Is that right?
A I don't know what year the Koch had founded this company. I don't remember the exact date of that foundation.
Q It was some time prior to 1940, wasn't it?
A Yes, certainly.
Q And through his application, and through his political influence with the Party, he was about to put the firm which you belonged to, and which Hohberg belonged to, out of business, wasn't he?
A Yes.
Q And that was the source of your antagonism toward Koch, wasn't it?
A Not only that. Conditions quite generally aroused my opposition. This was merely a contributing factor.
Q And so your antagonism, and Hohberg's antagonism was directed against the Party at that time, wasn't it?
A That is not quite enough. We had our fundamental attitude against that organization.
Q You were fundamentally opposed to National Socialism. Is that why you joined the Party? You can answer that with yes or no. Is that why you joined the Party? Your opposition to National Socialism?
A Excuse me, sir, I am facing a denazification trial, and some of the defense counsel have already asked me that question. I shall be only too glad to give you my files about the matter.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q I didn't ask you for your files or for any information from your files. As a matter of fact, I will withdraw that question. You told us that you were in possession of information about the SS and that you had heard a good deal about the atrocities committed by the SS. Can you tell us today about any public acts of violence that the SS took part in that you heard about?
A I can only tell you what Dr. Hohberg told me. Would that be enough?
Q All right, tell us what he told you about public acts of violence.
A He told me about human experiments, mistreatment of prisoners and inmates when they had attempted to escape, that women had been whipped, that 60,000 people had to work in stone quarries under extremely harsh conditions, that punishment would be very severe if prisoners attempted to escape--that the whole camp had to pay for it collectively. Those, I think, were the essential things which he reported to me and which I remember at the moment.
Q Did he tell you about gassings at Auschwitz, gassing of inmates and Jews?
A No, he didn't.
Q What did he tell you about medical experiments?
A He told me about experiments. He told me that he had heard about freezing experiments, high altitude experiments, and I remember because he told me that in one case two close friends of the Reichsfuehrer-SS had been called in to watch the experiments and had nearly been killed.
Q What did he tell you about the working conditions that you have just mentioned in the stone quarries? What more did he tell you about the stone quarry conditions?
A He said that working conditions were extremely difficult in some cases and that in some cases peoples' lungs would be affected by the dust in these quarries. On the other hand, he said that in the stone quarries efforts would be made to have skilled workers trained Court No. II, Case No. 4.and that it would be possible for inmates to take their examination as apprentices in these stone quarries.
Q Did he tell you about inmates being worked in these stone quarries to such an extent that they died?
A Not in the stone quarries, no.
Q Where did he say these stone quarries were located? Were these SS stone quarries?
A Excuse me, he spoke about concentration camp inmates who worked in concentration camps. Whether these were SS quarries or any other type of quarries, I don't know.
Q Did he tell you about any acts of violence of the SS that took place outside of concentration camps?
A I don't recall anything.
Q Did you see or hear of any acts of violence of the SS that took place during the war outside of the camps?
A Me? No.
Q It was a perfectly peaceful organization as far as you knew?
A No, not at all.
Q Never persecuted the Jews; never herded the Jews into box cars and deported them outside of Germany? You didn't hear anything about that--burning synogogues?
A But, Mr. Prosecutor, I said myself just now--and that can be testified to in affidavits by American citizens, that I, myself, have helped one Jew to escape. He now lives in Chicago. I protected him during the pogrom, and I have an affidavit.
Q I am not interested in that, witness. You told us that you were collecting evidence against the SS and were in possession of-
A Not I.
Q You said you were a member of an anti-Fascist organization. You weren't interested in collecting evidence? Is that right?
A Excuse me; Dr. Hohberg collected the material.
Q You didn't collect any material?
A No, no, I did not.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q And you did not hear of any public acts of violence that took place in Germany on the part of the SS, other than what Hohberg told you?
A No, I also heard things from other people as well; of course I did.
Q All right, what did you hear about public acts of violence?
A What I heard from other people? Somebody was telling me about the gassing of Jews.
Q When did you hear that?
AAfter the outbreak of the war--in 1940 or 1941 perhaps. I am not quite sure.
Q What else did you hear?
DR. HEIM: It seems to me that Mr. Robbins thinks that Dr. Hohberg is still on the witness stand. This has nothing to do with the veracity of this witness, because the witness is here only to tell us what Dr. Hohberg had told him and what he himself remembers still. Mr. Robbins is now asking him what he heard from other people. It is my opinion that this is entirely uninteresting for this trial because this witness is not a defendant.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I don't think that I am restricted in my cross examination to the material that Counsel took up on direct examination. One of the important issues in this trial is what the people in Germany knew about the violence that was being committed by the SS, what was common knowledge, and this witness has given us a good deal of information. I am just trying to find out what he knows.
DR. HEIM: May it please the Tribunal, the witness can never tell us what was generally known in Germany. At the most, he can tell us what he knew, and his testimony is of probative importance only if he can tell us what Dr. Hohberg told him.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, we have heard ten or more defendants say they heard nothing about any of the acts of violence that the SS took part in. Here is a private citizen in Germany Court No. II, Case No. 4.who heard about these things.
I think that it can be inferred from the testimony of other people who heard about these things that it was common knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this testimony is directed not so much against Hohberg, as it is toward the defendants who disclaimed any knowledge of the atrocities?
MR. ROBBINS: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: I think this testimony is admissible. This testimony is admissible as an impeachment of the testimony of the defendants and possibly also to establish the fact, the corpus delicti, of unlawful acts by the SS. I think it is admissible on two grounds.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Did you understand the ruling of the Tribunal, witness? Will you tell us what else you heard about violent acts of the SS, public acts?
A I would like to make a brief remark first. You can not say that knowledge which I gained-
Q I didn't ask you that. I just asked you about the information that you obtained. What you heard about. Will you answer my question, and then you can make an explanation.
A I heard, for instance, when I was in Vienna, that the Jews were being transported to the East; where to I didn't hear. I was told that they were taken to a place near Lublin, but later on I was in Warsaw, and I saw the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto. I also saw the ghettos in other Polish areas.
Q Is that all you heard? Anything else?
A I saw an industrial concentration camp, which was the mechanical workshop at Neubrandenburg. There the whole industrial enterprise was built up in the shape of a concentration camp, where even the engineers had to work who were members of my organization.
Q Where did you spend most of your time during the war? Where were you located?
A Where I was? I had to consult the enterprises, and that took Court No. II, Case No. 4.me all over the place, and I acquired more knowledge than any other German.
I traveled for 200 or 240 days a year. That might be an explanation for the fact that I had so much knowledge. In Berlin I lived only in a hotel for eight years because I always traveled.
Q Where were you when you heard about the atrocities that were committed in the concentration camps? Where were you?
A In Germany.
Q Where in Germany?
A In Berlin, when Dr. Hohberg was telling me these things.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: When you were in Warsaw and other parts of Poland and gained the information that the ghettos had been destroyed, saw that they had been destroyed, did you get the general information from the people as to what became of the Jews that were in the ghettos that were destroyed?
A Not in Warsaw. I only saw the destruction in Warsaw, and somebody described to me the battles which took place, but that was about a fortnight before the Polish uprising in Warsaw. What the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto looked like in detail, I don't know. It happened earlier.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Didn't you inquire of the people what had become of the Jews that had lived in the ghetto?
A Yes, I asked.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What did you find out?
A That they all had perished; almost all of them had perished in the ghetto.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Did you ever hear of a circle of people called the Passmann circle?
A No, I never heard that name.
Q Did Hohberg ever tell you anything at all about Frank, August Frank?
A I don't recall it.
Q Did he ever tell you anything about Georg Loerner?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I don't remember.
Q Did he tell you about any one else connected with the WVHA, any office chiefs?
A I said before that I heard the term "office chief" for the first time here in Nurnberg. He only told me the names of Dr. Volk and Dr. Bobermin. I remember those two names because Dr. Bobermin and Dr. Volk had worked in Germany.
Q Did he tell you that he was collecting information against Volk and Bobermin?
A No, he didn't say so.
Q Pohl was the only man connected with the WVHA that he was collecting evidence against; is that right?
A No.
Q Well, whom else was he collecting evidence against in the WVHA?
A I don't know. He said, "I am collecting material against the big shots," or some such expression.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Did you give an affidavit to Dr. Heim?
A What about?
Q About the activities of Dr. Hohberg? Let me ask you, did you give such an affidavit on the 11th of April, 1947, in Frankfurt?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q At any rate did Dr. Hohberg tell you that it was inevitable that he, Dr. Hohberg, should have certain powers to give directives if his propositions were to be effective?
A I am afraid I didn't follow your question. What do you mean?
Q At any time during the war did Dr. Hohberg make the statement to you that it was inevitable that he, Dr. Hohberg, should have certain powers to give directives if his propositions were to be effective? That is after he took his position with the Amtsgruppe W.
A I cannot recall that.
Q You told us that you had a job with the Bohemia to work out plans to convert a firm from producing a luxury china to utility china. I ask you if that is a normal and usual function of an auditor? Is that usually done in the course of an auditor's business, such work as this, work of this type?
A No. I should explain that perhaps. I couldn't describe the organization of our enterprise in full because the President cut me short. The technical department of which I was in charge was the Staff of Technical Engineers. We were the only enterprise in Germany who had engineers in their auditing department. For that reason we did work which normally would be done by an engineers' office. In that case we were consulting engineers.
Q You didn't lose your membership with the public accountant organization by reason of that, did you?
A I myself am not an auditor and I am not a member of the Institute of Auditors.
Q You are not a public certified accountant? I thought you told us that you were.
A No.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q Witness, you said that you knew in 1940 about the gassing of Jews.
A I said I don't remember the exact date.
Q But could it have been 1940?
A Please let me think a moment. The Polish campaign was in 1939, one or two years after the end of the Polish campaign. Yes, it might be '40 or '41.
Q The beginning of 1941 perhaps?
A Please don't tie me down. I can't tell you for certain.
Q From whom did you hear this?
A I said before I heard this on the train. Somebody was telling me. He said one of the most frightful impressions of his life had been when he saw a transport of Jews which somewhere in Poland had been unloaded and which had been full of naked Jews who were then driven into barracks, and I have heard that they were being gassed.
Q What train was that? Where did you go at the time?
A I told you I traveled daily. I can't tell you what particular trip that was. I worked in the Warthegau on dozens of occasions.
Q But this certainly is an important matter. You should have known, you should remember where you heard that first. It is a terrible thing to hear.
A Nevertheless I didn't make a note.
Q But you must remember where it happened.
A I tell you it is a very important matter, that I heard it somewhere in the train in the Warthegau.
Q In the Warthegau?
A Yes, somewhere in a train. Perhaps I went to Posen. I went to Posen very often.
DR. HOFFMANN: Thank you.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, did you tell anybody about this conversation that Court No. II, Case No. 4.you had?
AAbout this thing which I mentioned just now? I told it to persons in our firm, and to other acquaintances and friends in connection with Hohberg's stories, but I must say I was never believed. People told me: "You probably listened to foreign broad cases. This is atrocity propaganda."
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, did you offer in evidence the affidavits in Book II.
DR. HEIM: May it please the Tribunal, Book II has not been submitted yet for the sole reason that it is ready in English but not in German, and because it is to be expected that the other defense counsel will object because they have not yet received the book.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this book contains an affidavit by this witness, does it not?
DR. HEIM: Book II? Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It was sworn to on the 11th of April?
DR. HEIM: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if any counsel wants to see that affidavit and use it in cross-examination of this witness, they should have a right to do so. You do not have it in German, copies in German?
DR. HEIM: No, your Honor. I only have one private copy. Through the translation department and the reproduction department I have asked for fifteen copies, but I have not received them yet. That is the reason why I haven't offered the document book yet.
THE PRESIDENT: After this witness has testified in person there is no point in submitting an affidavit, but, on the other hand, you have brought such an affidavit into court, and if other counsel wish to use it to cross-examine him, and perhaps impeach him, they should have that right.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I will gladly give my one copy to any defense counsel for that purpose.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Court, I was going on the assumption that Dr. Heim would offer this affidavit in evidence. It Court No. II, Case No. 4.contains some material that wasn't covered in the testimony.
I thought it would be best not to take up the Court's time by trying to read everything that is in the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I see no purpose in calling the witness in person and examining him at length and then putting in a two or three page affidavit covering the same ground.
MR. ROBBINS: I think there is some information here that wasn't covered in the examination. Dr. Heim said that he was going to offer the affidavit, and I was going on that assumption.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I never said that I would submit that affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel for the defense may have access to this affidavit if they wish for impeachment or for crossexamination. The witness can be recalled for that purpose if it appears that there is any ground for impeachment. Do you want to make any use of the affidavit, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: Just one more question then.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Is it true, witness, that in 1942 Dr. Hohberg told you about atrocities that were being committed in concentration camps?
Q Yes, I said so, he reported that to me.
Q What was the earliest date that he told you about these things? Was it as early as '41?
A Yes.
Q Was it as early as '40?
A No.
Q Sometime in '41?
A Yes, and I gave you the reason why it was in 1941. He -
Q I don't care for the reason. Do you remember about what month?
A No. It was before the Russian campaign.
MR. ROBBINS: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, this witness may be excused from the witness stand.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Who is your next witness, Dr. Heim?
(Witness excused)
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
DR. HEIM (Counsel for defendant Hohberg): May it please the Tribunal, I should now like to call the witness, Dr. Tenbergen, to the witness stand.
DR. HOFFMAN (Counsel for defendant Scheide): Mr. President, I object to the examination of that witness because provided there is an affidavit in the document book by that witness-
DR. HEIM: May it please the Court, I have not yet offered an affidavit by the witness Dr. Tenbergen. I shall, however, not offer that document which is part of Document Book 2 for the only reason that I wish to examine the witness in the witness stand here.
DR. HOFFMANN: That makes me very happy, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Marshal please bring the witness, Albert Tenbergen, to the stand while the Court is in recess?
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HEINRICH ALBERT TENBERGEN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Witness, you will raise your 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.)
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HEIM (Attorney for the Defendant Hohberg):
Q Witness, please give us your full name.
A Dr. Heinrich Albert Tenbergen. Albert is my first name.
DR. HEIM: May it please your Honors, his name is not contained on the list, due to a mistake which is not on my part.
Q (By Dr. Heim) When and where were you born, Witness?
A I was born on the 9th of June, 1906, in Oberhausen on the Rhine-Land.
Q What is your address at the moment?
A Recklinghausen, Westphalia Elperweg, 19.
Q What profession do you have?
A I am selling books and magazines.
Q How long have you known Dr. Hohberg?
A I have known Dr. Hohberg for approximately 25 years.
Q Where did you meet Dr. Hohberg?
A I met Dr. Hohberg as a result of the fact that we belonged to the same youth organization. This might have been between the years 1922 and 1925. It was during the time when Dr. Hohberg graduated. That youth organization was called B.K. in Germany which meant "Bible Circle", Biblekreis. It was a Christian Protestant organization. My parents at that time lived in Dortmund. Then they moved to Recklinghausen. I myself was a member of that organization in Dortmund and in the Reckling Court No. II, Cnse No. 4.hausen organization I met the defendant Dr. Hans Hohberg.
Together in this youth organization, we visited the so-called summer vacation camps. We also participated in evening meetings and I also recall that amongst other things we went to the camps in outside places, Schleswig-Holstein, near Gusen, a camp which was in Westphalia near Siegen, and also we were in the large sanatorium near Bielefeld in Bethel where Parson Bodenschwing was organizing all epileptics into one organization, so that they could support themselves there. If I understood your question correctly, I am to tell you about the contacts which I had with Dr. Hohberg and what my relationship was to him.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Yes, that was it.
A Very well. I became more closely acquainted with Dr. Hohberg and I was in his home very frequently. His father was a parson, and the membership in that organization which I just described as BK, Bibelkreis, was the thing that brought us together. At the time already we discussed the various things and questions interesting to both of us, and particularly since we belonged to the same youth organization, we also had discussions about other youth organizations which existed at the time. That was the so-called "Jungdeutscher Orden", usually abbreviated as "Jung-Do". There was at the same time a youth organization which was called the Werwolf. This organization had nothing to do with an organization of the same title which played a part during the latter time of the war. These organizations had been created by the so-called Munich trial, where Adolf Hitler was tried at the time. We were under the impression that youth organization which I just mentioned in contrast to our Christian organization had nationalist tendencies. I know that we discussed quite frequently whether participation in such an organization would be of any use to us or whether on the basis of our previous activity, and our membership in the BK, we should join such an organization. Both of us did not do it. When Dr. Hohberg matriculated and went to the university, we also discussed quite openly by correspondence these problems, as a short while later on he informed me that in the university, which I think was the University of Cologne however I may be wrong - where he studied his first semester, he had joined a Christian student organization known as the "Wingolf". I believe I have answered your question.
Q Do you also know the political attitude of Dr. Hohberg from 1933 to 1940?
A I believe that the political attitude of Dr. Hohberg from 1933 to 1945, is well-known to me, because throughout these years I came to Berlin frequently, and I knew these Berlin Publishing firms due to my profession. I don't believe that it ever happened that I failed to visit Dr. Hohberg in Berlin while I was there. I was in Berlin alone on a few Court No. II, Case No. 4.occasions, and sometimes again I was there with my father, and with my collaborators.
On such occasions I used to live in the Hotel Bristol. However, when I was there alone I would also spend some of my time there with Dr. Hohberg, in his house, so that really I believe I knew something about his attitude at the time. The conversations which we had with each other most of the time referred to our personal well-being during the time we had not seen each other, and also to our progress and to the changed political situation in Germany, and I had quite a few discussions about it with Dr. Hohberg.
Q What attitude did Dr. Hohberg convey to you?
A Dr. Hohberg told me, it must have been in the winter of 19331934, that he had to orient himself about the conditions and the situation which had changed. I had told him at the time that in my profession a change in the organizational sense was planned, because due to the Reich Chamber of Culture Laws which was issued in 1933, we had to join the Reich Chamber of Culture since I was a publisher and book-salesman. In this connection, Dr. Hohberg said that something similar was being planned for the auditing profession because now all of a sudden he could not circumvent the fact that he had to belong to the National Socialist League of Attorneys. I can recall very well, however, that in the winter of 1933/1934 I met him in Berlin, and that he told me on that occasion: "Tonight I have no time for you because I have an appointment with a man whom I have to ask all sorts of questions about what will happen to our profession in the future." I told him that I was very sorry about it, because I would not spend much time there. "No time," he said. I said, "If you don't mind, may I perhaps do it in the following manner. I can come along with you and I can sit with you, and at least tonight we can be together," and Herr Dr. Hohberg agreed to that. That evening we met in some restaurant, the name of it I cannot recall at the moment, in Berlin, and in Dr. Hohberg's presence at the time I met a man by the name of Dr. Pfeiffer, who, if I can recall correctly, was the adjutant of former Reich Minister of Justice Frank. Dr. Hohberg had told me that this man probably was the right person, because he, Dr. Hohberg, could Court No. II, Case No. 4.obtain the necessary information from him about potential changes in the auditing profession.
The entire evening was taken up with questions which Dr. Hohberg asked of Dr. Pfeiffer, and from which I had to understand that he wanted to sound out Dr. Pfeiffer.
Q Did the defendant Dr. Hohberg later on have any further contact with Dr. Pfeiffer?
A I can not tell you for sure. I can recall, however, that when I was in Berlin again, approximately a year later, I asked him again about Dr. Pfeiffer, and I believe I asked him, "Will you kindly tell me, Hansie, what you found out on the occasion at the time." Whereupon, Dr. Hohberg answered me, "Nothing came out of it. I found out nothing. These people are not quite my type. I simply wanted to know something about the changed situation, and I have to do that all the time, because of my profession as an auditor. New laws will be issued in the coming months," and at the time we spoke about the Reconversion Law according to which the GMBH was to be changed into a Kommanditgesellschaft, because one of the business partners of the Kommanditgesellschaft had a personal liability with regard to the capital which he had invested. That was the problem which had been going on.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, this has been going on now for ten minutes, and we have not even approached what Dr. Hohberg said about his political attitude. Now if the witness can not answer the question without writing a book, you had better ask him particular questions.
DR. HEIM: Yes, your Honor.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness, what was discussed at the time in your presence between Dr. Hohberg and Dr. Pfeiffer?
A I can not tell you that in detail, because they spoke mostly about legal matters.
Q Will you describe to the Tribunal the political attitude of Dr. Hohberg from 1933 to 1940, just as you described it and as you were able to observe it on the basis of your acquaintance with Dr. Hohberg during that time?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
I asked Dr. Hohberg quite frequently whether he had joined the Party, or whether he intended to join the Party, and Dr. Hohberg repeatedly answered me, that he would never join the Party, that he would never join any of the affiliated organizations and, of course, that he would never accept an honorary title or position in the Party. I knew Dr. Hohberg as a man who was opposed to the ideology of the NSDAP.
Q Do you know whether Dr. Hohberg for a certain period of time during the war was an auditor of the DWB?
A Yes, I know that because in 1943 I visited Dr. Hohberg in Berlin on one occasion; at that time I was a soldier, and I had been assigned to the anti-aircraft school at Stolpmuenden near Berlin, which was the reason for my passing through Berlin.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer was complete when he said, yes; the first word answered your question. Whether he went ever to an anti-aircraft school does not interest us at all. Ask him another question. Maybe you can persuade him to just answer your questions, I can not.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness, when you visited Dr. Hohberg in 1943 in Berlin, did he tell you anything about his position as an auditor in the DWB?
A Yes. I asked Dr. Hohberg what he was doing in 1943, and he told me that he was still a professional auditor. He also told me that he was an auditor with the DWB but that he did not hold the status of an employee there.
Q Did Dr. Hohberg at the time tell you in detail what activity he carried out there as an auditor of the DWB?
A Dr. Hohberg also informed me about that, because I asked him about it. He told me: "My activity is to audit the enterprises which are affiliated with the DWB, and to supervise them in taxation matters.
Q Did Dr. Hohberg tell you whether he was independent, or whether he was dependent on somebody else for orders in his work?
A Dr. Hohberg told me that he was independent, because I asked Court No. II, Case No. 4.on that occasion if his job as an auditor was a dependent one, and he answered me, "No, I am still an independent auditor."
Q Did Dr. Hohberg during the time when he was an auditor with the DWB, tell you about his political attitude?
A Yes. His political attitude in 1943 for the conditions at the time was so monstrous, so destructive, that I was very much worried about Dr. Hohberg, whom I had known for a long time.
Q Witness, why were you worried about him?
A He expressed himself in a derogatory manner about the higher leadership, and in particular about the SS leadership, and approximately in August 1943, he told me that the higher SS leadership, amongst other things, was supplying itself with all sorts of post exchange articles and food, while the population could not get it at the time. He even made the statement while in Berlin we had some lunch in a restaurant, where strangers were sitting at our table, and I was afraid that such a statement could possibly be made in the presence of strangers who were right next to us, because the situation at the time was such that if someone really complained by making derogatory remarks about the higher leadership then he was in danger of being arrested from one day to the next. I myself was wearing the uniform, and I was afraid for myself, too.
Q Herr Dr. Tenbergen, didn't you ever ask Dr. Hohberg how he got his job as an auditor with his anti-fascist attitude?
A No, I never asked Dr. Hohberg about that. I never asked him how he got the job, but I want to answer your question in the following manner: If you will permit. I knew in Berlin another gentleman, his name was Weissenfels, Willi Weissenfels. I asked that man how Dr. Hohberg got his job. Thereupon Weissenfels, who happened to live in the same house where Dr. Hohberg was living, told me that Dr. Hohberg had accepted the job as an auditor because it fitted right into his profession as an auditor. After all, it wasn't important whether a particular organization was to be audited by him.
Q When did you visit Dr. Hohberg in Berlin?
A May I ask you, are you talking about 1943?