At the time we had the choice of joining the SA, SS, or NSKK. I thought it over at the time which of the three organizations I should join. I discussed the matter with one of my student colleagues who had been an officer in the first World War on front line duty and who had been working in a SS Signal Detachment. He told me at the time that I should join the Sturmbann (detachment), that we would only deal with technical signal equipment and no politics were discussed there at all. He told me that due to his position of a Sturmbann adjutant he would help me to get a good position. And there was the additional factor that at that time, in other words in the autumn of 1933, there was some trouble between my organization and the German Lawyers' League. I became the manager of the President of the Lawyers League, and we had a very disagreeable discussion which was not ended by threats pronounced by one of the members of one of the organizations who was very strong. Finally the political investigation of my step-father at the time also reached a point where it was necessary to support him.
Q What was the highest rank you attained in the Signal Sturm?
A I was Untersturmfuehrer in the Signal Sturm. With my promotion to Untersturmfuehrer I succeeded in getting a transfer to the SS Main Office because I was no longer in a position to serve in the Army and was only carried on the list of the SS Main Office. In January 1939 I was promoted to Obersturmfuehrer.
Q What was the activity you carried out in the SS Signal Sturm?
A The men in the Signal Sturm were trained in the use of technical signal equipment. Therefore, they had to lay telephone wires, they had to establish telephone connections, that had to service field "walky talkies". Those parts of the Signal Sturm were mounted according to principles which had been developed during the First World War in connection with Signal Sturm, etc. The Leader of the Signal Sturm was subordinated to the man in charge of the SS-Reiter Sturm in Berlin, Brandner.
Q You said that in 1939 you served no longer in the Army. What was the reason you were promoted to an SS officer if you were no longer in a position to do service in the Army?
A Since 1936 approximately, a large number of SS members received their promotions if they had a higher position within the administration or economy. A large number of officials were also taken into the SS and immediately received officer ranks. It was within the framework of that action that I became SS-Sturmfuehrer in the German Gemeindetag. At the time the SS did have the desire to make certain connections between the SS itself and the economy and administration.
Q How long were you with the SS?
A Until I had to join the Waffen-SS in January 1940. Then the membership of the Party rested according to Army regulations - membership in both the Party and affiliated organizations.
Q Were you a member of the SS which guarded the concentration camps?
A No.
Q What was your highest rank in the Waffen SS?
A Obersturmbannfuehrer. That corresponded to Oberfeldintendant in the administration of the Army.
Q What were the prerequisites for your receiving that rank?
A I received that rank both because of my background and sphere of tasks.
Q Were you an active officer of the Waffen-SS?
A No, I was a reserve officer.
Q For how long a period of time was your activity in the Waffen-SS intended?
A For the duration of the war.
Q Were you a full time SS officer?
A No, there were only full time SS officers in the General (Allgemeine) SS. Whoever was a full time officer had to be employed by the Reich Treasurer of the Party.
I never did receive any such employment nor did I ask for any such employment. The salary of a full time officer was fixed by the wage scale of the Party. May salary had been fixed on the basis of a private contract I had with my firm.
Q During you membership in the Waffen SS what was the agency which paid you?
A That depended on the particular period of time. At the beginning of the war I received a certain amount of money, from the City of Frankfurt on Main, which was to be used as an allowance for my family. Furthermore my firm paid a certain additional amount. I received my army pay from the army treasury which was competent for me. That was my army pay and a certain allowance for living expenses, and a certain allowance clothing. From the month of July, 1941, on I received my pay from the Eastern German Construction Material Company, based on the contract which I had concluded with them. In the course of the year of 1942 my salaries were paid by the Klinker Coment, Inc. I only carried on the business management of Eastern German Construction Material Company on a honorary basis from then on.
Q What was the legal nature of those contracts?
A They were working on service contracts as contained in private or civil law.
THE PRESIDENT: Were the contracts executed by Pohl on behalf of the industries?
THE WITNESS: The contract was countersigned by Herr Pohl in his capacity either as Trustee or as the business manager of the DWB.
Q (By Dr. Gawlik.) Did those contracts have any influence on your membership in the Waffen-SS or the General-SS?
A No. They had no influence whatsoever on that relationship. They were private contracts which only bound me to the firms, but there was no change whatsoever in the relationship towards the WaffenSS or the General-SS.
Q What was the result or the influence of those contracts, their legal importance?
A They were employment contracts with the respective firms, Mr. Defense Counsel. They represented the relationship between those firms and myself.
Q If you take a look at your contract which you had with the Eastern German Construction Material Company dated July, 1941, take a look at it and tell me what was the result of that contract, what was the influence it played?
A I was an employee of that firm.
Q And with reference to the payment of the family allowance, what happened then?
A The family allowance, of course, was eliminated then because I had a civilian income.
Q Was that the actual effect of the contract?
A Yes, correct.
Q Let's take a look at document 2162, Exhibit No. 452, as contained in Document Book No. XVI, on Page 94 of the German and Page 95 of the English Document Book. What do you have to say about the statements contained in that document? Correction, what do you have to say about your statements you made so far, about the results of those contracts, and what do you have to add to that?
A First of all it might be important to state that in the preamble, it is stated explicitly that I am a merchant and an economist with a diploma. In Other words, my private position is stressed here. Contracts of this kind were also concluded with many members of my civilian employees who were not members of the SS.
Q Your activity during the time, between 1941 and 1943, was extended in some way, wasn't it?
A Yes.
Q Did your payment on your salaries change in anyway?
A No, my salary remained approximately the same. I received the same salary and the same allowance. It was only since August, 1943, that I received a special allowance for a child, as it was usual in Germany. At the same time, without my applying for it, without my trying to get it, I received a special pension and other additional funds.
This, of course, was only of practical importance for me for the duration of the war. I had no misgivings whatsoever about accepting this arrangement, which of course, would have given my family security, had anything happen to me. This arrangement at the time did not bind me to enterprise for the remainder of my life. In Paragraph 7 the contract provides explicitly that I have the possibility to resign at any time with a three months' notice. I have had long-term contracts before. I had a contract with the German Gemeindetag for a period of twelve years, plus a certain pension, and I had a long-term contract with the Deutsche Staedtereklame. At the time I had no misgivings whatsoever to resign from any positions or to break those contracts due to special circumstances, and I would have had that possibility also with this contract.
DR. GALIK: Your Honor, I believe that I have terminated the direct examination of Dr. Bobermin, and I only have a very few questions as defense counsel for Dr. Volk.
THE PRESIDENT: This would be a good time to take a recess before you start on Dr. Volk.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. GAWLIK (Attorney for Dr. Volk:
Q Witness, was Dr. Volk the Chief of Staff W, or was he chief W?
A No.
THE PRESIDENT: I can't fit that question and that answer together. You asked if he was one or the other, and he says, "no." Do you mean he was neither one?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I did not mean the alternative sense of this question but the cumulative one.
THE PRESIDENT: He was neither Chief of Staff W nor Chief W?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Could Dr. Volk give you any instructions as the man in charge of the Legal Department of Staff W, or as a prokurist of the DWB?
A No.
Q Could Dr. Volk give any instructions to the Legal Department of the Eastern German Construction Material Company?
A No.
Q Did you give Dr. Volk a recommendation to the man in charge of the Riding Unit of the SS in Berlin for the purpose of getting Dr. Volk a transfer to the Reiter-Standarte?
A Yes.
Q When did this happen?
A That must have been in the course of the year 1937. It must have been at the beginning of the year of in the middle of the year.
Q Was Dr. Volk actually transferred to the Reiter-Standarte?
A Yes, yes, as far as I know.
Q Can you tell us the exact time?
A I can't give you the exact time, but it must be the same time which I have mentioned before.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I have no further questions.
BY DR. HEIM (Attorney for the Defendant Hohberg):
Q Witness, I only have a very few questions to ask you. First of all, I would like to refer to Document NO-1216, Exhibit No. 58. It is contained in Document Book III of the indictment, on page 59 of the German text and on page 57 of the English text. It is a report about the trip to Lublin, Posen, and so on. The last paragraph of this document contains the following statement: "On the 7th of June, 1942, in the afternoon, the return trip took place by way of Posen. On the suggestion of Dr. Hohberg, a very detailed conference took place on the 8th of June 1942, in the morning with SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Bobermin, since SS Brigadefuehrer Globocnik wanted to lease a large cement plant with various brick works in the Government General." Witness, I would like to ask you in this connection, in what form did this conference take place which has been mentioned in this document?
AAs far as I can recall, it was a completely informal discussion which lasted only for a few minutes. I had the impression that the two gentlemen, just like any other guests who appeared at Posen occasionally, only wanted my advice on just where they could get the best breakfast. I was only very briefly informed. I do not know whether it was on Dr. May's or Dr. Hohberg's suggestion in a business sense that Globocnik was interested in leasing the cement plant, and that was not the only suggestion which was made to me by the Wehrmacht. They also asked me about various other things, and various duties.
Q Dr. Bobermin, did you take any action upon that?
A No, I didn't do anything at all at the time.
Q Dr. Hohberg testified here on the witness stand that he had sent a registered letter to you in which he informed you of the fact that he did not want to accept the appointment as a member of the Board of Supervisors, which had been suggested by Pohl without his knowledge, in the Easter German Construction Material Company. Can you still recall that?
A I cannot recall any letter of that nature. However, I do recall, and I recall rather precisely, that in connection with the composition of this Board of Supervisors in some way or another some objections were raised against Dr. Hohberg in this Board of Supervisors, because he was an auditor. That is all I can recall in that connection at the moment.
Q And now I have a final question to you, Dr. Bobermin: Did Dr. Hohberg ever give any instructions to you?
A No, I can't recall anything of that sort at all. I don't think so.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, I have no further questions.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Witness, what was your impression as to the position that Dr. Hohberg held with Staff W?
THE WITNESS: In Dr. Hohberg, I only saw an auditor and economic consultant of Pohl. Just what his relationship was to his other collaborators in the WVHA I was unable to see in detail, because I had been in the Main Office only six or eight times for a very short period of time.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Would Dr. Volk be in a better position to say what position the Defendant Hohberg held with Staff W than you?
THE WITNESS: Certainly. After all, Dr. Volk worked in Staff W.
DR. HEIM: In this connection I have one additional question.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Did you ever address Dr. Hohberg as the Chief of Staff W?
A I can't recall that. I don't think so, because Dr. Hohberg, as well as I, only had our contact in the economical sphere. He considered me to be a business manager of the enterprises and I considered him to be an economic collaborator of the DWB, and, in particular, he was an auditor.
DR. HEIM: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: No other questions by defense counsel? If not, the prosecution may cross-examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, you told us about all of the propaganda that you heard before you joined the Nazi Party. You said that this propaganda said that the Communists started the Reichstag Fire and that they said that Hitler seized power legally, and that the Nazi Party was just like all the other parties, and that it wasn't a party, that it was just a popular movement. Now, you had been a professor at the University of Rostock and had a doctors' degree in economics. You didn't believe all the propaganda that you heard, did you?
A I was a Doctor of Economic Science, but I was not a professor there, but I was only an assistant there.
Q That doesn't answer my question. Did you believe all this propoganda that you heard about the Nazi Party?
A I didn't believe everything we were told.
Q Did you agree with the principle of the Nazi Party with regard to the Jews?
A No.
Q Do you still consider yourself a Nazi today?
A I have never been a National Socialist in the sense as the prosecution described it.
Q Do you still think the Nazi Party is just like any other party?
A. Could you please repeat the question once more?
Q I will pass the question. You told us you thought the owners of these plants that you were operating in the East would some day return, they would claim their plants and the plants would be given back to them, is what you want us to believe?
A No, I didn't say that.
Q You didn't think they would return, did you?
A It was possible.
Q What is possible?
A It is possible that they would come back.
Q You thought that they would come back, is that right?
A I considered that to be quite possible.
Q And you thought the plants would be given back to them, is that what you want us to believe?
A No, I did not say that.
Q They wouldn't be given back to them, is that right?
A No, in my examination and my affidavit I have stated that was not my belief.
Q You were pretty sure they wouldn't get their property back, isn't that right?
A Yes, I considered that to be quite probable.
Q Well, you considered it to be absolutely certain, didn't you? You knew they wouldn't get the brick works back?
A Well, that would have depended on each individual case.
Q You knew that most of the property wouldn't go back to the original owners, didn't you, the majority of it?
A I can't say anything about the bigger industries, but I did feel that the majority of the people would not regain their property. However, that has nothing to do with the question of compensation.
Q You didn't think that any of the Jews would get back their property, did you?
A I believed that only a very few brick works were owned by Jews.
Q That doesn't answer my question. Did you think the Jewish owners of the brick works would ever get back any of their property?
A I did not believe they would have been treated differently than the other owners.
Q You didn't see from the instructions you received and that you issued that so-called "Racial Germans" were to be treated differently from Jews, is that what you want us to believe? The Jews got the same treatment as the Racial Germans?
A You mean as workers?
Q No, I mean as owners of the plants.
A No, well, they had to be treated by, insofar as all the plants which were owned, 100% by German Nationals were not seized.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, remember that you are not working entirely through interpretation, and you are crowding the interpreters a little bit.
MR. ROBBINS: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q They didn't receive the same treatment as Racial Germans as workers in the plants either, did they?
A Well they were treated exactly alike in my enterprises.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Mr. Robbins, did you get an answer to that previous question as to whether a Jewish owner was treated the same as a Racial German?
MR. ROBBINS: I think he said they were not. Your answer was that they were not, is that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes, after all, we were not interested in enterprises owned by Racial Germans and their plants were not seized. I myself was not interested in other owners either. After all, I was only connected with the plants.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q When did you first find out that many of the owners of these plants had been killed?
A I never heard about that.
Q You haven't heard about it even today, have you?
A I haven't heard up to date that any of these owners were actually killed.
Q You said you thought most of them fled. What did you think they were fleeing from?
A I didn't understand your question.
Q You knew that these owners were fleeing from the SS, didn't you, from the Einsatzgruppen?
A No, I didn't know that.
Q You knew they were fleeing from the criminal occupation of Poland, didn't you, from the treatment that the Germans were giving the Poles?
A I didn't hear anything about the Poles being mistreated by the Germans during the time of occupation.
Q Thank you very much. I want that definitely in the record. You never heard at any time about any mistreatment by Germans of the Poles at any time you were in Poland, is that what you want us to believe?
A Here I am referring to the newly annexed German territories.
Q That is exactly what we are talking about.
THE PRESIDENT: The translator has advised me that it isn't you, Mr. Robbins, but the witness. Will you please pause before answering the question so that the question can be translated into German before you answer? Just pause a few seconds.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q You never heard of any of Hans Frank's statements that he made to newspaper reporters in February 1940 when he was asked about von Neurath's posters announcing the execution of Czech students. And Hans Frank said, "If I were to order posters being put up about every 7 Poles who were shot there wouldn't be enough force in Poland with which to make the paper for these posters." That was a public statement he made. You didn't hear about that, I suppose?
Frank said if he put up 1 powder for every 7 Poles killed in the occupation of Poland that they wouldn't have enough paper to make the posters. You didn't hear about that statement?
A No, I didn't hear anything about the statement. I knew that Poles were executed, yes. I myself read posters of that kind in Posen. Posters were put up stating that certain Poles had been shot for sabotage after having been sentenced by a court.
Q Yet you never heard of Germany mistreating Poles any of the time you were in Poland, is that right?
A In the circles where I moved, that is to say in economic circles, the Poles were treated decently.
Q The IMT received proof and after months of deliberation came to the conclusion that 1/3 of the Poles in Poland were killed - not died but killed as a result of the criminal occupation of Poland by Germany. And you want us to believe that you never heard about any mistreatment of Poles while you were there and you were there all during the war, up until late 1943. One out of every 3 Poles was killed and you didn't hear anything about that?
A In the fields where I worked this certainly was not the case.
Q That doesn't answer my question. Did you hear about it?
A Now after I have heard of the trials I also heard that those things were supposed to have happened.
Q You didn't hear about it while you were there, though?
A No.
Q No mistreatment at all as far as you knew?
A In the newly-annexed German territories in the East I never heard that Poles were maltreated, and by maltreated I mean badly treated.
Q And you also include killing, don't you?
A Yes.
Q Just so there won't be any misunderstanding. Did you hear about Himmler's statement with regard to Poland in July 1942?" That it is not our task to Germanize the East but to see to it that only people with purely Germanic blood live in the East."
A Could you repeat that once more?
Q Well, Himmle'r, your boss, was talking about the occupation of Poland, and he says "It is not our task to Germanize the Poles but to see to it that people of only purely Germanic blood live in the East." Didn't you hear about that?
A It is very difficult for me to keep apart what I may have heard before or heard in the course of the big trial. In any case I was not present when the speech was made and I don't believe that I read anything about it in the papers.
Q Witness, it wouldn't have surprised you to have heard a statement like that from Himmler, would it?
AAs far as the character of Himmler was concerned I did not think very much of Himmler.
Q A statement like this wouldn't have surprised you, would it, coming from Himmler?
A It is very difficult for me to answer your question. After all, this is not a fact but just a judgment.
Q Well, your policy in occupying Poland fell in that same line. Tell us, witness, what did you understand to be a racial German?
AA racial German is a citizen of the Polish State who is of German origin.
Q Witness, did you hear about Himmler's speech in 1941 at the Day of Metz - an address to officers of SS-Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler on the presentation of a historical Nazi flag?
A I didn't hear anything at the time about this speech.
Q You didn't hear that Himmler said there "that the following things happened in Poland in weather 40° below zero. We had to haul away thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, where we had to have toughness." He says, "You should hear this and also forget it again to put thousands of leading Poles where we had to have toughness. Otherwise we would have been taken advantage of later."
You didn't hear about that speech or about these occasions?
AAt the time I wasn't present and didn't hear about it.
Q That's very strange because in the course of the speech he talked about your enterprise. He says: "The apartment building program which is the prerequisite for a healthy and social basis for the entire SS, as well as the entire Fuehrer Corps, can be carried out only when I get the money for it from somewhere. Nobody is going to give me the money. It must be earned and it will be earned by forcing the scum of mankind, inmates, professional criminals, to do the work." He says "this activity is necessary to eliminate those negative people from the German people and second, to exploit them once more for the great Volk Community by having them break stone and make bricks so the Fuehrer can again erect his great monuments." You didn't hear about that?
A I didn't hear the speech and the statement you have just made, Mr. Prosecutor, did not come to my knowledge neither through Himmler nor Pohl. Neither has this ever been a part of my work. Nor has this become evident from the documents which have been presented here.
Q May it please the Tribunal, I should like to mark this speech in evidence. It was offered and accepted by the IMT as being one of Himmler's speeches, 1918-PS. I might also say I cross-examined Karl Wolff on it and he said that he was probably there at the time when it was made. It is Prosecution Exhibit 624 for identification. I haven't the German translation with me but I think I can get it at noon.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it noted in the judgment or is it merely an exhibit?
MR. ROBBINS: I don't recall whether it was noted in the judgment or not.
Dr. Hoffman says No.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I object to the admission of this document. It is completely irrelevant. Dr. Bobermin didn't make the speech nor did Dr. Bobermin hear the speech being made. I don't know what the Prosecution is trying to prove against Dr. Bobermin with this speech. After all, here the Prosecution could submit all the documents containing speeches by any person. There is no probative value at all in this document.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please your Honors, may I only point out this. I think for one thing the entire speech, that is the three pages that I have of it, tends to establish the corpus delicti, the crime that was committed by the SS. He is saying here that we, the SS, killed hundreds of thousands of Poles. The entire speech shows the activities of the SS and the attitude of the Chief of the SS. In addition to that he is talking about Bobermin's activities. I think it can be-
THE PRESIDENT: Wait now, you can't infer that he is talking about Bobermin's activities.
MR. ROBBINS: He is talking about the bricks works in the East. Bobermin was the biggest, and as far as I know, the only brick works operator under the SS.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes, but there were plenty of other brick works in the East weren't there?
MR. ROBBINS: He is talking about "the brick works operated by us, the SS."
DR. GAWLIK: The witness does not say anything about brick works. Where does he state any-thing about brick works? Your Honor, I want to object to the admission of this document for another reason. This is just a simple English translation here. We can't see where this document comes from. We don't know what the exact text of that speech was. Somebody took it down. Who took it down in shorthand? Where was it printed? We can't see at all where this document comes from. There is no proof at all that this was the actual speech. That isn't given at all by this document. You can't say that he was actually referring to brick works.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I am not offering the speech in evidence now. I merely wish to mark it for identification, and before I do offer it will supply defense counsel with sufficient proof that it was Himmler's speech. The I.M.T. decided that it was. It was in an official collection of Himmler's speeches.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if the instrument is not offered in evidence there is nothing for us to rule upon. It is merely marked for identification, and we will hear any objection to it when it is offered in evidence later, if it is offered.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, I would like to show you a document and ask you if you can identify it? This is NO-1043, which I will mark as-
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: 625.
Q. (Continued) 625 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any English copies?
MR. ROBBINS: I don't as yet, your Honor I think I will very shortly.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will remain in the dark with defense counsel temporarily.
(By Mr. Robbins) This is a report on the work of the trustee General for the building materials in the Eastern area in 1940. Do you recognize it, Witness?
A. A report was made about the activity in the year 1940, that is correct. Whether this report is identical with the report which was made in 1940 I can't say. Just by looking at it, however, I would assume so. I can see that the initial of Pohl is at the top of this report so that these two reports are probably identical. However this report is not signed.
Q. Do you knew that this is the report that was prepared by Dr. Volk?
A. I can't say whether it is identical with this report. As far as I can see, this is a report including the entire year 1940. I don't think that Dr. Volk submitted a report for the entire year.
Q. Excuse me, you say that is not signed?
A. No, I can't find any signature at the end. I can only see the initials of Pohl at the top of the document.
Q. Perhaps the entire report wasn't photostated. Let me show you the original.
A. I only have it here up to Page 17.
Q. Is this the original report?
A. Yes, here I see the signature of Dr. Volk, and I also see the in itials of Pohl.
Q. Well, you heard his-
A. This seems to be a report about the first six months of the year 1940.
Q. Did you ever see this report before?
A. I can't say that with certainty since this report only covers half a year. As far as I can recall, it was submitted during the time when I was away on leave, because other wise I certainly would have put my initials also on this report. However, with that I don't want to say that I did not obtain any knowledge of the contents of this report. If you will give me the opportunity of looking at this report, and since in particular Dr. Vold drafted this report, I have no reason to claim that I don't have any knowledge the contents of this report.
Q. Well, you wouldn't claim that you had no knowledge if you did have knowledge, would you?
A. I have already stated that it is possible that this report went actually past me because it was submitted during the time when I was absent. It was probably requested by Pohl during the time when I was away on leave. Dr. Volk drafted this report and Dr. Salpeter then probably passed it on directly, and thus I did not receive any knowledge of it. I want to emphasize that I do not claim that I did not obtain any knowledge of the contents of this report, but I cannot say with certainty whether I read this report after I returned.
Q. I would like to ask you just two or three question about it, Will you turn to Page 4 in the original, please. It is Roman paragraph II where Volk is talking about the taking over of the plants.
A. Yes, I found it.
Q. In the second sentence he says, "There were no lists or registers in regard to the location of the brick works. There was nothing left for us to do therefore but to drive around the open country and to have a look at the different plants in order to ascertain whether the undertaking in question was Jewish or Polish owned." Do you see that?