THE PRESIDENT: Oh, well, I understand fairly well. You try to tell me. I think we can understand. I am taking your own words. You said that in November 1938 the anti-Jewish movement was very unpopular with most of the Germans, both from the moral and economic standards. Is that what you said?
THE WITNESS: No, not quite. I stated that action on the 8th and 9th of November -
THE PRESIDENT: Oh.
THE WITNESS: Was absolutely unpopular.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the violent action against the Jews was unpopular?
THE WITNESS: Yes, those pogroms against the Jews. Those excesses which were carried out between the night of the 8th and 9th of November in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: Those were very unpopular and most of the German people were opposed to them?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I would say the overwhelming majority.
THE PRESIDENT: The overwhelming majority of Germans were against that sort of thing, and yet it continued and got worse for six and one-half years?
THE WITNESS: That was an action of which every German could gain an impression, one could see the destruction, or you heard about it. You heard that synagogues were destroyed, but so far as the other measures were concerned which were taken during the war, the German people in its entirety did not know anything about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what about the Jews being also put into trucks right in the public street, with their goods, and hauled away. Everybody could know about that. They could see it. Did you ever see that?
THE WITNESS: Well, Yes, I believe I saw it, but I can not remember it very well.
THE PRESIDENT: It was not very important then?
THE WITNESS: No, I don't believe I can say that. I don't believe it applies to me, but after all the Jews were to be eliminated from the social and economic life in Germany, or what it may be.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you were trying to get rid of the Jews, so you brought twelve million of them from the East? Let me say that over again -
THE WITNESS: I don't understand that.
THE PRESIDENT: You wanted to get the Jews out of Germany?
THE WITNESS: The Jews were to be eliminated from the social and business life of Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: Surely so in order to eliminate them, you went into Poland, Russia and Rumania, and all the other Eastern countries and brought twelve million more Jews into Germany?
THE WITNESS: I know nothing about that, no.
THE PRESIDENT: No?
THE WITNESS: I don't know anything about it.
THE PRESIDENT: You did not see any of those in the concentration camps, Eastern Jews?
THE WITNESS: You can not tell the difference. I was never in a concentration camp anyway. I was only in three enterprises and three plants where inmate labor was being used.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you can not tell an Eastern Jew from a German Jew?
THE WITNESS: Well, I can tell the difference, but I was never confronted with the difference. I am from the East myself, therefore, I do know something about the entire question of the physionomy of the people, if I may use that term, which was known to me.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, that is why I thought you might be able to tell the difference just by looking at them, could you?
THE WITNESS: I can not recall ever having seen any Jews. I can say, where was I to see them. Those enterprises where I was, I don't know even if Jews were there amongst the workers.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Your witness, Dr. Fritsch.
BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q You had stated that during that action in the November days, had been staged by Dr. Goebbels according to your opinion, the question was a little bit more precise, and I ask you if the SS was the one that participated in this particular pogrom?
AAt the time I was not a member of the SS. Nor was I a member of the Party. The action was not considered an action worked out by the SS. According to my knowledge, particularly in larger cities, for instance, in Berlin, and Vienna, and as far as I can judge, and Munich, the action was carried out without the participation of the SS in it, and at the time it was generally stated that the SS had nothing to do with that action. In this connection I might point out that the SS at the time was considered the most decent organizartion within National Socialism. It had a very good name and kept that name all during the war, due to its achievement's. Only after the capitulation it became known that the SS had committed cruelties in Auschwitz, and other camps, that is a small part of the SS members and today, it looks as if every SS man had been a criminal; it looks as if the entire SS consisted of nothing else but criminals.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A (continued) That does not at all comply with reality with the larger mass of the SS, and, particularly since I was not a member of the Party and because I only joined the SS during war, and that under duress, I would like to state that here, namely, that a large number of the SS, particularly SS members on the front line duty, were not at all connected with those things. I am of the conviction that not even 10% of the SS men who fought with the SS and who had died with the SS, would have joined the SS had they known about all those facts or even if they would have had to expect to be used to commit such cruelties in the concentration camps.
Q Herr Dr. Karoly, we will come back now to the defendant Baier. Did you ever discuss any matters, in particular of the SS, with the defendant Baier? Did he recognize those measures or couldn't you speak with him about those things?
A I did speak about those things with Baier repeatedly, also about such questions. And I know that Herr Baier was not a follower of the Fuehrer's principles in that sense and also that he suffered under that principle, particularly when carrying out orders which were absolutely against his convictions. I can recall, for instance, one particular order of Herr Pohl, in the fall or winter of 1944 which had increased the extended time from 7 in the morning to 7 in the evening with a short break for noon. Not only were the people concerned here quite surprised about it but aggravated. And, Herr Baier himself also said that order as such was nonsense because, after all, one cannot ask anybody to work for 12 hours without interruption and sit at his desk for all that time.
Q In spite of that the order was kept up?
A Yes. You must not forget that at that time Berlin was being attacked by bombers all the time. One had to go to the air raid shelter fast in the evening. Then the communication system was very bad. You had a long trip every morning and a long trip to return, for instance. But the order was carried out strictly and controls instituted. If, for instance, at seven in the morning, an officer, even an officer was late, Court No. II, Case No. 4.his name was written down and he was punished.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: The translation came in 1934 and he said 1944.
Q Do you know the name Osti?
A Yes, I do.
Q What was it all about?
A That was a company which, according to my knowledge, was working in the Government General, that is, in the East, at Cracow. But it was not part of Staff W.
Q Were the files kept in Staff W?
A I don't believe so.
Q Do you know, witness, what things the Osti dealt with in detail?
A No.
Q Witness, I shall now put before you a document which is Document NO 2168 from Document Book 19 introduced by the Prosecution. It is Exhibit 494 on Page 107 of the German and 97 of the English Document Book. This is a letter by the business manager of the Osti GMBH, Dr. Max Horn, to the Chief of Staff W, SS-Oberfuehrer Baier. You stated that the Osti was not part of Staff W. How can you explain from your own collaboration in Staff W the fact that those things were addressed and sent to the defendant Baier?
A I have no explanation for that. The only way I can understand that thing is that Herr Pohl for some reason had to deal with that company and since it dealt with the liquidation of Osti GMBH as can be seen in the letter, that is, with questions concerning bookkeeping, this thing was passed on by him to Herr Baier.
Q It would mean, wouldn't it, witness ....
THE PRESIDENT: Who signed this letter? The signature is not on the English document.
DR. FRITSCH: Witness, can you answer that question?
A Yes, it is signed by Horn.
THE PRESIDENT: Signed by Dr. Horn.
A Yes, your Honor. And on the letterhead, is the address of Dr. Court No. II, Case No. 4.Max Horn, Business Manager of Ostindustrie GMBH in liquidation.
Q That would mean, Herr Dr. Karoly, that Herr Baier, apart from those auditing matters and taxation matters which we mentioned, also dealt with special tasks. Do you know anything about that?
A This happened very seldom, however. I can't recall.
Q Isn't that a special task? You said that Osti was not part of DWB. Would Herr Baier then have anything to do with this enterprise?
A Yes, there were a few enterprises which were still dealt with by Amtsgruppe W without belonging to the DWB, for instance, the enterprises of which Herr Klein was in charge, the chief of Office W 8. But the Osti, at least in my time, I don't know how it was before, was not part of Staff W and was not part of the companies which depended on Amtsgruppe W.
Q You did that auditing work. Did you have any success as far as creation of an orderly business management was concerned?
A Yes, undoubtedly I believe that question can be answered in the positive answer.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take a recess Dr. Fritsch.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for 15 minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q Witness, before the recess we stopped when we were discussing the auditing which was actually carried out. You were just going to tell us about the results of this auditing work?
A The collaborating staff in the auditing department itself was very small. It only consisted of seven persons at my time. Inspite of this fact I think that this auditing work was successful, because it primarily served the purpose of bringing order into the accounting system and the bookkeeping system of the companies which had been audited. We were able to inform the business management about the results of our work. After all every auditing has a preventive effect so to speak. All the companies which know that they are to be audited will try on their own initiative to keep their business in such an order that during the actual auditing there will be no reasons for complaints.
Q Whenever you found any irregularities, just what stops did you take? You were just saying that the business management was informed of these things?
A We did not only inform the business management about that, we also had to inform Staff-W and the Chief of the Main Office, Pohl.
Q Did Staff-W, that is to say, Baier, take any steps when such irregularities were determined, I mean were these conditions rectified?
A Yes, without any doubt. If you say, "take any steps", it would be putting it too strongly, because Baier did not have any authority to take any severe steps.
However, he would look over the audit reports very precisely, and then would take notes of all the important things contained in them. That is to say, complaints, and he would then submit the important matters to Pohl, who on his own initiative would take the necessary steps on small matters. Baier would take the necessary steps. He would determine by which method to take the necessary action. Baier was very exacting. He carried out his work in a very precise manner. He saw after it, that everything went in order. Whenever he found something which did not seem to be in perfect order to him, he would report that to Pohl, or he would try to rectify these conditions himself.
Q Just how long was such an auditing report which you received from the auditor.
A Well, that depended on the individual case. Part of the reports were extremely long. Some of them consisted of one-hundred pages, but some of them only included thirty pages. I believe the auditing reports mostly discussed the balance in detail, and also the adjustment between profits and loss were discussed.
Q All these auditing reports of the seven auditors, and all the work which was done by you was read by Baier personally.
A Yes.
Q Doctor Karolli by order of your company, the German Trusteeship and Auditing AG, you were transferred to the staff. May I describe the German Trusteeship and Auditing AG as the biggest auditing company in Germany?
A Yes, by far.
Q And to what extent did the German Trusteeship and Auditing AG itself carry out the auditing work for the DWB Enterprises?
A The order to the German Auditing Company only referred to the DWB, i.e. the holding Company of the concern. The affiliated branches were not to be audited by that company. In order to be able to look into the conditions with regard to the affiliated companies, up on the suggestion of the German Auditing Company, Baier established an auditing department, which had to audit these affiliated companies. And as a result of the reduction in the personnel caused by the war, and since I, also, left, since I had to attend the officers candidate school at Arolsen, the carrying out of the auditing work which had to be done with the affiliated branches became somewhat long. Inspite of this, however, towards the end of 1944, or early 1945, things had developed to such an extent that the German Trusteeship and Auditing Company could be given this auditing work.
Q Did the German Auditing AG supervise the work done by the auditors of Staff-W, which was done for the affiliated companies?
A Yes, as far as the auditing by the affiliated companies was concerned, they obtained precise information about the status and progress of the auditing work. Baier was personally very much interested in this supervision. For that reason he had also requested the German Auditing Company that the policy for the filling out of the reports, and the auditing work was to be worked out by the auditing companies and it was in accordance with these directives that the work was carried out.
Q Did the auditing department already exist before the appointment of Baier to Staff-W?
A Yes, but it existed in another form. The auditing work for the DWB, and its affiliated companies, was carried out under Dr. Hohberg's name as the certified public accountant.
Later on, under Baier's direction, the auditing was carried out by the auditing department as an internal auditing agency.
Q. In this connection, witness, I am now coming back to a question which was asked once before today by the Judge, that is, to the time before Baier started his work with the WVHA. Do you know any details about Dr. Hohberg's activity with the WVHA?
A. Yes, in broad outlines.
Q. Do you consider yourself qualified to speak about the time before and after, that is to say, are you able to determine to what extent changes occurred?
A. Yes, I can give you a general outline.
Q. Did you know Dr. Hohberg personally?
A. I did not know him when I joined the WVHA. However, I met him there in the fall of 1944. At that time he visited me. He welcomed me as a new collaborator and as a colleague, since both of us were auditors.
Q. Witness, could you please explain to us the difference between the time before Baier started his work and the time after he started his work?
A. Dr. Hohberg was a certified public accountant and in that capacity he was a recognized economic expert. As an auditor and as an economic expert, Pohl probably had him assigned to the WVHA or the DWB, and its affiliated companies. Here it was his task to audit the DWB and its affiliated companies and he had to do that as an auditor, as a legal public institution, as a trustee of the public and he had to put his certificate prescribed by law under his work, whenever he audited and whenever he determined the annual balance of that company. Baier, in turn, was not an auditor. He therefore could not carry out such auditing work of a public legal character. The Auditing Department which had been established by Baier, therefore, had to carry out the auditing work as an internal agency. That was why it was not the task of the Auditing Department to give the certificate that the auditing had taken place, but it only had to make reports about the condition of the company with reference to the balance and they had to audit the bookkeeping there and to submit these reports.
Q. Witness, could I interrupt you at this point? You yourself were an auditor, weren't you, and consequently you could give the certificate.
A. No, I was not with the DWB as an auditor; I was there as a soldier. All collaborators in the Auditing Department were soldiers. According to the regulations of our profession in Germany, it is not possible to carry out auditing work whenever you are dependent on the firm you are working with and this condition actually existed in this case. I therefore never signed anything in my capacity as an auditor, but the reports which I submitted were always signed by the Auditing Department with my rank as a soldier and no certificates were given by the Auditing Department towards the public with regard to the auditing which had taken place.
Q. Therefore, the German Auditing and Trusteeship AG would have taken the place of the auditor there?
A. Yes.
Q. Before you were speaking of Dr. Hohberg as an economic expert. Did you want to make a contrast between him and Baier in this case?
A. Yes, Baier was not an economic expert and he was not considered to be an economic expert by Pohl and the Amt chiefs. He didn't know anything about these economic matters because he did not have any experience in that work. Consequently he was not called to attend any discussions about economic questions, as had been the case with Dr. Hohberg. In my opinion, therefore, Staff W, as a result of the departure of Dr. Hohberg, had lost a considerable part of its importance.
Q. Witness. I now want to read you from Document Book 22, Document No. 1954, Exhibit 529, on page 26 Of the German text and on page 20 of the English text. I shall now show you this document. Please take a close look at this document and can you tell me, do you know this document before?
A. No, I have never seen it before. At that time I was not in the WVHA.
Q. Did this regulation apply at the time when Baier was working, that is to say, could Baier be considered to be an economic expert there?
A. No, the activity of Dr. Baier did not extend that far.
Q. Can you give us any details about that or--
A. Well, that is shown here in Point 1, "the execution of the annual auditing work which has to be carried out..." -that was not possible, and the second article states the same thing: "The constant, almost daily, supervision of the economic enterprises with the aim to be informed about all the happenings within these enterprises in all directions, that is to say, in the financial and organization respect, and to give the superior immediate notice..." - that was not possible. It could not be done technically because the staff was too small in my time and that was not Baier's task at all.
Q. Witness, Dr. Hohberg has testified here as a witness on his own behalf and he has described the position of "Staff W" in the following manner: He stated that when Baier began his work a Deputy Director General of the DWB was to be created. Is that correct, and could Baier be considered as holding that position?
A. Not at all. I don't know what Dr. Hohberg meant by making this statement. However, I cannot very well imagine that he considered Baier as having the professional qualifications and the ability to be the director general or the deputy director general of a concern as big as the DWB. After all, Baier didn't have the authority to do it. He didn't hold an office for that. He was not an executive there and he did not have any legal competence or responsibility. Baier never held such a position.
Q. Witness, as a preliminary question, I am now coming to a question again which we had discussed very briefly. What was to be done with the assistants of the auditing department which had been established?
A. In order to express myself very briefly and in the manner of a layman the auditing departments were to see to it that the annual accounts of the companies were in order and make the reports.
Q. Witness, did you ever receive the order, or do you know whether Baier received such an order, which would have gone to mean that by auditing which was carried out somebody was to be fired, that is to say, to make an investigation against persons whom Pohl did not like, and to collect evidence against them?
A. No, I have never received such an assignment.
Q. I then must go into detail with regard to the two cases, because they may throw a wrong light on Baier: First, against a man by the name of Dr. Wenner and against a certain Dr. May investigations are alleged to have been carried out in this line. The defendant, Dr. Hohberg, has stated, as a witness on his own behalf, and I give you a general outline of his statement, that not only against himself but that against these two men also, who were his friends, evidence had been intentionally collected so that they could be tried. Are these two cases, Dr. May and Dr. Wenner, known to you?
A. Yes, they are. However, Dr. Hohberg's allegation is not correct at all. The investigations were carried out for entirely different reasons. The investigation against Dr. Wenner was brought about by accident. The investigation of Dr. May resulted from an auditing assignment. However, this auditing assignment also resulted quite accidentally from a contract that Dr. May had concluded with the DWB a long time before; that was then Dr. Hohberg was still in office, and some auditing was intended in that case.
Q. Witness, will you please tell me first of all the reasons which led to the dismissal of Dr. Wenner?
A. As far as I know, Dr. Wenner left because all those who could be used at the front were to be exchanged for others who were unfit for combat duty. At the time of his departure, however, it was determined during the auditing of the Wolfram Salami and Conserve factory that the Board of Supervisors had given Dr. Wenner a certain bonus which he should have received as one of the members of the Board of Supervisors of that company, and it was discovered that he had not turned over that money to the DWB, which he should have done on the basis of his contract as an employee. I think that he kept this amount for himself. Six thousand marks were involved here and he transferred this money to his personal bank account. Since I thought that he had done something wrong, I reported the matter to Baier in accordance with my duties. Baier passed on the report to Pohl, and that was the reason for this whole story. After all, this thing had been found out quite accidentally.
Q. Witness--
A. (continuing) In my opinion Dr. Pohl was very easy on Dr. Wenner because he did not begin any trial proceedings against him, but he kept strict secrecy about the whole matter; he did not follow up this case because he wanted to see whether Dr. Wenner could be given a front line assignment.
Q. It has been determined here that Dr. Wenner had been degraded. Can you say anything about that?
A. That is also incorrect. Herr Dr. Wenner--
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I am just wondering what you intend to establish by continuing this story on Dr. Wenner. How much further are you going with this, and just how will it affect your client's interest? I am only asking for information.
DR. FRITSCH: It has been stated in the testimony of the witness that against other members of the WVHA, who were unpopular - or who were alleged to have been unpopular - material had been collected. And since only the auditing department was able to collect this evidence, it is important for me to know whether this statement is correct or not. When the witness made this statement, he mentioned the names of Dr. May and Dr. Wenner. I believe I am able to clarify through the witness Dr. Karoli that the state of affairs was different in these cases. However, I am willing to refrain from asking any further questions on the subject. Furthermore, I want to show the correct work which was done by the auditing department of Dr. Baier.
Q. Would you please tell us about the question of the degrading?
A. I said that no degrading took place. Dr. Wenner was a Fachfuehrer, that is to say, he was an expert officer. He did not have a regular commission but his rank had been given him only because of his position and for the duration of his assignment. From the moment on when he left this agency he automatically lost his rank and he again received his normal military rank -- I think a Sturmmann, a private in the SS. But this was not a degrading at all.
Q. Dr. Karoli, I would like to deal with the case of Dr. May very briefly. Do you know any details about this case?
A. Yes, I personally made the investigation there and I wrote a very detailed report consisting of more than one hundred pages.
Q. Do you know that Dr. May was imprisoned?
A. Yes.
Q. Upon whose orders?
A. As far as I can recall, and as far as I was able to see from the files, Dr. May was arrested in 1942 by order of an agency of the Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia.
Q. What were the results of your investigation -- about the activity or the correct or incorrect behavior of Dr. May?
A. In the sales contract it was provided that the amount of Dr. May's claims with regard to Buczowicz was to be determined by an expert investigation. We were ordered to carry out this examination, and since we had to go back to the origin of these claims we also dealt with the purchase of the enterprise by Dr. May. This purchase had taken place three years before, in the year 1939, after the Protectorate was established in Bohemia and Moravia. In this connection I discovered that Dr. May had used illegal and unloyal methods when he purchased this enterprise. In my opinion, he did not have any claims at all against this enterprise.
Q. You said, witness, that Dr. May sold the firm to the DWB. Was this done under duress? That is to say, was there any connection between the sale and his imprisonment?
A. Yes, it probably is connected with it since Dr. May, after his arrest, was no longer able to be in charge of this enterprise. However, I don't think that this sale took place under duress. I believe that Dr. Hohberg took care of the negotiations at that time. In my opinion Dr. May received quite a lot of money as a result of this contract.
Q. Were any measures also taken against Dr. Hohberg in connection with this affair?
A. I don't know that. "Staff R" would have to be asked about that. I turned in my report and then it was passed on to Pohl. I don't know what steps were taken officially. However, I believe Baier told me at the time that Pohl was very mad at Dr. Hohberg because he was reproaching him with the fact that he had not informed him correctly and to a sufficient extent of the details of Dr. May's activities.
Q. Dr. Karoli, I would like to hear more about the relationship of Baier to the other SS officers. Can you give me any details about that?
A. The relationship of Baier to the other SS officers, in my opinion, was absolutely correct, but not on a very friendly basis. As far as I know, Baier had known Pohl for many years since they had served together in the armed services. Therefore, there were comradely ties between them. On the other hand Baier, as far as I know, hardly had any closer or friendly contacts with the other officers. First of all, he had only been in the WVHA for a very short time and I believe that he was considered a young SS man - that is to say, he had not been a member of the SS for a very long time. Baier lived rather solitarily.
Q. Can you give me a short characertistic of Baier with regard to his work?
A. I consider Baier to be a fundamentally decent, solid and honest man. He was very zealous in his work. He realized his responsibilities and he tried very zealously, to the best of his ability, to fulfill his tasks. With his collaborators, especially those of a lower rank, he always had a very close and friendly relationship, and he treated them in a very comradely manner. I can say that he was treating them in a very collegiate and unmilitary manner. In order to be able to hold his position as Chief "W" Baier lacked, above all, the economic experience. Above all, he didn't have any knowledge of the tasks and the procedures which were followed in a concern enterprise.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
As a result of this he did not feel very sure of himself, and since he had already known Pohl for a very long time, and since Pohl had more influence and was better acquainted with the tasks and aims of the organization, Baier in his very soft and complicated manner was unable to have anything done by Pohl.
I can also say in this connection that I know that Baier had a very good and close family life, and that he loved his family very much. I know that he had very pleasant humane traits, and this caused me to esteem him very much. I could not consider him capable of committing a crime, an atrocity, or any cruelty.
Q Witness, I only want to ask you a very few brief questions. After the surrender, how many times were you together with Baier?
A Only for several days, until the twelfth or thirteenth of May 1945.
Q Where were you at the time? And why did you separate yourself from Baier?
A We had been evacuated to upper Bavaria, and we lived in the mountains. We did not part from Herr Baier--Baier parted from us because he wanted to surrender to the American Army.
Q Witness, did Baier at the time tell you anything about his intention to turn over the files of Staff W to the American Army? And what do you know about the way in which these files were turned over?
A When we were evacuated to Sagran we had approximately fourteen big, wooden boxes with files along with us, and many of them dealt with Office W-4 together with which we had been evacuated. These files were kept in the stable of a farmer, in the mountains. Since the danger existed that, as a result of combat or through theft they might get lost, we had taken the most important files, that is, the last auditing reports, the employee contracts, the real estate files, and the main accounts and cash on hand apart and we had buried them in the woods. Baier now was very much afraid that he was being sought because he had the files concerning the financial matters of the DWB in his possession, for they had been evacuated with him. Therefore, he was very much interested in Court No. II, Case No. 4.surrendering to the American Army as soon as possible so that he would get rid of all these documents.
That was why Baier left us. I had advised him actually that he should wait for another two weeks because I thought that now it was much too early to surrender. After all, in my opinion, the American Army was not so busy with discharging the German army that they would be unable to deal with his case.
Q Witness, I am mainly interested in the following question: Did Baier, on his own initiative, take the files which he had in his possession and turn them over to the American soldiers? What do you know about that?
A I assume that he did that. After four or five days--after his surrender--the files were taken away, and that included the files which had been buried in the woods. The bookkeeper of the DWB with whom Dr. Baier had surrendered had left word with the farmer that Baier would turn over the files to the American authorities.
Q These files mainly consisted of the files of Staff W?
A No, that only made up a very small part of it.
Yes, as far as the files were concerned which were buried in the woods. However, the other files of Staff W were hidden with the farmer, and they were also picked up.
DR. FRITSCH (Counsel for defendant Baier): Mr. President, I have no further questions in the direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel wish to cross-examine?
DR. KAROLY - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. HEIM (Counsel for defendant Hohberg):
Q Witness, when did you join the DWB?
A I did not join the DWB at all, but I only joined Staff W. I joined it on the twelfth or thirteenth of November, 1943.
Q After Dr. Hohberg left, did you carry out the mandatory auditing work which was prescribed by law?
A I did not do that myself.