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?
A. All the tasks which concerned the prokurists and the employees of that Staff and all of the tasks which were handled by the prokurists and the bookeepers in Staff W and the DWB, these tasks did not result from their membership in the government, i.e., in Staff W, but it resulted from their contracts with the enterprises of the DWB or the DWB itself.
Q. Witness, can you tell me the official functions?
A. I told you yesterday that the official tasks of Staff W consisted of the exercising of a certain supervision. The supervision is usually carried out in some Government agencies in enterprises which are not owned by the Reich.
Q. You therefore say that the DWB was owned by the Reich?
A. Yes, in my opinion, it was a public enterprise.
Q. Well, I shall refer to this question again later on. Did the House and Real Estate, G.M.B.H., belong to Staff W?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it have anything to do with the government agency itself?
A. In what respect?
Q. You said that Staff W had been a government agency. You just said in the affirmative that the House and Real-Estate G.M.B.H. belonged to the DWB. Therefore, would the House and Real-Estate G.M.B.H. have anything to do with a governmental organization?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell us to what extent the House and Real-Estate Property G.M.B.H. had anything to do with a governmental organization?
A. As far as I know it was supposed to carry on the supervision to which I have just referred.
Q. And therefore it was part of the DWB?
A. Yes, I think it belonged to the DWB.
Q. Just what was the governmental function of the House and and Real-Estate, G.M.B.H.?
A. You could also ask the same question, what were the official functions of the other enterprises.
Q. Well, that is sufficient for me. You told me that the office chief had to carry out an official function and Defendant Mummenthey, for example, was an office chief. Can you tell me what official function he had to carry out?
A. I have already stated yesterday that the main part of the activity of an office chief ---
DR. FROESCHMANN(Attorney for the Defendant Mummenthey): Your Honor, I object to this question. It is completely irrelevant to the case.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I am of the opinion that my question was relevant, because I want the witness to clarify the question to what extent an office chief had to carry out official functions.
THE PRESIDENT: Exactly what was your last question?
DR. HEIM: "Mummenthey was an office chief. Can you tell me what official functions Mummenthey carried out?"
THE PRESIDENT: The question is proper and may be answered.
A. I have already stated yesterday that the main part of the duties of an office chief was in his tasks according to commercial law as a business manager or as a member of the Board of Supervisors of the enterprises which he to take care of. Just what his official functions were in detail I cannot say, because I don't have the necessary information about that. However, I believe that the official functions of an office chief only had a certain character for the most part, that is to say, the office chiefs or the business managers of the economic enterprises were given the character of an office chief by Pohl for the reasons which are not clear to me in detail. However, I think the reasons for that were that Pohl was trying to save in personnel and that he wanted to make it easier for himself to procure the proper people for the various offices.
Q. Witness, could Pohl appoint somebody to bear the title of Office Chief? Could Pohl give any person the title of Office Chief?
A. Yes, I must assume that. However, I don't know that for certain. It is just an assumption on my part.
Q. However, you just stated that Pohl was able to give the title of Office Chief to the individual business managers.
A. Without any doubt, the decision for the appointment to Office Chief was with Pohl. Whether he did this all by himself, or whether Reichsfuehrer Himmler had to make these appointments, I can't say.
Q. You testified yesterday that Staff W, after Hohberg left, lost some of its importance. Can you give us more details about that?
A. To put it very briefly, I reached that conclusion because, as soon as Dr. Hohberg left, the export and the economic brain disappeared from Staff W. Since his successor, Dr. Baier, did not fulfill these prerequisites -- that is to say, the knowledge and the experience in economic questions -- this was brought about.
Q. You came to Staff W only when Dr. Hohberg was no longer an auditor with the DWB. Therefore, you do not know anything about the activity of Dr. Hohberg from your own observation. However, you describe Dr. Hohberg as an economic expert. You describe him as an economic brain. I would like to ask you, how come you know so much about Dr. Hohberg?
A. I know Dr. Hohberg from what I have heard about him. I also know him from his good reputation which he had in his profession, and, not least, I know him from various articles and various works which Hohberg carried out before my time and which I looked at afterwards.
Q. You testified that Dr. Hohberg, in contract to Dr. Baier, participated in the conferences with Pohl. Just how do you know that?
A. I did not testify that.
Q. Witness, as far as I can recall, you testified to that effect yesterday.
A. I believe that your memory is incorrect.
Q. Therefore, you can not claim that Dr. Hohberg participated in the conferences with Pohl?
A. I don't know anything about it.
Q. Very well. Was the business order just a dream, or was it carried out exactly as specified in writing?
A. Are you referring to the business order which was discussed here yesterday?
Q. Yes, that is what I am referring to.
A. In that connection, I already stated yesterday that this was strictly a program. This was a coordination which we were striving at. However, since the conditions that were caused by the war in 1945 did not allow us to carry out this program anymore, and in my opinion this business order only went into effect early in 1945, this program was not carried out in detail because at that time we were unable to carry out such a program.
Q. What did you think as an auditor when you saw in the business order that the auditors were subordinated to Staff W?
A. That is not contained in the business order.
Q. Did you consider it correct from the point of view of commercial law that, according to the business order, the Chief of W could violate commercial law, because, for example, the board of directors of an AG had to subordinate itself to the Chief of W?
A. Could you help me and give me an example in that connection?
Q. I don't have the business order before me. Do you have it?
A. To what extent did the member of the board of directors of an AG have to subordinate himself?
Q. According to the business order, the Chief of W, with regard to the board of directors of an AG, had a certain right of supervision. This, of course, violated the regulations of commercial law. What did you think at the time when you helped work out this business order?
A. I don't think that this was a regulation just as it is laid down in the business order. I don't think that this aimed at a violation of commercial law. I don't think that it would have resulted in this violation at all.
Q. As a certified public accountant, can you say what importance the confirmation certificate of an auditor had?
A. The confirmation certificate of an auditor is the official confirmation prescribed by law that the conditions with regard to the annual balance, the accounts, the bookkeeping and the business report of the enterprise which has been audited are in order and comply with the commercial law. The confirmation certificate is a statement of public and legal importance, because the certified public accountant is the trustee of the public to that extent.
Q. Is an account without this confirmation certificate of a certified public accountant valid or not?
A. An account which has to be audited by law is not valid if it has not been provided with this certificate of confirmation.
Q. Witness, therefore, it is not valid if it has not been provided with the certificate of confirmation?
A. There are special regulations about that. I can not recall all the details at the moment.
Q. Witness, I thought that you were an auditor. The certificate of confirmation, after all, is the basis of the professional auditor. You should---
THE PRESIDENT: I think the witness has answered your question fully and fairly. At any event, we have heard all we care to about certificates of confirmation.
Q. You testified yesterday that after Hohberg left no more confirmation certificates were issued; is that correct?
A. During my activity as chief of the auditing department, no certificates of confirmation were issued anymore.
That is what I testified yesterday, or that is what I meant. I can recall -
THE PRESIDENT: Next question.
Q. Witness, in order to refresh your memory, I would like to show you an affidavit which was given by Opperbeck, which is located in the Hohberg Document Book No. I. Please tell the Tribunal the Document Number on the right hadn corner of the page in the document book.
A. It is Document No. 23, Exhibit No. 23.
Q. What page is it?
A. It is page 53.
Q. Witness, please take a look at Page 53 and read the last paragraph on the bottom of the page. I underlined it.
A. "During my activity in W-IV, other auditors audited the balances of the firms of Office W-IV."
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What page did you say that was?
DR. HEIM: It is page 53 in Document Book I. It is Document No. 23, Exhibit 23.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: English page 53?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I believe so.
THE PRESIDENT: This is the affidavit of Josef Opperbeck?
DR. EHIM: Yes, Josef Opperbeck, and it is on page 53 in the English Document Book also.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, please read the phrases which I have underlined.
A. "During my activity in W-IV, other auditors checked the balance sheets of the firms in W-IV."
Q. Will you continue?
A. "As far as I can recall, during this period of time of my activity in W-IV, all the firms concerned have received the certificate of confirmation of the auditor to a limited extent.
Dr. Hohberg had already been conscripted into the Luftwaffe at that time."
Q: That is all, witness. Witness, you still maintain your testimony that after Dr. Hohberg left no certificate of confirmation was issued any more?
A: I can only repeat what I have stated yesterday. I stated that during the time I was in charge of the auditing department neither I nor the auditing department signed any balance sheet. That is to say that they did not issue any certificates of confirmation.
Q: Witness, that is sufficient.
A: May I add -
DR. HEIM: Witness you have answered the question. Now, that is all I wonted to hear.
I beg your pardon, your Honor, the witness would like to answer this question completely. He has just stated it, and he has just stated he hasn't quite answered the question yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he has. He has answered the question. He was asked whether he still wants to maintain his prior statement, and he says yes. That answers the question.
Q: (By Dr. Heim): On the basis of what fact was then the business management of the DEST justified if no confirmation had been issued on the balance sheets?
THE PRESIDENT: Either the question is confused or the translator or the court, but we don't understand the question.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I am afraid that the word "Entlastung", just as it was several days ago, has again been mistranslated. The word is "Entlastung" which means justification and not "Entlassung" which is dismissal. Your Honor, by virtue of German law after a balance sheet has been written and audited and found correct, the business management is given what is called a confirmation.
That is to say, it is recognized that the business management has carried out its business in a correct manner.
Q: (By Dr. Heim) I therefore repeat my question. You testified that the DEST also had not been audited according to your previous testimony. According to that a balance sheet was not legally valid. By virtue of what facts was then the DEST business management given recognition for its balance sheet?
A: Whether the DEST business management was given the confirmation that everything was all right, I don't know. Furthermore during the war the law about the mandatory auditing as a result of the fact that so many auditors had been conscripted, was changed, and in part this law had been suspended.
Q: Witness, do you know just how long this mandatory auditing was suspended during the war?
A: I can't recall that in detail. However, you must consider that the DEST was a G.m.b.H. and therefore it was not organized like an A.G. and was not subject to the regulations about the mandatory auditing. It is possible that in the corporation charter of the DEST the mandatory auditing had been provided. But, I am not precisely informed about that. These regulations, however, could be suspended as a result of the stockholders' meeting, and the stockholders' meeting was also authorized to give an acknowledgment to the balance sheets of the business management, without issuing a certificate of confirmation.
Q: Witness, you have stated that the office chief had an official function, and you gave us the reasons for that by saying that in an enterprise under public trustee ship he carried out his work according to the legal provisions.
However, public enterprises have to be audited under all circumstances, therefore, could the mandatory auditing be suspended without any further difficulty?
THE PRESIDENT: What has this to do with the guilt or innocence of Hohberg?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, the witness has incriminated the Defendant Hohberg yesterday. I believe that according to the regulations governing the procedure of this trial I am entitled to ask the witness in order to determine his veracity in general.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but there is a limit to your right to do that. You are going into collateral and immaterial matters to impeach him, and you must accept his answers. I think your cross-examination is covering too much ground.
Q: (By Dr. Heim) Witness, if according to your own testimony you heard about the activity of Dr. Hohberg, I would like to ask you, do you know that Dr. Hohberg before had refused to give a certificate of confirmation to the DEST, the DAW and DVA?
A: No.
THE PRESIDENT: You are entirely overlooking the fact that this witness did not come into the WVHA until after Dr. Hohberg left.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, the witness, however, has stated that he is informed about Hohberg's activity to some extent. He states that he heard these things through stories, and he learned of them through documents to which he had access while he was in Staff W.
THE PRESIDENT: But you see the question you last asked him whether he knew what Dr. Hohberg had done before he, the witness, came to WVHA?