this opportunity in order to protect my colleagues a little. These ideas were not deliberated in the old days and it is one of the strange experiences common during a trial of that sort and the trials which we are having here in Nurnberg that things must mature, that is to say, it is very strange to see how a trial develops in a completely different manner from the way it sets out. The prosecution or anybody else can't foresee these things. The trials have laws of their own, and I believe that the Nurnberg trials are the most grandiose and, in my opinion, consequential event in the history of law, because they concentrate so intensely on problems for a long time, within the same circle of people consisting of extremely clever men who did not have that idea until Nurnberg was born.
Therefore, if a problem a appears as simple as the egg of Columbus it is still difficult to handle until you put it on its top.
I shall, therefore, venture to make my application which follows up the decisions made by the Tribunal before. May I read this first and I shall comment on it later.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, you are about to read the ruling of Tribunal 4?
DR. HAENSEL: I intend to.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us start again. The interpreter wasn't at the phone.
DR. HAENSEL: I am giving you latest resolution which I hope is known to the Tribunal. I do not wish to say that I am making up my mind that this is the way that the Tribunal should formulate this.
THE PRESIDENT: As one scholar to another, I would prefer to formulate it in our own language.
DR. HAENSEL: I will read from that:
"Neither the Charter of the International M.T. nor Control Council No. 10 has defined conspiracy to commit a War Crime or crime against humanity as a separate substantive crime. Therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try any defendant upon a charge of conspiracy considered as a separate substantive offense.
Insofar Count I of the Indictment charges the commission of the alleged crime of conspiracy as a separate substantive offense distinct from any war crime or crime against humanity as defined in Ar. 2, Paragraph 1 b and c of Control Council Law No. 10 the Tribunal will disregard the charge."
By that I only mean the conspiracy as such and the finding of the fact and the question of the so-called participation acts.
The problem which is being debated now is, simply, that apart from the conviction of war crimes or crimes against humanity there should be a conviction of the conspiracy count, with reference to these crime here. As far as the carrying out of the trials is concerned it means that a conviction or a sentencing could not be derived from a system of law as the Anglo-American law is, which only applies to one single country but rather the legal basis of our proceedings here is international law which can be found in international treaties, regulations, science and decisions of courts.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't want to cut short your interesting discussion, but you will remember that we heard your argument when all of the Tribunals sat together. So what is it you now ask this Tribunal to do, Mr. Haensel?
DE. HAENSEL: I believe I can stop my deliberations, then.
THE PRESIDENT: And what do you now ask this Tribunal to do?
DR. HAENSEL: I would appreciate it if the Tribunal would make a resolution of the following contents, as contained in my application here.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Seidl, on behalf of the defendant Pohl, has filed a similar motion in writing and the Tribunal will consider Dr. Haensel's motion as made on behalf of all the defendants. Paragraph one of Count One of the Indictment in this case charges that time defendants, acting pursuant to a common design, unlawfully, wilfully, and knowingly, did conspire and agree together to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined in Control Council Law No. 10, Article II. It is charged that the alleged crime was committed between January 1933 and April 1945. It is the ruling of this Tribunal that neither the Charter of the International Military Tribunal that neither the Charter of the International Military Tribunal nor Control Council Law No. 10, had defined conspiracy to commit a war crime or crime against humanity as a separate, substantive crime.
Therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try any defendant upon a charge of such conspiracy considered as a separate, substantive offense. Paragraph One of Count One will, accordingly, be quashed and stricken from the Indictment. This ruling must not be construed as limiting the force or effect of Article II, paragraph 2, od Control Council Law No. 10, or as denying to either prosecution or defense the right to offer evidence of any facts or circumstances tending to prove or disprove the actual commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity, as defined in Control Council Law No. 10.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take just a ten-minute intermission for the relief of the interpreters.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HEIM: Dr. Heim for the defendant Dr. Hohbert. Your Honor, with the permission of the Tribunal, before calling the first witness to the witness stand. I would appreciate if I could say one sentence namely, the following: Document Book No.II for the defendant Dr. Hohberg has not as yet been introduced, and the affidavits contained therein were one part of our dispute. Dr. Seidl very kindly began to introduce these affidavits. I shall introduce Document Book II as soon as the other defense counsel have received it in German also, with the permission of this Tribunal I now would like to call as my first witness, Herr Dr. Wolf.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will bring in the witness to the courtroom.
Dr. Max Wolf, as witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will raise his right hand and repeat after me. "I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing." (The witness repeated the oath) You may be seated.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, will you please give your full name?
A. Max Wolf.
Q. Where and when were you born?
A. On 8 February 1902, in Magdeburg.
Q. What is your address at the moment?
A. Duesseldorf, Kaiserswertherstra. 134.
Q. Will you tell us in a few brief details your professional curriculum vitae, and also your technical training and the position which you occupy at the present.
A. I was trained as a merchant, then I studied law, and when I was 21 years of age I received my law degree.
Then again I worked as a merchant. I also studied technical science, and I went to a technical high school, where I received my technical degree, after having passed my examination. After that I worked on a voluntary basis in an electrical plant, and, also in a research institute, and, even before I had finished my technical studies, I became a lecturer at the first German University for Electric Science in Garmstadt. I worked there for five years in my capacity as a lecturer at the technical high school. After I had become an assistant I went to my present firm, the Economic Consultation Company for German Cities, or as it is called today, the Economic Consultation Institute for the German communities. I established the technical department of that institute and I worked myself up to the position of technical member of the board of directors.
THE PRESIDENT: "Langsam, bitte" Slowly, please.
THE WITNESS: In that capacity I carried out an advisory activity with regard to the German power plants, particularly the electric power plants of the communities. Then almost every year I traveled abroad. I visited fourteen countries altogether-----for my studies in part, and also in order to gain technical experience. I visited the United States, Canada--
DR. HEIM: Witness, please speak a little lower, and make a pause.
THE PRESIDENT: Bring the witness down to around 1933, Dr. Heim. Go on from there.
DR. HEIM: Please be a little more brief about your professional career.
THE WITNESS: I am through now.
DR. HEDI:
Q. Will you describe please just briefly the field of tasks of your enterprise?
A. Our enterprise is an auditing enterprise. It was established for the purpose of auditing the electric power plants, of the German communities, in technical, commercial and economic respect, and to audit them.
The enterprise also carried out other tasks, and particularly as far as the affiliated companies were concerned, the Continental Trusteeship Company and the firm of Van Aubel Reetsch, we also acted as trustees and as auditors for a large part of the German heavy industry.
Q How long have you known Dr. Hohberg?
A I have known Doctor Hohberg approximately since 1934. I can't recall very well the first time I met him. That was due to the organization of our enterprise. It so happens that we worked in the same enterprise for five or eight years before we met.
Q That is sufficient, witness. How was your relationship to Dr. Hohberg since you first met him?
A Our relationship was of a business nature. We had common contacts, particularly when carrying out our activity in the area of East Prussia where Dr. Hohberg was in charge of an affiliated company at Koenigsberg. At the time, we did not discuss political matters too much because there was a negative attitude toward politics in our enterprise and I knew in advance that Dr. Hohberg shared my political ideas.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, please try to keep control of the witness. Ask him particular questions more frequently. If you leave him loose, he goes way off into the field, so direct his attention to particular question, please.
BY DR. HEIM:
Will you please tell us in brief terms what the first contacts between you and Hohberg were at the time, particularly with reference to your political attitude?
AAs I just stated, I met Herr Dr. Hohberg, at least as far as the main part of our relationship was concerned, in the area of East Prussia. At the time we were in a predicament because Gauleiter Koch, had interfered with us.
Q Witness, just a moment.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I think it necessary that the witness tell us about the political attitude of the auditing company, A.G., where he was active, together with Dr. Hohberg, because that fact is also of fundamental importance for the judgment of the political attitude of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't argue about it. Just go ahead and ask him.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness, would you please tell us in brief terms what the political attitude of Dr. Hohberg was at the time, as he explained it to you and as you noticed when you met him and worked together with him?
A I had just begun to say that together we had to carry on a struggle with Koch who was a Gauleiter at the time in Koenigsberg. Gauleiter Erich Koch happened to have established an auditing company of his own, and he had told all the mayors, and agencies in East Prussia to only give assignments to his auditing company and not to do business with us any longer.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Heim, when was this, please?
Q Witness, what year was that in?
A I couldn't tell you for sure.
Q Could you tell us the approximate date?
A It could be between 1935 and 1938.
Q Witness, you stopped when you were telling us about the common struggle which you and Dr. Hohberg had against Koch.
A Yes, I was telling you about it. There were very few mayors at the time who had the courage to continue dealing with our company because we were a special company. A large number of these mayors complied with the Gauleiter's orders. Under these circumstances, it can be understood that we also spoke about political things of a general nature, and the result was that Dr. Hohberg to the fullest extent, shared our opinion.
Q In the time after that, did any close, friendly contact develop between you and Dr. Hohberg?
A Yes, between Dr. Hohberg and me there was a close, friendly contact, and it developed in the course of the years, particularly after 1942, because in that year I moved to Berlin, and I believe that Dr. Hohberg had an apartment in Berlin around the same period of time. I couldn't tell you for sure, though.
Q Dr. Wolf, we shall come back to a point now very briefly. Will you tell us please very briefly what the attitude of the Deutsche Wirtschaftsberatungs A.G., the German Economic Consultation A.G. was as far as politics were concerned, and how this affected you and Dr. Hohberg?
A Our company was established in 1931. Since most of its employees were people from the Rhineland and since most of the employees were Catholics, it was called the so-called "black auditing company". I would like to explain this by saying that in this particular case "black" stands for the term "Zentrum" the Center Party. In our company we only had very few members of the rightist parties. After the so-called Seizure of Power, that tendency increased. We became a company, we can say today, which absorbed all political persecutions who joined us. We had communists, socialists, pacifists, and members of the Russian trade delegation which had resigned, in our ranks. Hofrat Weiser was one of our members.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What period is he speaking of?
DR. HEIM: The witness is telling us about the time after the Seizure of Power; that is to say, the time after 30 January 1933.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Can't we have it a little more specific? Some year? It is a long time between 1933 and 1945.
DR. HEIM: The witness is only explaining the political attitude and opinion of the auditing company from 1933 onwards, in which Dr. Hohberg was also working.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Please continue, witness.
A In our company we had Jews, and we even employed these Jews after the Seizure of Power. It is easy to say today that we were an anti-Fascist organization. I would still like to support this statement by giving you a few additional facts.
From our auditing company, three people were sentenced to death, or they died a few weeks after they had been incarcerated in prison. A few of the members of our supervisory board and members of the Assistant Board of Directors, the Beirat, were relieved of their positions, thrown into prison or executed. We did everything we could to help and save our political persecutes. I personally helped some of the members of our company who were Jews to emigrate. Of the Jewish members of the company, none died, and they are all abroad.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q That is sufficient as far as this point is concerned. Do you know when Dr. Hohberg discontinued his activity with that company, and can you tell us the reason why he did so?
A Dr. Hohberg probably stopped working for us in 1940.
THE PRESIDENT: The next question.
Q (By Dr. Heim) Do you know the reason why Dr. Hohberg ceased his activity with the German auditing company, the Deutsche "Wirtschaftsberatung?
A Yes. He wanted to join an organization which was closer to the SS. He told me that he would go there.
Q Did Dr. Hohberg tell you what his activity was going to be there?
A Dr. Hohberg told me that he was going to work there as a free private auditor.
Q Do you know if at the time the SS made a proposal to him to carry out his activities as an auditor?
A Yes, I do know that, because Dr. Hohberg immediately after the beginning of the war went from Koenigsberg to Vienna, where I was working together with my engineers, and a few weeks after that I heard that he went and applied for leave, amongst my colleagues of the Board of Directors, the Vorstand, in order to carry out a special mission for the SS organization. Please excuse me if I use the term "an SS organization". I really don't know what the name of the organization was at the time.
Q You told us before in a few brief terms that Dr. Hohberg was opposed to the National Socialist regime. Can you tell us whether Dr. Hohberg, when he took that job as an auditor, liked that job very much, and whether he liked his assignment as such?
A When he took over this assignment to do some auditing work, he really didn't like it in any way. According to my opinion he was actually acting under a certain circumstance which could indicate duress, the reason being that he thought that it was a smaller evil to take over this auditing work rather than to join the Wehrmacht, which in East Court No. II, Case No. 4.Prussia had treated him in a very bad manner.