Obviously he couldn't know that.
Q: (By Dr. Heim): Witness, you therefore are not well informed about Dr. Hohberg's activity?
A: I know about it in broad outlines just as I have emphathetically stated yesterday:
Q: Who, at the time you were working in Staff W read the auditing reports?
A: You mean the reports from the other agencies of Staff W, that is outside of the auditing department? Well, Baier, probably also Pohl, and of course the business managers.
Q: Witness, do you know whether the DWB was a Reich enterprise or whether it was owned by the party?
A: I only know that this question was the basis of a dispute for a long time, and that the auditing work which was done by the German Auditing and Trusteeship, A.G., was also to bring clarity into this question. However, the auditing work did not proceed far enough to clear up this problem.
Q: Witness, you testified yesterday with regard to the arrest of May, and this in some paints contradicts the testimony of the Defendant Hohberg. I, therefore, would like to ask you several questions about this subject.
THE PRESIDENT: We are not trying any case against Dr. May, and we are really not interested as to whether he was arrested lawfully or unlawfully nor what happened to him. Let us confine our deliberations to Hohberg and leave Dr. May to his own devices.
DR. HEIM: Then, Your Honor, I only want to ask one more question.
Q: (By Dr. Heim): Witness, you have stated yesterday that during the last days of the war you buried several boxes containing files, and you also testified that you advised Baier to turn these boxes over to the American Occupation Forces two or three weeks later, is that correct?
A: No, you haven't quite understood me correctly. I must correct you. I only stated that I advised Baier not to surrender at that time immediately after the capitulation to the American Army, because I considered this moment to be too early. The American Army at that time had to disarm many hundreds of thousands of German soldiers, and they were preoccupied with that task. I only stated that I advised him he should wait for a few weeks. That is exactly what I did. I only surrendered to the American Army early in June.
Q. Now, my last question to you, witness. At the time didn't you give each other your word of honor that you would not tell anybody about the hiding place of these boxes?
A. No-
THE PRESIDENT: That is an answer.
A. I must make a statement on that subject -
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid you must; go ahead.
WITNESS: First of all, we didn't give each other our word of honor, but at a time when the war was not yet over we promised each other that we would not discuss this matter at all. Later on, after the surrender had already taken place, Baier and I were on the mountains together and we discussed this point at that time. Both of us -
JUDGE MUSMANNO: How tall were the mountains?
WITNESS: ---I can remember quite clearly that both of us were of the opinion that this promise which had been agreed upon under other conditions had now become obsolete as a result of what had happened -
JUDGE PHILLIPS: What became of the boxes?
WITNESS: Well, the boxes were then taken away after Baier surrendered to the Americans.
DR. HEIM (Counsel for defendant Hohberg): Your Honor, I would like to offer Hohberg Document 66 for identification. It will become Exhibit No. 41. It is an affidavit of Josef Opperbeck which contradicts the witness's testimony. Both of the persons concerned at the time gave each other their word of honor.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, will you please read the second paragraph of that document?
THE PRESIDENT: Is this the Opperbeck affidavit?
DR. HEIM: It is the same Josef Opperbeck. However this document is not in the document book, Your Honor. I only offered it for identification. I shall offer it in evidence afterwards.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, will you please read the second paragraph of that document to us?
A. "I was at Sagran, Upper Bavaria in May 1945, and I was present when several boxes containing files belonging to Staff W or the DWB were buried under the ground, in order to save them from being captured by the approaching American army. The Chief of W, SS-Oberfuehrer Hans Baier was at the time in charge of that project. All the persons participating shook hands and gave their word of honor that they would keep complete secrecy about the matter."
Q. Witness, that is sufficient. Can you still maintain your testimony that you did not give your word of honor to keep secrecy?
A. I maintain my testimony, that as far as I can recall we did not give our word of honor to keep secrecy. However, this matter became obsolete anyhow as a result of the happenings there; the capitulation.
THE PRESIDENT: It is still obsolete as far as we are concerned.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I have no further question.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other questions by defense counsel?
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, Dr. Haensel is attending a meeting at Bielefeld and he has asked me to represent his client Loerner during his absence.
THE PRESIDENT: You think you can take Dr. Haensel's place?
DR. HOFFMANN: Not quite, Your Honor, because I still lack several characteristics. However, I hope they are sufficient for me to examine this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, just do your best.
BY DR. HOFFMANN (Counsel for defendant G. Loerner):
Q. Witness, you mentioned the name of Georg Loerner. You called him a deputy, if I remember correctly.
I would like to ask you now, did he appear in that position, or was he only the second business manager? And did you negotiate with him?
A. No, I never negotiated with him, and as far as I know Loerner had this position as deputy in W, as second business manager, and this was only of a very formal nature.
Q. Thank you, that is all I wanted to hear.
BY DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for defendants Volk and Bobermin):
Q. Witness, do you know Dr. Volk?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know if Dr. Volk was the personal expert of Pohl?
A. Yes.
Q. Please tell the Tribunal of the activity which Volk carried out as the personal consultant of Pohl?
A. Of course I don't know any details about that activity. I only know that Dr. Volk, as chief of the legal department in Staff W, was very difficult to reach because most of the time he was active as the personal consultant of Pohl. As far as I know, as the personal consultant, he carried out office work for Pohl and he also dealt with many personal questions. For example, I know that Dr. Volk had to work out the tax declarations for Pohl. That is to say, he handled his personal matters. However, otherwise I don't know about any details.
Q. I understood you to mean that the activity as the personal consultant took up most of the time of Dr. Volk so that he couldn't deal with any other tasks?
A. He was a prokurist in the DWB. However, it was very difficult to reach him, as I have already said before.
Q. You stated that Dr. Volk was a prokurist in the DWB. What tasks did he carry out in that capacity?
A. Dr. Volk and Dr. Wenner were prokurists of the DWB, and they were the only prokurists in the DWB. Therefore, since both of them were working in that capacity they did not have as high a position as an individual prokurist, according to law. I believe they could only sign together with a business manager, and their competences and authorities resulted from the corporation charter.
Q. Did it have any practical effect--or could it have any practical effect? In order to refresh your memory, I would like to point out that the prokurists by themselves could represent the business managers and therefore it is correct to say that a business manager actually did not need a prokurist.
A. Yes, that is actually always the case.
Q. However, I want to know something else. What did Volk do with the DWB? What department was he in charge of?
A. He was not in charge of any department in the DWB. The commercial prokurist handled the bookkeeping, balance sheets, and things of that nature and that was Dr. Wenner. Dr. Volk was the legal person in that office, and therefore he had to deal in particular with legal questions. And since this was a holding company he had to deal with corporation law.
This probably covered his activity which he carried out in the legal department of Staff W.
Q. Therefore, it is correct to say that Dr. Volk dealt with the legal questions of the holding company?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the larger affiliated branches, for example, the DEST have their own legal departments?
A. Yes, the DEST had its own legal department.
Q. Therefore, it was not necessary for Dr. Volk to work in that particular field?
A. Yes, I must assume that.
Q. In the course of your examination you have also stated that "office chief" was only a title. Can you explain to us what you meant by making this statement?
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want him to explain this all over again?
DR. GAWLIK: No, I only want him to explain that definition.
That is a typically German expression, Your Honor, and I don't know whether the Tribunal realizes just what the witness was trying to say when he used that expression. I have just heard that the word was translated with "title". If that has been translated correctly of course my question is not necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: "Title" that is right.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, that is what I understood.
BY DR. FROESCHAMNN (for Mummenthey):
Q. Witness, you have already mentioned Mummenthey's name yesterday during the cross examination. When did you meet Mummenthey for the first time, and on what occasion was that?
A. I met Mummenthey early in 1945. I met him on the occasion of a visit on which I accompanied Baier, and on that occasion I visited Mummenthey at his office at Oranienburg.
Q. Will you please tell us what brought about this visit?
A. Yes. The DEST had loaned considerable amounts from the German Gold Discount Bank. They had received certain loans which they used for the development of the construction of the Works and in order to cover the severe losses which they had sustained at the time when the plants began operation. In the course of the years the DEST had succeeded in accumulating funds, and at least they were able to pay back that debt; Mummenthey intended to repay the loans. Before that time they had taken care of the interest. He corresponded with Baier about that, and finally it was agreed that Baier and Mummenthey were to discuss this question personally in his office.
Q. Were these loans and losses already in existence before Mummenthey took over the business management of the DEST, or did this happen in the course of his management?
A. As far as I know, when these loans were granted, Mummenthey was not yet business manager, or, at least, he was not the business manager in charge.
Q. Witness, in your capacity as an auditor you have had frequent occasion to have detailed discussions with the partners in your contract, and from these conversations you could form a picture about the personality and character of your partners. Was it possible for you, in the case of Mummenthey, also from the negotiations which you had with him, to form a clear picture about his attitude in a commercial, financial and legal respect; and could you form a picture about his character.
Please make a statement about that.
A. Yes, I was able to do that in broad outlines.
Q. Will you please characterize the personality of Mummenthey according to the impressions which you, personally, gained?
A. I considered Mummenthey to be a very careful and very intelligent legal expert and business man. He had a very difficult task and he handled it very skilfully in the DEST, because the DEST, as I said before, had considerable debts from loans which it had taken up, and this resulted from bad investments. For example, they made bad technical estimates when they established now procedures for production. Mummenthey, as far as I know, had nothing to do with these bad investments. In any case, he was not responsible for them. On the other hand, it is almost exclusively his merit that in the course of the years the DEST succeeded in slowly developing itself and getting over the results of the bad investments, and the DEST became a sound economic enterprise. Mummenthey showed us the way the DEST was organized in commercial lines, that is to say, as far as bookkeeping was concerned, and he acquainted us with his staff of collaborators. It was together with his technical colleague Schondorf that we also made a short inspection through the plants. Everything I saw there gave me the impression that Mummenthey was a very efficient, cautious and serious man who succeeded in keeping the technical expert Schondorf, who had a tendency to carry out experiments, along his line.
Q. What plants of the DEST did you visit?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Counsel, may I make an observation here. I thought very carefully the witness's exposition of the character of Mummenthey.....what an able business man he was, how he took the DEST out of a very difficult situation and brought it to success, when, although it was in debt and he was able to make a successful business venture of it, that he inspected the plants, and so on. Now, just speaking for myself I am wondering how that is going to help me in determining whether Mummenthey knew about the atrocities committed in the DEST, whether slave labor was used, whether people were worked to death -- that, it seems to me, is the important thing, and not whether DEST was successful or not.
We must answer the indictment. Now, that is just an observation, of my own, and I am passing it on for what it may be worth.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Your Honor, immediately after my last question, just what plants he visited, I was going to come to the subject which you have just suggested.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve that until after recess, Dr. Froeschmann.
THE MARHSLA: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN (For Defendant Mummenthey):
Q Witness, I want to speak about the suggestion which was made by his Honor just now. You heard him say that it is important to the Court to hear from you your impressions you made when you inspected various enterprises; for instance, whether the work done by the inmates was slave labor; and the way they were being employed; whether their wages were paid; whether the work they did was regarded as inhumane and unworthy. My question is what were your impressions:
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Counsel-- Oh, I am sorry.
Q (By Dr. Froeschmann) What were the impressions you made, you gained when you made your inspections?
THE PRESIDENT: You see, this witness has already answered that question at considerable length, both on examination by his own counsel, or rather his examination in chief, and the Tribunal questioned him. I don't see the necessity of doing it all over again, Dr. Froeschmann.
DR. FROESCHMANN: From what Judge Musmanno said, it was my impression that he regarded it as important to hear from the witness how Mummenthey regarded the whole question of inmate labor, and whether he had gained the conviction that inmate labor was involved here. That is how I understood Judge Musmanno.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you misunderstood Judge Musmanno's question, and I think possibly you were not here yesterday when this entire subject was covered in great detail.
Q (By Dr. Froeschmann) Witness, did Mummenthey discuss with you his ideas anyhow about the way he himself regarded inmate labor? What ideas did he follow there?
A I can recall only one discussion to that effect on the occasion of an inspection of some of the W enterprises in Oranienburg. This was the first enterprise employing inmates which I had ever seen, and I asked Mummenthey whether he was satisfied with the work done by the inmates. He said that on the whole he was satisfied, and he said in that connection that he and the management of DEST were doing everything in order to have Court No. II, Case No. 4.the inmates treated decently, and if I may put it this way, to make them more and more keen to work, to keep them up to scratch, and in that connection he mentioned also the fact that DEST were giving additional food rations to the inmates, including tobacco.
I can therefore only repeat that when I inspected Oranienburg, and altogether throughout my nine months' membership to Staff W, I had not the slightest reason for the W enterprises to feel that labor was exploited inhumanely and unworthily without taking health, physical conditions into consideration. It is still my conviction that those inmates who worked in the W enterprises were better off than those inmates who did not because conditions in the W enterprises, as far as I can judge them, were orderly.
Q Do you know that Mummenthey repeatedly submitted written suggestions to his superior agencies in order to improve food and clothing of the inmates?
A No, I know nothing about that. These things were nothing to do with me. I merely talked to Mummenthey on that particular occasion of the visit, that is all.
Q Therefore, you probably also know nothing about the fact whether and in how far Mummenthey insisted on an increase of the wages and compensation paid out to the inmates?
A No, I know nothing about that.
DR. FROESCHMANN: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Froeschmann, you don't mean the wages paid to the inmates, do you? You mean the wages paid for the inmates.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I am talking about the compensation by DEST and the payment made by DEST on behalf of the inmate labor to the Reich.
THE PRESIDENT: Which is entirely different than wages paid to the inmates. That is what the translation said.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I do not want to anticipate the presentation of evidence, but in order to prevent a misunderstanding, I would like to say already now that Mummenthey for DEST considered the compensation, if I may call it that, which was paid for the work done by the inmates, a sum of money to be paid to the Reich, that he on his part Court No. II, Case No. 4.had to take care of billeting and feeding of the inmates, and thus incurred expenses.
These expenses were to be paid back by DEST to the Reich, and DEST had no influence on the fact how in detail the Reich distributed the money paid by DEST.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Dr. Karoli, do I understand your testimony to be that Baier was Chief of Staff W and later Chief W, is that what you testified?
A Chief of W and Chief of Staff W are one and the same thing. It was merely a change of the official designation, and I don't think it entailed any real change in the authority or the tasks and duties of Herr Baier.
Q And you know that Baier occupied that position?
A Yes.
Q You know that from your experience in the office and as one of his subordinates?
A Yes.
Q Dr. Heim told you that the Defendant Pohl testified that Hohberg was not Chief of Staff W. I should like to tell you that Pohl also testified that Baier was not Chief of Staff W. Would that change your testimony any?
A No.
Q You testified, I believe, that it was the reputation in the office where you worked that Hohberg had exercised the functions as Chief of Staff W, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Was it also the reputation in the office that he had exercised any other functions?
A In what respect do you mean?
AAny other-- Did he hold any other position or exercise influence in any other way? I believe you said that he was also an economic expert.
A Yes.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q You also said that you had seen memoranda that had been written by him and had been correspondence. Can you give us from the correspondence and documents and memoranda that you saw in the office, and from conversations that you had with people in the office any idea about the extent of the influence that Dr. Hohberg exercised as an economic expert?
A Details I am afraid I can't give you. May I point out again that in that time, in Hohberg's time, I was not with Staff W?
Q I understand that.
AAnd you know that things you have not experienced, you yourself, you don't remember as well as you do the things you have experienced.
Q Did you learn in any way about his forming any companies, establishing any enterprises, or any of the SS concerns?
A In my opinion Pohl who had the initiative in these things, called him in as a consultant, but this is my assumption.
Q And you don't know, you can't tell us today any more about the extent of Hohberg's influence in the office from what you saw there or heard?
A There is one matter where I gained more insight, and this happened in Staff W in Hohberg's time. This is the May affair. If I remember correctly the negotiations with Dr. May -- with the people in Buczowicz who remained after May's arrest -- were carried out mainly by Dr. Hohberg. There he studied the conditions, namely, of the enterprise in Buczowicz on the spot. By that I mean he looked at the enterprise very carefully and reported to Pohl about it. Other details and other things I don't remember.
Q It was your impression, was it, as I understand your testimony, that Hohberg exercised a greater influence in the Amtsgruppe than Baier did after Baier succeeded him?
A Well, you know, to make up my mind about that question, there is one important fact to be considered: the business training and expert knowledge and, if I may put it that way, the personality. Baier was a civil servant and, above all, he was the head of an official agency. He was the "top man" in the agency, but he was not an expert. He was not a man with any initiative in economic matters. He had no ideas economically speaking. He was unable to plan ahead economically, for instance, and to produce any new ideas for the economic enterprises. He couldn't. He was unable to do it.
Q And from your knowledge of the documents and memoranda, and from participating in the conversations with the office, do you wish to contrast Hohberg in that respect with Baier? Did Hohberg occupy a different position?
A I think the fact that Hohberg was an expert -- and was regarded as such -- made him, in Pohl's eyes and those of the other office chiefs, indubitably more important when he was consulted in matters of general economic importance to give his opinion.
Q Did Hohberg have a wide reputation as an economic expert?
A I am afraid I can't tell you. But his reputation certainly was not a bad one, as an expert.
Q I mean was it a far-flung reputation? Did people in the trade know about his reputation generally as an export, or was it a very restricted reputation?
A Herr Hohberg, as far as German public life was concerned, was not one of the more prominent auditors.
Q You told us you were not a Party member. Is that because you opposed National Socialism?
A It was because I disagreed with certain principles of National Socialism.
Q Did you have contact and conversations with others who opposed National Socialism?
A Do you mean official members of the resistance movement?
Q Yes -
A Or do you mean just friends? One must remember that there were many people in Germany -- and perhaps I may say in my own circle who were not followers of National Socialism, and were yet not members of the resistance movement. I talked to people of the first group. I had quite a few relations with them and quite a few of my friends were among them.
Q Did you ever talk to anyone whom you considered to be a member of the resistance movement?
A No, I cannot recall any such occasion. I don't think so.
Q Did you hear at any time of a Passmann circle?
A No.
Q Did you hear at any time that Hohberg was a member of a resistance group?
A No.
Q You said you met Hohberg in 1944 again, at the WVHA offices. Do you know what his business at the WVHA offices was at that time?
A No, I don't know why he turned up. He came to the WVHA quite frequently at that time -
Q At the end of 1944?
A Yes, at the end of 1944; that period of time. I believe some how or other he had something to do with the duties of Office W-4, in connection with the Air Ministry because somehow I believe he worked for the Air Ministry at the time.
Q And you say he visited the WVHA offices many times during that period?
A Whether he visited the offices, I don't know, but I believe he repeatedly went to the WVHA.
Q You said you saw him there frequently, didn't you?
A I saw him twice or three times. He didn't come up. I believe that Dr. Hohberg also knew Frau Fauler personally and called on her once or twice.
Q Did you know, form seeing the documents in the office or from conversations in the office, that Volk held the position of Chief of Staff W for a short time between Hohberg and Baier?
A He did not hold the position of Chief of Staff W; certainly not. All I know is that Dr. Volk temporarily was in charge of Staff W, but in my opinion only as deputy, temporarily because there was nobody else there.
Q The order of business that you discussed yesterday -- I think it was Article 10 -- refers to a deputy chief W. Who occupied that position?
A Herr Loerner.
Q The article -- I believe, Article 10 -- deals with the Chief of Staff, and it refers to a deputy chief of Staff W. Loerner was deputy chief of the Amtsgruppen. Was there not a deputy chief of staff?
A I don't know. I really don't know.
Q What do you mean when you say that Volk was in charge of Staff W -- but just as deputy?
A Not as an office chief, in my opinion; that is to say, as Chief of Staff W.
Q But, as Pohl's deputy? Or whose deputy?
AAs the deputy, as the provisional and temporary head of Staff W.
But I was not in the office at the time. I only know that....
Q Dr. Karoli, were you in a position after you came to the office to see all of the orders and instructions which the defendant Baier received?
A No.
Q Then he could have performed tasks and received and carried out instructions without your knowledge?
A I was only in charge of the Reviewing Department, and all that Baier passed on to me was anything which was of interest to my department, questions connected with the auditing work.
Q Then the answer to my question is yes?
A May I ask you to repeat your question?
Q Baier could then have performed tasks and received and carried out instructions without your knowledge?
A Yes, certainly.
Q Did you see any memoranda in the office which set out the powers of the Chief of Staff?
A I saw the business order.
Q Did you see any other order or memoranda?
A. I believe there existed an order before, according to which Chief of W had to be informed of such investments beyond a certain limit before they were carried out.
Q. That was, investments of industries affiliated with the DVB?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you also know that all contracts of those industries had to be submitted to the Chief of the Main Office through Chief of Staff?
A. With the one reservation which comes from the business order that not all contracts were concerned here, only contracts with a certain tendency. For instance, Baier as Chief Staff W had certainly nothing to do with production programs or any technical points; that would not be part of his competence and nobody asked him about these things, nor do I believe that he was informed about these things.
Q. Do you know that he wasn't informed about details of production in the SS industries?
A. That was not part of his competence.
Q. I didn't ask you that. Do you know that he was not informed, that he did not regularly receive reports on production, or could he have received those without your knowing about it?
A. I believe that there were in the old days certain reports from the enterprises which from case to case were sent to the DWB, to the mother company, and Staff W, but I can't tell you what these reports said.
Q. They concerned details of production, didn't they?
A. Certainly not. I do not believe, at least, that there were any details of production in those reports, nor do I believe even that I ever saw a report of that sort myself, because these reports were not made use and because later on they were discontinued completely, I believe, as they proved to be irrelevant and insignificant and unnecessary work. That was all.
Q. These reports concerned the period 1943 and the first part of 1944?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that the Chief of Staff received reports on requirements for personnel of the various industries?
A. As far as I know, the Chief of Staff W only handled the contracts for all employees. And about your previous question, incidentally, even if such reports were handed in, this happened, at the most, only for informative purposes without Baier or Chief of Staff W having to work on these reports and to say this is wrong and this must be done some other way, and so on.
Q. You say you do know that he had to check proposal on the acquiring of personnel for the industries, insofar as these reports concerned the higher echelons. Do you know exactly what personnel this concerned?
A. Proposals concerning the recruiting of such people were not part of his duties. All that happened was this: that employees of the DWB, that contracts of the DWB were handled by him which went beyond 600 or 800 marks per month, Staff W had to be informed about that.
Q. Witness, excuse me. I gather this from your testimony, that a good many things could have be handled by the Chief of Staff without your knowing about it, isn't that true?