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.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Did Baier carry out this auditing work which was prescribed by law?
A No.
Q Who carried out the auditing work after Hohberg left?
A The mandatory auditing work with the DWB was to be carried out by the German Auditing and Trusteeship A.G. It had received an order to carry out this auditing work.
Q Did the German Auditing and Trusteeship A.G. actually carry out this auditing work which was prescribed by law?
A I have already testified about that earlier today. I have pointed out in this connection that the German Auditing Department began auditing the DWB. However, it was unable to complete its work there as a result of the development of the war.
Q Who actually carried out this mandatory work, and who gave the certificate of confirmation?
A The certificate of confirmation? It was not given at all.
Q Wasn't such a confirmation certificate ever issued?
A Not at my time; when I did my auditing work there such a certificate was not given. The auditing department did not issue a certificate.
Q Witness, I did not ask you whether the auditing department issued such a certificate, but I asked you whether after Hohberg's time a certificate of confirmation was ever issued, and if so, who issued it?
A I believe that a man named Firlich, an auditor who worked in Staff W, and who also was there during the time of Dr. Hohberg and who only left after I came there, issued the certificate of confirmation with the individual companies. For example, the Aktiengesellschaften (A.G.'s.) However, during my activity, this was not done.
Q You said before-
A I believe that Firlich also issued the certificate of confirmation for the individual companies during Dr. Hohberg's time. I don't know that for certain. However, he was a collaborator of Dr. Hohberg's.
Q You said before that the German Trusteeship and Auditing Com Court No. II, Case No. 4.pany A.G. carried out the auditing work which was prescribed by law.
Have I understood you correctly?
A Yes, as far as the DWB was concerned.
Q Consequently, the German Auditing and Trusteeship A.G. succeeded Dr. Hohberg in his job as an auditor?
A Yes; as far as the DWB is concerned.
Q Witness, can you tell me the difference between the Chief of Staff W and an office chief?
A Well, the comparison is very difficult to make. Just how do you want me to compare them?
Q If there is no difference, then office chief and chief of staff W is the same thing.
A No, I did not say there was no difference. Just because there are so many differences I would like to know in what respect you would like me to compare the two positions.
Q Just give me the difference in every aspect between an office chief and a chief of Staff W.
A The office chief--that is the office chief in W--since I don't know anything about the activity of any other office chief: he had to direct a W office. Just what the actual task of an office chief in W was--and I have said that before today--I am unable to tell you. After all, the activity of these men did not result from their appointment as an office chief, but it resulted from their appointment as a business manager in an enterprise.
Q Witness, I didn't ask you what activity an office chief in W carried out--but I would like you to tell us in brief terms the difference between office chief in W and the chief of Staff W.
A The chief of Staff W, Baler-
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, unfortunately I must object to this question because I am convinced that it cannot be answered at all in this way. The witness has stated repeatedly how difficult it is for him to now explain every individual point with regard to the difference between these two positions.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: I think this covers evidence which has already been given. He has defined the duties of Staff W in detail, and I think we have understood them, and we also understand what the Office Chief of W was. Now, perhaps we can make the comparison without having the witness do the difficult job.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q Dr. Heim, may I put a question to the witness?
Witness, I have before me the diagram which was submitted here, and I want to ask you if the chief of Amtsgruppe D had not been Pohl would the chief of Staff W still be subordinate to the chief of Amtsgruppe W?
A I my opinion, yes.
Q Then you regard the chief of Staff W as being subordinate to the Amtsgruppe chief of W regardless of the personality of that Amtsgruppe chief?
A If your please, repeat the question once more, it's too loud.
Q Yes. Well, I had gathered the impression from your testimony that the chief of Staff W was an office on a very high level, but here you have him subordinate to the chief of Amtsgruppe W; and I wanted to know: Do you have him subordinate to Amtsgruppe W chief only because of the personality of Pohl, who, of course, was chief of everything--or would he be subordinate to the chief of Amtsgruppe W regardless of the personality of that chief?
AAbsolutely I think I can answer that in the affirmative.
I can say that for the following reason. In Staff W we had a supervisory body as far as the questions of balance were concerned, taxes and legal questions, and as far as corporation law was concerned. These questions undoubtedly belonged to the central agency. And, on the other hand, it could not be assumed that the chief of the Amtsgruppen--if it had not been Pohl--was so experienced in all these questions that he could have done his work without the assistance of this special staff.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until tomorrow morning at ninethirty.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 0930 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 22 July, 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of Military Tribunal II, Case IV, in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 22 July, 1947, 0930-1630. Justice Toms, presiding.
THU MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal No. 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America, and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the record whow that the defendant Kiefer is absent from this session of court on account of illness. The trial will proceed in his absence.
DR. HEIM: Dr. Heim for the defendant Hohberg.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, you are a certified public accountant, aren't you? Why didn't you carry out the mandatory orders of auditing for the enterprises of DWB yourself?
A. Because I was a soldier, and as a soldier according to the regulations in the German auditing profession I could not have a dependent relationship to an employee. Therefore, I was unable to carry out this work.
Q. Dr. Karoli, in this respect perhaps you can tell us whether anybody can occupy a military position without being a soldier at the same time?
A. I can not answer this question, because I an not an expert in that field.
Q. Cand you tell me in your capacity as an auditor whether an auditor can audit enterprises if he is a soldier in these enterprises, or if he is holding a military position in one of these enterprises?
A. He can not do that according to my conception of my profession.
Q. You are an auditor. Can you tell me whether by virtue of the regulations in your profession anybody can be an official, or an employee, and at the same time audit enterprises as an auditor. That is to say, enterprises where he is the employee, or where he is an official?
A. That is not possible according to the regulations of our profession. I believe that for these reasons in particular Dr. hohbert had given up his activity and worked for the DWB.
Q. What time are you referring to when Dr. Hohberg left his job?
A. I am informed that objections were raised by professional circles against the work of Dr. Hohberg as a certified public accountant for the DWB. Because, in the opinion of the professional circles, the professional independence did not exist in this case. This complaint in my opinion was passed on from the Reich Chamber of Auditors to the Reich Ministry of Economics, and, the Reich Ministry of Economics then ordered that the DWB as a public enterprise had to be audited by an independent auditor, which was the German Auditing and Trusteeship Company AG; whether this was an actual reason for Dr. Hohberg to leave, I don't know. After all at the time I was not in the WVHA. I only heard of these things afterwards.
Q. Dr. Karoli, you stated on direct examination that the Office was a governmental title. Did the Chief of Office-W, or Chief of Staff-W carry out any official functions?
A. Yes, the Chief of Staff-W did that without any doubt, and also the Chief of W.
Q. Was therefore, the Chief of Office-W, or the Chief of Staff-W subordinated to anybody?
A. Yes.
Q. You said before that nobody could be dependent on anybody whether he was an employee or as ah official and at the same time carry out his activity as a public certified accountant in that enterprise.
A. Yes that is correct.
Q. You have further stated that Chief of Office-W, or Chief of Staff-W had an official function, therefore, he was dependent on his employer. According to your testimony could Dr. Hohberg be an office chief, and could he at the same time carry out his work as a certified public accountant in the DWB?
A. According to my conception of my profession he could not, as stated before.
Q. Do you know of regulations which Himmler issued as a prerequisite to an appointment as Office Chief?
A. No.
Q. Do you believe that a civilian could become an office chief in an SS-Office?
A. Yes, I can assume that, because I believe or I have heard that Dr. Hohberg was an Amts. chief.
Q. Witness, who gave you that information that Dr. Hohberg was Ants. Chief?
A. During my activity in Staff-W I always heard that; whenever the predecessor of Baier was referred to, Dr. Hohberg had held that particular position. I, therefore, was of the personal he was a Amtschief. I don't know anything different.
Q. Can you say that from your own experience and knowledge?
A. No, I was not in WVHA at the time.
Q. Witness, on direct examination you have testified yesterday that you have also seen from documents that Dr. Hohberg had been Amtschief. Can you tell me just what you have seen from the documents?
-MJ
A. I can recall signatures which I saw, where Dr. Hohberg had signed Chief of Staff-W. However, I would like to emphasize that at the time I did not observe too clearly all these very fine differences to which you want to refer here. I did not pay much attention to it. I was not very much interested in that. However I have always been of the opinion that Dr. Hohberg was Baier's predecessor. I can not tell you anything different.
Q. Witness, was Dr. Wenner the subordinate of Dr. Hohberg?
A. I assume that, so far as he belonged to Staff-W.
Q. You stated that Dr. Hohberg had been Amtschief. If that is correct was Dr. Wenner then subordinate to Dr. Hohberg?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, I am now going to show you a document and this is Hohberg Document No. 24, in Hohberg Document Book I, page 55. I have already offered it in evidence. This affidavit is by Frau Fauler. Do you know Frau Fauler?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us briefly what position Frau Fauler occupied?
A. While I was a member of Staff W, that was during my second activity with Staff W, she carried out the functions of a secretary to Pohl.
Q. Would you be kind enough to read what is within the red parenthesis in this document?
A. "In fact Dr. Hohberg was only the superior of the secretary and of the auditors who had been furnished him on the basis of the contract which had been concluded between him and Pohl."
Q. That is sufficient, Witness. Witness, do you want to change your testimony that Dr. Wenner was a subordinate of Dr. Hohberg. Do you still want to maintain this statement now that you have read the affidavit by Frau Fauler?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What page is that on, please?
THE WITNESS: It is on 24 of the English text.
DR. HEIM: It is page 55 in Hohberg Document Book I. It is Exhibit 24. It is Document No. 24. It is Document No. 24, Exhibit No. 24.
Q. Witness, do you still want to maintain your testimony or not?
A. I want to repeat what I have said, that Dr. Hohberg was not the superior of Dr. Wenner in his capacity as prekurist of the DWB. However, I am of the opinion that if Dr. Hohberg is to be considered as having been an office chief or as having been Chief of Staff W, then I assumed and I had to assume that in that capacity, he was the superior of Dr. Wenner as a member of Staff W.
Q. Witness, you therefore maintain your testimony?
A. Yes, in that form.
Q. Do you know whether Dr. Hohberg was a party member, or a member of the SS?
A. He was not, as far as I know.
Q. Do you know if by the title, "Chief W", the so-called Small Chief of Amtsruppe W was being referred to?
A. Could you please ask the question once more? I haven't quite understood it.
Q. Do you know whether by the title, "Chief W", the so-called Small Chief of Amtsgruppe W was meant?
A. No.
Q. Can you tell us from your own experience just how the Staff W was composed before your time?
A. Yes, I can give you a general outline.
Q. I asked you whether you could do this from your own knowledge.
A. Yes, I can tell you that from my own knowledge, also. I have seen various charts about the personnel in Staff during my activity which referred to the activity before I came. This chart referred to the organization as it was before I came there. However, I myself was not in Staff W at the time.
Q. Witness, do you still maintain your statement that Dr. Hohberg was Chief of the Office, if I tell you now that the Defendant Pohl has testified on the witness stand that Hohberg had never been the chief of an office?
A. Well, Pohl is able to give you more information about that than I.
Q. Dr. Karoli, you testified yesterday that the Staff W had been a governmental agency. Just what was its official task?
A. Its official task consisted of the supervision of the enterprises which had been assigned to Staff W and its economic supervision in questions of balance taxes, and general legal questions.
7. Witness, you have just stated that the tasks of Staff W consisted of auditing, taxation tasks, and legal tasks; will you tell us now which one of these functions was of an official nature and which ones were of an economic nature?