DR. BELZER: It is paragraph 3 on page 3, it is page 2 in the English Document Book, Your Honor. In paragraph 4 the position & the field of work of the defendant Sommer is discussed, and I quote: "After me Sommer was the highest ranking SS-Fuehrer in Office D-II, From that it can be deduced that Sommer was my first co-worker. Since I spent much time on official trips it was Sommer's job to see to internal order, and regulation of the work in Office D-II. In fundamental questions of labor allocation of prisoners Sommer could not make any kind of decision. Even I myself could aprove the asignment of prisoners only with special permission of Pohl, and in the case of very small units, which were planned to exist for only a short time." Of any approvals which "I gave I had to inform Pohl in any case. On principle the person competent for the assignment of prisoners for labor allocation was the Office Group Chief, or, and predominatly, the Chief of the Main Office himself." I then go on and read paragraph 5: "Incoming post came to Gluecks on arrival. Insofar as incoming mail concerned the labor allocation, it was given to D-II where it was submitted to me by Sommer. If I was on an official trip Sommer submitted it to me after my return. Secret Reich matters and top secret military matters, so far as such were delivered to Office D-II at all, had to be given to me by Sommer in scaled envelopes. But I expressly add that I do not remember receiving any secret Reich matters myself. I certainly did not receive Top secret military matters." I now come to paragraph 6: "Sommer did not take part in Commandant conferences. I myself took part in these conferences only insofar as questions of labor allocation were concerned. It is possible that Pister saw the defendant Sommer in the Offices of D-II when Pister visited me in my office." Standartnfuehrer Maurer refers to Pisters affidavit presented by the prosecution. "Since Pohl had ordered that all requests for labor had to be submitted to him." As Exhibit 75, Book 3, dated 3/3/ 47. I come to paragraph 7 of Maurer's affidavit:
"It was necessary that Gluecks and I went to Pohl on an agerage of once a week for he purpose of discussing the current applications for assignment of prisoners, by the fact that Pohl gave instructions that all applications for assignment of prisoners had to be submitted to him for personal decision. Sommer was never present at these conferences with Pohl." In paragraph 8 Maurer states that office chief discussions never took place in his office. In Office Group-D Maurer makes a statement in paragraph 9: "The individual offices of the Office Group-D were administratively connected with each other only through the person of the Chief of the Office Group. Officially the offices as such had nothing to do with each other. By the fact that I had to visit, on Pohl's orders, the armament works which employed prisoners it happened that questions which did not concern the labor allocation, for instance, questions of clothing also, were put to me. In these cases I reported directly to Gluecks and Pohl, but also informed in addition he Office Chief D-IV, in the case in question, or the Office Chief otherwise competent." I now am going to read paragraph 10: "From the day he entered D-II until the end of the war, Sommer worked in the Office D-II without interruption. He was not even temporarily detailed to Auschwitz as labor allocation leader. In Office D-II one of us had always to be present. A simultaneous absence of both of us was limited to 1 day at the most, and them it was a matter of participation in conferences of labor allocation leaders." In paragraph 11 Maurer gives the name of the allocation officer at Auschwitz, and here he mentioned Heiner Schwarz, first of all, and then his successor who was his former co-worker Sell. Paragraph 12 is as follows: "I remember that there was once a conference of labor allocation leaders in Auschwitz in which Sommer participated for one day. As far as I remember Sommer arrived in in Auschwitz in the morning, and drove back to Oranienburg with me in the evening.
During the whole of this day Sommer was near me all the time." Apart from that I only know that Sommer brought his wife to Auschwitz to Professor Glauberg. I know nothing of any other visits of Sommer to Auschwitz." Paragraph 13: "To enter the Prospective Custody Camp in a Concentration Camp, Sommer needed the permission of the Camp Commandant. But even in this case Sommer could not enter the camp alone, but had an escort from the Camp Commandant, with the exception of the watch-makers workshop in Sachsenhausen. "In paragraph 14 Maurer tells us that Sommer only very rarely took any official trips, but in any case he had to comply with the special order from Gluecks. Maurer can not recall that Sommer in connection with the Construction Project Staff, "If Sommer was there it can only have been a question of acquainting the labor allocation leader Eilers with his duties." I shall then read from paragraph 15: "It is correct that I had entrusted Sommer for some time with he supervision of the watch-maker's repair workshop in Sachsenhausen. The leader of this watch maker's workshop had to have some one to whom he could turn, for example, when he needed materials or workers. So Sommer was appointed for this purpose. Sommer forwarded the requirements of the leader of the watch-makers workshop, letters, to the competent offices. The watches were delivered from Office A-II, and came originally, as far as I know, from the "Action Reinhard" The Action Reinhard" had something to do with conficated enemy property."
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, are you going to read this whole affidavit? I am reading it at the same time that you are.
DR. BELZER: No, I only want to call your attention to the most important phrases so far as they are directly concerned with statements of the Prosecution. That the watch repair shop is mentioned in the opening speech of the Prosecution, and it has been claimed that the defendant Sommer had knowledge of the fact, but here watches were repaired which had been taken away from Jews who had been killed.
In this paragraph 15, it is a question of a discussion by Maurer.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I can read from Maurer's affidavit, the contents, just as well as to have you read it to me. In following word by word as you are reading it does not add anything, does it?
DR. BELZER: I shall then briefly restrict myself to giving the contents of the affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to point out without reading it what each paragraph shows, that is important.
DR. BELZER: Very well, Your Honor. Then in paragraph 15 Maurer states that he himself did not know that these watches had been taken away from Jews who had been killed, and consequently Sommer could not have any knowledge either. Paragraph 16 deals with the question of the discharges of concentration camp inmates, and paragraph 17 gives us a description from Maurer with regard to the monthly reports which were submitted to Office D-II, and also deals with their contents. Paragraph 18 deals with the question of the inmates transports. In paragraph 19 Pohl issued an order according to which, in the concentration camps only six percent of the camp inmates should be employed for purposes of maintaining the camp. Paragraph 20 of the affidavit deals with the additional procurements of food, and clothing for concentration camp inmates. In paragraph 21, Maurer confirms that in 1944 a summary including all orders on prisoners' work issued sofar was sent to the camp commandants. Paragraph 22 deals with the subordination of the concentration camps sofar as the remaining territory was concerned the control came from the higher police and SS-officer. Paragraph 23 states the labor allocation officer of the camp belongs to the staff of camp commander, and was not subordinated to Office D-II. In paragraph 24 Maurer comments on the affidavit by Entress, Document NO-2368, Exhibit No. 516, in Document Book 21 of the Prosecution. Paragraph 25, here Maurer states that Office D-II had nothing to do with the ordering of medical experiments. Paragraph 26, here Maurer explained to us in detail the position of the defendant Sommer. He comments in detail on the question whether Sommer was the Deputy Office Chief, whether he was the deputy, or only a representative. Maurer states here that the term "Deputy" goes too far, and that Sommer had only acted as his representative when he received telephone calls, or when he received wishes and requests for the allocation of inmates.
Paragraph 27, here Maurer gives us a description of the character and personality of the defendant Sommer. In paragraph 23 Maurer states that Sommer on account of war injury always wore long trousars, and that he could never wear high boots. He also states he had never seen Sommer riding a motorcycle, but only a bicycle. In paragraph 29, Maurer then comments on the testimony of the witness Bilski, about the alleged commitment of two murders by Sommer at Auschwitz.
As Exhibit No. 3, I want to submit Sommer's Document No. 2, which is an affidavit of Albert Mueller. Mueller during the time from July 1944 until early in January 1945, was secretary of the defendant Sommer in Office D-II. In his affidavit he gives detailed description of Sommer's work. Mueller also confirmed that Sommer always wore long trousars, and he never wore high boots. In the last paragraph Mueller gives a description of the character of the defendant Sommer. In Exhibit No.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, we apparently are not numbering these exhibits the same way. What was the exhibit No. 1?
DR. BELZER: Exhibit No. 1 I have already presented during the examination of the defendant Pook. This is document No. 37 in the Supplement No. II, to the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Maurer's affidavit is No. 2.
DR. BELZER: It is No. 2, Your Honor, and next is Mueller's affidavit, which will be No. 3. Now when coining to Exhibit No. 4, it is the affidavit of Phillip Grimm. From the 1 September 1943 until 1 May 1944 Phillipp Grimm was member of Office D-II, WVHA. This period of time is a very important in view of the testimony by the Witness Bilski. Grimm states in his affidavit that during this time when according to Bilski's testimony Sommer is alleged to have been labor allocation officer at Auschwitz.
He saw the defendant Sommer daily at Oranienburg when he was in charge of Office D-II. Furthermore, Grimm also describes here the activity and work of the defendant Sommer in Office D-II. In the last sentence of the affidavit Grimm refers to Document Exhibit 298 of the Prosecution's, in Document Book II.
THE PRESIDENT: That is his previous affidavit?
DR. BELZER: Yes, Your Honor, it was presented by the Prosecution in Document Book II, Exhibit 298. This document was put before Grimm when he gave this affidavit.
The next document, Sommer No. 4. I shall not read and present. This is an affidavit by George Rammler, who has been examined here as a witness.
I shall then offer Document No. 5 as Exhibit No. 5. This is the affidavit of Ernst Schultz. Ernst Schultz describes in this affidavit that he made a request to Office D-II for locksmiths to be furnished and that Sommer told him that he was unable to approve that because that was Maurer's competence.
As Exhibit No. 6 I shall present Sommer 6, which is an affidavit by Helmuth Kiener, and Helmuth Kiener states here that, from his observations, the defendant Sommer was not the Deputy Office Chief of Office D-II.
The next document also refers to the question of whether Sommer was Deputy Office Chief. This is Sommer Document No. 7, which I shall offer as Exhibit No. 7. It is an affidavit by Heinz Schwarz. He was a civilian employee of the DEST.
As Exhibit No. 8 I shall offer Sommer Document No. 8, which is an affidavit by the former commander of the concentration camp Buchenwald, Herman Pister. In this affidavit reference is made to the affidavit by Pister which was presented by the Prosecution and which we have mentioned before. It was Exhibit No. 75 in Document Book 3. Pister states here that his former claim that he had seen Sommer at the comandants' conferences can not be maintained, and he admits that it is possible that he saw Sommer only in Maurer's office.
Then Pister goes on to say that in the fall of 1944 Sommer did not see him on official orders and he did not have any inmates transferred to Ohrdruf, as has been alleged by the Prosecution.
As Exhibit No. 9 I shall offer Sommer Document No. 9, the affidavit of Karl Hayn, the director of the Heinkel Works at Oranienburg. He frequently negotiated with Sommer, and he called Sommer a very small man who could never have made any independent decision. He said Sommer was just working in the ante-chambers of an office.
Further, he goes on to say that Sommer was a very honorable, decent map.
As Exhibit No. 10 I shall submit the affidavit of Max Sollmann. This is Sommer Document No. 10, and Sollmann confirms here that in the fall of 1943 he became acquainted with the defendant Sommer at Sudelfeld when Sommer brought mail to Maurer, who stayed there on a furlough from Ornnienburg.
As Exhibit No. 11, I shall submit Sommer Document No. 11, which is an affidavit by Werner Courte. In this affidavit it is also stated that during consultations which Courte had with Sommer by order of Kammler, Sommer did not make any decisions.
As Exhibit No. 12 I submit Sommer Document No. 12, the affidavit of Herbert Siggelkow. Hervert Siggelkow was with the Medical Quartermaster General, Dr. Blumenreuter, and he had to negotiate with Sommer about the procurement of inmates, and he observed also that Sommer could not help him by making any direct decisions but referred to Maurer for his decisions.
Exhibit No. 13, Exhibit No. 14, and Exhibit No. 15 I would like to provide with Document Nos. 13, 14, and 15. They are affidavits of various officials who had to do with the procurement of inmates and who also heard from Sommer that the defendant did not have the right to make his own decisions.
I shall then submit Sommer Document No. 16, which will become Exhibit No. 16. This is an affidavit of Ernst Peters. From the fall of 1942 until the end of the war Peters was the director of the watch repair shops in the concentration camp Sachsenhausen. In his affidavit he comments on the duties of Sommer, and he also confirms the statement by Sommer on the witness stand with regard to the matter of the bonuses for Jewish inmates.
As Exhibit No. 17 I offer the Affidavit of Albert Schwartz of 10 May 1947. The Prosecution received an affidavit from Albert Schwartz, in Document Book 11, Exhibit 299.
In this affidavit Schwartz refers to his previous affidavit in the affidavit which I am presenting now.
As Exhibit No. 18, I want to offer Sommer Document No. 18, which is an affidavit by Dr. Gerhard Hoffmann. Hoffmann in the year 1943 tried to obtain a position for Sommer in a private enterprise as a businessman. However, this attempt was not successful because Office D-2 refused to release Sommer.
Sommer Document 19 will become Exhibit 19, and this is an affidavit by the criminal inspector, Fuerster, in the RSHA, who refers to the activity of the defendant Sommer in the DEST with regard to the releases of concentration camp inmates.
As Exhibit No. 20 I offer the affidavit of Dr. Helmuth Schmidt. Helmuth Schmidt worked at the Heinkel Works at Barth, and in this affidavit he describes the conditions which prevailed in the labor camp at Barth, and he goes on to describe the attempts of the Heinkel firm to help alleviate the conditions of the inmates who worked in that plant. He states that Maurer, Sommer and Suhren, with whom he had to negotiate when he submitted his requests, always showed understanding of his problems at all times.
Then, the next document also deals with conditions in the Heinkel Works. It is Sommer Document 21, which I shall submit as Exhibit 21. This is an affidavit by Hermann Knaak, and in this affidavit it is confirmed that approximately 30 inmates were released as a reward for their efficient work.
As Exhibit No. 22 I offer Sommer Document No. 22. This is a diagnosis of the American prison physician, and it confirms that Sommer can not wear boots because of an old fracture of the right ankle.
The next document, Sommer No. 23, I shall not present here because Caesar has been examined by me on the witness stand in this court.
The next documents, Sommer Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28. I shall offer as Exhibits Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27. They contain character references for the defendant Sommer, and they were sort in after notices appeared in the papers about the testimony of the witness Bilsky.
Sommer Document No. 29 I shall not offer here because it is also an affidavit of George Rammler, who has also been heard as a witness.
I shall submit Sommer Document No. 30 as Exhibit No. 28. It contains the executive regulations of the Reich Minister of Justice about the increased labor allocations of inmates.
As Exhibit No. 29 I shall offer Document No. Sommer 31. This is a circular of the Reich Minister of Justice of 10 May 1939 about the labor allocation of inmates.
As Exhibit No. 30 I shall offer Sommer Document No. 32. This is an excerpt from the penal executive regulations. This is from the official publication of the Reich Ministry of Justice.
As Exhibit No. 31 I shall offer Sommer Document No. 33, which contains the so frequently mentioned Fuehrer Order. It is different from the formulations of the Fuehrer Order presented by other Defense Counsel in that this is from September, 1941 and was extended to officials, employees and workers.
I am now coming to Supplement No. 1 of the Sommer Document Book. As Exhibit No. 32 I want to offer Sommer Document No. 34. It contains the executive regulations of the Reich Minister of Justice about the duty of pre-trial-confinement inmates to work.
As Sommer Document No. 35 I want to submit an excerpt from the law for the accident insurance facilities for inmates, and in particular I quoted Article 7 from this law because in a Prosecution document reference was made particularly to this paragraph.
As Exhibit No. 34 I want to offer Sommer Document No. 36. This is an excerpt from the decree concerning accident insurance facilities for inmates of 21 November 1939.
From Supplement No. 2 of the Sommer Document Book I want to prea*** as Exhibit No. 35 Document No. 38, since 37 has already been submitted as Exhibit 1 and Sommer Document No. 38 is an affidavit by George Rammler, who has been heard here as a witness. I showed Rammler the Photographs of the block leader Sommer or from Auschwitz, who was imprisoned in Neuengamme for a while, and Hammler stated that these photograph were the pictures of the man who he stated here was Sommer.
As exhibit 36 I offer Sommer Document No. 39, which is an affidavit by Ernst Schultz, who was in charge of the motor pool of Office Group D at Oranienburg. Schultz states in this affidavit and explains the possibility that Sommer might use a motor vehicle.
As Exhibit No. 37 I offer Sommer Document No. 40, which is an affidavit by Karl Kaiser. Karl Kaiser was a master stone processing plant in Oranienburg, which was subordinated to the DEST. In this position he met the defendant Sommer, and he comments on the work of the defendant Sommer and, as far as he was acquainted with it, about the defendant Sommer's social attitude. Kaiser then confirms that during the entire time 1942 until 1945 Sommer was in the Office D-II and not at Auschwitz. With regard to the testimony of the witness Bilsky, Kaiser states that from his knowledge of the person of the defendant Sommer there must be a serious mistake in identity here.
As Exhibit No. 38, I want to offer Sommer Document No. 41, which is an extract from the SS Bulletin of Personnel Changes. It is from the year 1944, about Sommer's promotion to SS Haupsturmfuehrer, effective 20 April 1944.
I have now reached the conclusion of my presentation of documents for today. The affidavit of Sanner, which has been presented by the prosecution and the testimony of the witness Sanner here in the witness stand on cross examination have caused me to submit additional documents. These documents are just about to be translated, and I would like to reserve to myself the right to present them as soon as the translation of these documents has been completed.
DR. MAAS (Counsel for defendant Hohberg): Your Honor, before I begin my presentation of documents, I would like to say in connection with the introduction of the Prosecution documents yesterday in Document Books 22 and 24 that in the cross examination of the defendant Hohberg the Prosecution has offered three documents for identification without any previous notice. These documents were to show that Dr. Hohberg worked for the Apolinaris, A.G., having been commissioned as trustee for that plant. I have tried to establish contact with the Prosecution so that a German copy of these documents may be turned over to me. First of all, I was told that these documents were still being prepared. However, It also seems important for me that I should get a look at the originals, and that is why I asked the Prosecution to permit me to look at them. I was informed that these originals had been lost in the meantime.
It is important for me to look at the originals because it becomes apparent only from the originals that the one document, which is a report of Hohberg to Pohl in this matter, was only drafted in the original and was never actually sent out. It is important to show that the whole matter of Hohberg and Apolinaris, as far as Dr. Hohberg was involved in it, was actually never in effect, and I therefore request that these three documents, which are not in the German edition of Document Book 24, should not be admitted in evidence unless the Prosecution is actually able to present the originals.
Furthermore, I would like to make the following statement on that: From the District Court at Nauenau I had an excerpt from the Commercial Register sent to me, and this Register shows clearly that Dr. Hohberg was never appointed commissioner with Apolinaris, but that Dr. Wuerz, the gentleman described by Dr. Hohberg, was appointed as the administrator of Apolinaris. The document is just being translated, and as soon as the translation has been completed, I shall present it.
However, I want to maintain my request that these three original documents with regard to the Apolinaris should not be admitted because the originals can not be procured anymore by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give me the numbers of those documents, or the numbers of the Exhibits?
DR. MAAS: The documents bear the number No. 4386, and they have the Exhibit No. 580. They are listed in the index of the German Document Book. However, they are actually not included in the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of the document book?
DR. MAAS: This is Document Book No. 24.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, the next document now? You spoke of three of them.
DR. MAAS: These three documents were compiled under the same document number, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is a German translation included in your book?
DR. MAAS: No, Your Honor, in the German Document Book No. 24. these documents are only listed in the index, but the documents are not actually contained in the translation. I have tried, repeatedly to obtain the German translation and copies from the Prosecution, but I have not succeeded in doing so. Mr. Robbins told me that only the English translation was still in existence.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, you have not had a translation in German and you have not been able to see the original?
DR. MAAS: No, Your Honor, I have requested Mr. Robbins to let me look at the originals. However, he was unable to do that because he told me that the originals, as well as the photostatic copies, had been lost.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we'll take the matter up with Mr. Robbins the next time he is in the Courtroom.
DR. MAAS: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
I am now going to begin my presentation of the Hohberg Document Book, and my colleagues have considered this to contain so many secrets.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we'll let you start after the recess. We'll only interrupt you in a few minutes, so you may start at a quarter of two. Recess.
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345 hours.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 26 August 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. MAAS: Dr. Maas for Defendant Hohberg.
If the Tribunal please, I shall now begin to submit my documents. In view of the fact that this document material is somewhat extensive I shall confine myself to pointing out only the most essential points, and I should appreciate it if the Tribunal would take judicial knowledge of the balance of the documents. The last document which has been submitted was Exhibit 42. I have just been told the first document in Document Book II for Hohberg is Hohberg No. 40, and I shall offer it as Exhibit No. 43. This is an affidavit by Frau Lucie Hohberg who is the defendant's stepmother. She is a French citizen. Should the Court not have the English edition in front of it I have three copies here.
THE PRESIDENT: We have it.
DR. MAAS: From the affidavit by the defendant's stepmother it becomes clear that the defendant, Dr. Hohberg, on the basis of the education given him in his paternal home, could never have been an enthusiastic National Socialist. The mother testifies that the defendant from the beginning saw through the aims of the National Socialist system and that he drew her attention to the similarity between the fight against Jewry as it was propagandized, at first by the Nordland Publishing House, and the fight launched against the two main churches in Germany to which the anti--Jewish actions were merely a prelude.
The next document I submit Hohberg No. 41, which will be Exhibit No. 44. This is an affidavit by the Reverend Otto Hagmaier who was at the university together with Hohberg's father. He is intimately acquainted with Hohberg's family, knows Hohberg from his earliest childhood, and is therefore able to give a clear description of his character, particularly in reference to his political attitude. From this affidavit it may be gleaned that it was Dr. Hohberg's aim from the beginning to undermine the National Socialist system by counter propaganda, after, as he has stated himself, it was practically impossible to oppose certain specified measures.
The next two documents, Hohberg 42 and 43, I shall not submit. The first document has become superfluous by the evidence, and the second affidavit has been given by Dr. Albert Tenbergen whom we have heard here as a witness. These two affidavits were included in my book because at that time we did not know whether this witness would appear himself before this Tribunal.
The next document is Hohberg No. 44 which will become Exhibit No.45. This is an affidavit by Werner Weissenborn, the man in charge of a taxation department of the Siemens-Reineke concern at Erlangen. Herr Weissenborn was together with Hohberg between '36 and '38 when Dr. Hohberg was still an auditor with the Finance-President in Berlin. I might draw the Court's special attention to the statements made by Weissenborn about Dr. Hohberg. When he was working at the Alexander Finance Office in Berlin he was suggested by his superior officer as a member of the NSDAP without his knowledge in order to promote him more rapidly in his profession. Hohberg was then invited to report to the party office, to the Ortsgruppe to be precise, and had to state there that he would refuse to collaborate with them in any way. Hohberg, therefore, was not received into the Party, and that should be regarded as the reason why Hohberg, as he saw that he could not get on in his professional career, terminated his work with that department.
The next document will be Hohberg No. 45, which I shall not offer as the evidence has made this superfluous. The same applies to the next document, Hohberg No. 46. I shall not offer that either because Dr. Max Wolf, who has made this statement, has already appeared here as a witness, and when the affidavit was given at the time we were not sure whether Dr. Max Wolf would really appear here or not.
The next document will be Hohberg No. 47 , which it Exhibit No. 46.
This is an affidavit by Walter Bergner, who is a commercial artist by profession. From there it may be gleaned that he and Hohberg were together between '41 and '43, in close personal contact, which is the reason why he can draw a clear picture of Hohberg's personality and political attitude. He reports in particular that Hohberg, in accordance with his fundamental attitude, contributed to the fact that he would utilize the knowledge which he had gathered through his work with DWB for as large a circle as possible, thus to contribute in undermining the National Socialist system and all problems connected therewith.
I shall then submit Hohberg Document No. 48 which will be Exhibit No. 47. This is an affidavit by Fran Edith Schmiel, the wife of Schmiel, who, together with Hohberg, was an auditor with the DWB. This document shows that Hohberg and he were particularly close friends because this man was an anti-Fascist and formerly a member of the Communist Party, and that was the reason why Hohberg had special confidence in him. The affiant also reports that Hohberg pursued the aim of transferring the DWB concern by shifting the capital to the Reich and thereby taking it away from the SS.
I shall then submit Hohberg Document No. 49, which will be Exhibit No. 48. This is an affidavit by Emil Eischer who was together with Hohberg after the latter had left DWB, and although he cannot say anything about the counts of the indictment, he can make statements about what Hohberg told him at the time about his work for the DWB and his position within the organization.
I shall then submit Hohberg No. 50, which will become Exhibit No. 49. This is an affidavit by Konrad Heidenreich who is the fatherin-law of Dr. May, who has been so frequently mentioned in this trial. He makes various statements about the true background of the May affair. In particular he explains that Hohberg at that time did everything he could for his son-in-law when the latter was arrested by the Gestapo.
The next affidavit is of a similar trend. This is Document No. 51 which I shall offer as Exhibit No. 50. It is an affidavit by the wife of Dr. May, and she also confirms that Hohberg did much for her husband when he had been arrested by the Gestapo. From what her husband told her she gives the small details about what Hohberg did and what his position was.
The next document is Document No. 52 which shall offer as Exhibit No. 51, an affidavit by Kurt Brune, a merchant. He is in a position to give us more details about the program to build better and bigger homes, and for the rest he gives us details about the connections between the May affair and Hohberg, particularly in reference to the fact that Hohberg reported to him at the time that he had been forbidden by Pohl to do anything for May.
The next document is Document No. 53, Exhibit No. 52, an affidavit by Dujardin. He gives us a picture of Hohberg's character, particularly with reference to his anti-Fascist attitude. He also gives us details about what Hohberg told him about his activity in the WVHA at the time.
Document No. 54 will be Exhibit No. 53. It is an affidavit by Tideman Ulrich, Lemberg, who is an author and taxation expert. He again, from what Hohberg told him at the time, is in a position to tell us that Hohberg always was very anxious to be regarded as an independent auditor, and that he never did agree with the political aims of the WVHA - let alone the SS. On the contrary, in accordance with his pre-conceived plan, he expressed to Ulrich Lemberg details of the things which he had observed within his work.
Document No. 55 will become Exhibit No. 54 and is an affidavit by Dr. Joseph Waelken, who is now the public prosecutor in Thuringia, and who, under the Nazis, was persecuted because of his anti-Fascist attitude. He had been dismissed from his job. At that time, Hohberg also passed on information about his intended aims with the DWD, information in particular about the fact that he intended to transfer the DWB to the Reich by taking up the well-known thirty millions credit.
The next document, Hohberg No. 56 which will become Exhibit No. 55, is an affidavit made out by the same Dr. Joseph Waelken. He tells us that Hohberg was unpopular and had great difficulties because of his anti-Fascist attitude. He constantly faced the danger, through his propaganda, of being arrested and sentenced one day.
Of the same trend are the next documents, Hohberg 57. These are again statements by two fellow-soldiers of the defendant Hohberg who, from their own observations, cannot say anything about the subject matter of the indictment but who are in a position to say what Hohberg told them about his work, about his aims with the DWD at that time, and what the struggle was within the organization between himself and the other leaders.