Q Now, if it has been established that in a town through which you had marched, a few days later considerable atrocities have occurred, are you militarily speaking, still responsible for that town?
A In no sense whatever. I am responsible only for my troops. For the town itself the territorial commanders will be responsible, inasmuch as they are there.
Q The territorial commanders followed, did they?
A Yes, they followed, but in between there were all the supply columns, which were very large units. You always had this advance behind the very fast units of at least 60, 80, or 100 kilometers.
Q And you yourself a few days after the advance might possibly be at a distance of seven hundred kilometers?
A Certainly.
Q Without any responsibility for the area in your rear?
A Without any responsibility and contact with the rear.
Q You said just now that the defendant Fanslau was the liaison man between the staff and the supply column. Did he always do that personally, or did he use for that purpose couriers, orderlies, and so forth?
A Obersturmbannfuehrer Fanslau had to inform IB daily about the supply situation. Moreover, he had to find out from him daily what the intentions were for the next day, which is the reason he saw I-B daily, unless he sent along a representative, which was also possible. With the staff he had to be there daily.
Q And did he always take care of the supply column?
A No, sometimes he would do it through his adjutant or his driver, of somebody.
DR. STAKELBERG: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: No further examination be the Prosecution? The witness may be excused.
(The witness was excused.)
MR. ROBBINS: May I continue with the presentation of documents at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other witnesses waiting to be heard?
DR. STAKELBERG: May it please the Court, the witness Maier has not arrived yet; the witness Martin Maier has not yet reached Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Is he a free witness?
DR. STAKELBERG: No. He is in a camp, and arrangements have been made to bring him here.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the camp, please?
DR. STAKELBERG: The camp Sandbostel, near Fallingbostel which is not very far from Hanover.
THE PRESIDENT: In the British Zone?
DR. STAKELBERG: I believe so, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Has he started yet; do you know?
DR. STAKELBERG: I have heard that Miss Bindford has rung up the camp and also sent telegrams and that every promise has been given that he will be sent down as quickly as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we want to know what "as quickly as possible" means, you see.
DR. STAKELBERG: Yes, Your Honor, immediately after this session I shall once again find out from Miss Bendford whether she has had some news, and perhaps, if I may, I shall tell the Court Tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now, what other witnesses do you plan on?
DR. STAKELBERG: Very probably I shall not be able to produce any more witnesses, because the other two, Stolk******* Wohler, can not be found.
THE PRESIDENT: What about other Counsel? Dr. Pribilla?
DR. PRIBILLA: No more.
DR. STAKELBERG: But I believe that Dr. Bergold still wants to call some witnesses.
DR. HAENSEL: I have Hans Fritzsche.
THE PRESIDENT: Better arrange to have him first thing in the morning, Dr. Haensel.
DR. HAENSEL: Perhaps in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you talked to him?
DR. HAENSEL: This evening.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Plan to call him as a witness sometime tomorrow then. Well, that is two witnesses, and possibly Dr. Bergold's.
DR. HEIM: I have the defendant Hohberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to put him on now?
DR. HEIM: Tomorrow afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: I know, but tomorrow afternoon' is getting shorter every minute. Why cant you put him on now? You know what you want to ask him. Will that be all right?
DR. HEIM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Fine.
WHEREUPON DEFENDANT HOHBERG was recalled to the witness stand and was examined and testified as follows.
DR. HEIM: For the Defendant Hohberg. With the Court's permission, I shall ask the defendant Hohberg to take the witness stand. I would like to remind you, witness, that you are still under oath.
If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution have produced new documents, some of which concern the defendant Hohberg.
I must ask the defendant about seven questions. It should take about twenty minutes. There is one difficulty, Your Honor. As the prosecution have not yet completely submitted its documents, I should be grateful if I were given the opportunity of having the witness comment on the documents of the Prosecution, even if those documents have not been offered yet in evidence.
THe PRESIDENT: That is all right.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no objections.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness in Document Book 28, witness, the Prosecution have offered document 1037. It is roughly in the last third of the document book. It is a letter by you Pohl, and it concerns the increase in capital in the DWB. In that document under 7, reference is made to Reich Treasury vouchers which came from moneys in Dachau. The impression might arise.
that in the case of Dachau moneys they are moneys from the concentration camp Dachau, which would have been immediately connected with inmate labor. I would like to ask you to tell the Court briefly what is meant by 'Dachau moneys".
A When the sites on which barracks were standing were sold in Dachau to the German Reich, which was done by Obergruppenfuehrer Frank, a turnover of RM 12,000,000 was obtained. I had nothing to do with that, but this is what Frank told me. Of that amount six millions were branched off under two separate headings and transferred to a trustee account, Dachau I and Dachau II. Those moneys from Accounts I and II were then, by Pohl's order, used to increase the capital of the DWB. The term "Dachau moneys" therefore has nothing to do with concentration camps. It is purely money made out of the sale of the site of the barracks.
Q In the same document book 28 of the Prosecution, further back, there is Document No. 1267. This is a letter by you addressed to the OSTI, attention of SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Horn. In that letter you request Dr. Horn to contact the Dresdner Bank in the Government General. I would like to ask you about that. Was this letter addressed to the OSTI?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, Dr. Heim, until we find it. We haven't found the exhibit.
DR. HEIM: It is Document NO-1267.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Is this letter to the Osti the result of an official contact or activity for that company, or what was the reason why you wrote the letter at that time?
A In my profession, it is a professional instruction that we must not indulge in any propaganda. For that reason, it is a matter of course that you contact the directors of big banks and so forth, if possible. That is the reason why I had this regular contact with Professor Meyer, with whom I had lunch every two or three months. Professor Meyer, as a member of the Board of the Dresdner Bank, had asked me to see to it, as far as I had any influence, that now companies which were supervised by Pohl should contact the Dresdner Bank or its affiliated companies for banking purposes; and I did this favor for Professor Meyer by writing the letter. I believe a second firm is mentioned there too. Whether they contacted the subsidiary company of the Dresdner Bank in Cracow, I don't know.
Q I am now referring to Book 29 of the Prosecution, the last but one document in that book. The number is NO 4441. This is a memorandum by Dr. Wenner, and it concerns SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Firlich. In that memorandum it is alleged that you had promised Hauptsturmfuehrer Firlich increased salary. Were you in a position on your own to increase a man's salary, a man who was one of your auditors?
A Yes, I was in a position to do so, because I could ask Pohl or the Prokurist of the DWB to do so. I could not give the instruction, but one could assume that if I described the conditions to Pohl, he would on his own give permission. It becomes clear from this letter that Firlich had asked me some months before to have his fees increased.
I did not do so then, because the last three or four months of my work I did not work there so often, us to give me a chance to do so.
Q What is your explanation for the fact that in this letter Wenner says "Chief of Staff W, Auditor Dr. Hohberg"?
A That is really the first time that Wenner used this term, because Wenner knew all about this struggle for this so-called designation, and he knew very well how I was opposed to it. In this case I could not oppose it because when the letter had been drawn up, I had left some considerable time previously. Perhaps he wanted to give expression more to his own wishes; I don't know.
Q In the same document book 29, there is document NO 3925, which is the first document. This is a letter by you addressed to the Finance Office, Boerse, Berlin, and it concerns the company taxation certificate of 9 September 1942. In that letter you describe the organization of the DAW, or the so-called W-Enterprises, in a way that contradicts the one given during the course of this trial. Will you please clear up that contradiction?
A It is not a contradiction.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, is it DAW or DWB?
DR. HEIM: DAW.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The translation is DWB, which is an entirely different company.
THE WITNESS: May I say something about those two companies.
THE PRESIDENT: I know all about the two companies. It is the book that -- In the book you speak about the German Equipment Works, DAW.
A This letter I took myself to the DAW works, and it was changed by them and passed on. That is why I made this remark.
On direct examination I have described that the so-called SS enterprises were undoubtedly, at the beginning, enterprises of the Party, and only when capital was increased on several cases did they become Reich enterprises, because for Capital Increases Reich money was used, without a doubt.
Under German taxation law there is the principle that you make contracts not with a retrospective effect. Here we are concerned with a taxation certificate for a company taxation process which occurred on the 4th of November, 1940. The whole description in that letter has been adjusted to the legal status of 4 November 1940 and in that particular moment, in 1940, there was the DWB concern still a Party enterprise without a doubt, because the SS was not a property bearer of its own. It was much later, in 1942, that the DWB concern became a Reich concern by having used Reich funds. Is that clear now?
Q In a document book which they submitted today, namely, 32 the Prosecution have offered Document No. 3785. It is Document Book 32. It is on the thirteenth page of that document book, where we find Document NO-3785. This is a letter -- page thirteen of the German document book, Document NO-3785.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: 3786.
THE PRESIDENT: Right after that, the next one. We have it.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q This is a letter by you addressed to SS Sturmbannfuehrer Klein of 17 November 1940. Why is that document headed "Chief of VUW Main-Office, Dr. Hohberg?
A I have described on direct examination that Pohl had asked me for internal communications within the enterprises not to use my own private note paper but as a principle put the initials "ST/W". This letter is connected with the one before it which I would ask to look at because there my name forms the letter heading.
Herr Klein had accused me of having interfered in matters connected with the Lobkowitz affair. I, therefore, asked Klein to tell me what he meant. Klein did not answer at all. I sent him a second letter and it says at the bottom, "May I ask you to reply to my previous letter?" and there it seems a letter was taken with that letter heading.
My personal note paper was never used, always empty ones. It would not have been possible otherwise, but the secretary simply took the next bit-
THE PRESIDENT: This isn't important, Dr. Heim. Nobody claims that Hohberg was ever chief of the Main Economic and Administrative Office or that he was a deputy.
DR. HEIM: The impression might arise on the basis of the letter heading that Hohberg perhaps was the deputy of the Chief of the "W" Office.
THE PRESIDENT: Nobody ever claimed that at all.
MR. ROBBINS: I might say that the reason that these documents were put in concerns the confiscation of Lobkowitz property, and we are expecting momentarily a confirmation from the Czechoslovakian Government that this confiscation was ultimately consumated.
DR. HEIM: Shall I clear up that point about the visit with Dr. Richter?
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness, you have heard that the Prosecution wishes to prove with this document that you were concerned with the seizure and confiscation of foreign property. What did you discuss with Dr. Richter concerning the Lobkowitz affair?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, what was the Lobkowitz property?
THE WITNESS: The Lobkowitz property was the property of a big Czech estate owner, and his property had been put under control. I myself never carried out any negotations in the Lobkowitz matter. This becomes clear from the previous letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Lobkowitz was a rich Czechoslovak Jew, wasn't he?
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Whose property had been -- what did you call it?
THE WITNESS: Had been put under control.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes, yes, put under control. Under whose control?
THE WITNESS: I don't know. I never -- probably by the RSHA.
THE PRESIDENT: Under trusteeship?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then it was under Pohl's control as trustee?
THE WITNESS: No. No. No. As far as I know from the files, Herr Moeckl together with Herr Klein were interested in what was known as the "Biliner Brunnen" well which was part of that property. Whether it was to be leased or not, I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, who was the trustee -- and this was in 1940. Who was the general trustee for property of this kind?
THE WITNESS: The trustee appointed was a high financial civil servant. His name was Haniel or something like that. That's in the files.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh.
THE WITNESS: I really don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this person was Prince Max Lobkowitz. He was a Czech land owner and at one time was a member of the Diplomatic Service in London, wasn't he?
THE WITNESS: Mr. President, Herr Klein should be able to answer that question. I really know nothing about it.
If the Tribunal please, in an other matter I went to see Dr. Richter. I wanted to find out as an auditor -- and I wanted an order by Dr. Richter to evaluate this property. On that occasion Dr. Richter gave me the order to place with Herr Pohl, and this was to the effect that I was to tell Pohl that a confiscation of property to the advantage of the SS was not possible at all. That becomes clear also from another letter which had just been submitted. That was the only thing I did in this whole matter. I simply told Pohl that it was not possible to seize this property on behalf of the SS.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Otherwise you had nothing to do with the Lobkowitz affair?
A No.
Q A final question. The witness, Karoli, said on the witness that professional circles had complained about you because you had behaved incorrectly as an auditor. Can you tell the Court in how far according to your knowledge this statement of Karoli's is correct?
THE PRESIDENT: We are not trying Hohberg for being an incorrect auditor. Don't waste any time on it. You have five minutes.
DR. HEIH: Mr. President, the witness, Karoli, has stated that Dr. Hohberg did not join the Wehrmacht voluntarily but that he went because he was behaving incorrectly as an auditor within the DWB, had to give up his position there for the reason because he had become so powerful there which was no longer compatible with his duties as an auditor. That statement on the part of Dr. Karoli means that the defendant Hohberg, as an auditor of the DWB was not working as an auditor but beyond that at least had some influence on the business management of the DWB, and this statement of Karoli's which had not been produced by the Prosecution before represents a very dangerous incrimination of the defendant. I should, therefore, be grateful to admit that last question.
MR. ROBBINS: I should like to remind Defense Counsel that we didn't bring Dr. Karoli here but Defense Counsel brought him here. He was not a witness for the Prosecution.
DR. HEIM: Mr. President, after all, a witness of the Defense -we have seen this happen before -- can suddenly become a Prosecution witness for another defendant. It is, therefore, immaterial, in my opinion, whether the Prosecution or the Defense have called this witness to the stand.
MR. ROBBINS: I was just answering his accusation that we brought up something else new at the last minute.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, go ahead. Of course, we remember very well what he said before as to his reason for leaving the Wehrmacht. He said it once. I mean going into the Wehrmacht.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness, a final question. The witness Karoli has said on the witness stand that you were not only an auditor of the DWB at the end but there your economic power had been so enormous that professional circles complained about you and you had to discontinue your activity as an auditor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now don't you remember that he told us at great length what his duties were and that he was nothing but an auditor. He said that over and over again. Does he want to say it once more? If this will be the last time go ahead.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Your power was supposed to have been so incredible that professional circles complained about you and insisted on your being discontinued. Do you know anything about this complaint from professional circles?
THE PRESIDENT: That was not true, was it, Dr. Hohberg?
THE WITNESS: May I give you my answer, Mr. President? It won't take me a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this was not a complaint from professional circles. I was in intimate contact with the Main Department for Auditors and the Institute for Auditors, and they always praised me. I may say who attacked me from the professional circles was a man, who was a member of the Circle of Friends of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, the so-called "Keppler Kreis", a man called Kranefuss. Kranefuss caused two people of the German trusteeship agency in the East to visit Pohl, one of whom was Karoli's brother, so that he would be in part replaced as an SS auditor. That was the whole complaint made by professional circles. Nobody else took part in it.
DR. HEIM: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: There was nothing to the complaint; I mean it was without foundation?
THE WITNESS: Yes, without foundation. It was a purely political maneuver.
THE PRESIDENT: That's all, Doctor?
DR. HEIM: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritsch:
DR. FRITSCH: I have a request to make, if the Tribunal please. As Dr. Karoli has been mentioned just now, there is in some documents reference made to my client, Baier, which makes me fear that he might be incriminated by these references. I can clear up these things by an affidavit of witness. Dr. Karoli, or else I could ask him a few questions here for about ten minutes.
My request to this Tribunal is to the effect to tell me which I should do. It seems to me to be more expedient to ask Karoli a few questions for ten minutes because the translations of affidavits are a difficult proposition.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is there something serious that you want him to deny?
DR. FRITSCH: Yes, yes, Mr. President. It seems to me to be serious.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not just that he used the wrong letterhead or something like that?
DR. FRITSCH: No. No.
THE PRESIDENT: When do you want to do it?
DR. FRITSCH: I could ask him tomorrow morning at any time. He is here in prison.
THE PRESIDENT: Nine-thirty.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes, Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a date. We will adjourn until that time.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 3 September 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, on sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, 3 September 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
DR. FRITSCH: Dr. Fritsch for defendant Baier.
If the Tribunal please, the repeated interrogation of witness Karoli will be very brief. I am mainly interested in testimonies as to the statements contained in Document Book II for Hohberg.
HERMANN KAROLI - Recalled DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITSCH:Q.- Witness, I remind you that you are still under oath.
Witness, was there any difference between the Chief of Staff W and Chief W? I would like to draw your attention to the fact I am not interested in the designation as such but the work which it entails.
A.- Their power, their authority, no, no such division existed. In my opinion the Chief W was as much in charge as the chief of the agencies of Staff W, as the Chief of Staff W was before. This abbreviation of the designation was done for purely practical reasons in order to have an abbreviation. Any of his authority was not entailed in this.
Q.- Witness, I would like to put to you from the Appendix I, in Document Book II for Hans Hohberg, Hohberg Document 68. If the Tribunal please, I am extremely sorry but I have not got the exhibit number. I was not able to get it.
I believe it is quite simple; a witness says there, this is a man called Ansorge, and I quote, "Chief W was the deputy chief of the Amtsgruppe. In other words, under commercial law he was the Deputy Director General." What can you tell us about that?
A.- This explanation is entirely incorrect. Moreover, it is full of contradictions. First of all -
THE PRESIDENT: We are convinced, Dr. Fritsch, that Chief W and Chief of Staff W mean the same thing. We are not confused at all about that.
DR. FRITSCH: In that case, Mr. President, may I put just one more question?
Q. (By Dr. Fritsch) - Therefore, we need not talk about those questions any more, witness. Perhaps you can answer me one question. We have heard here about the Deputy Director General under commercial law. Do you remember that quotation?
A.- Yes, I do, but I would prefer, I must admit, to see the document.
Q.- Is what Ansorge says correct, namely that Baier under commercial law was appointed Deputy Director General?
A.- No, this is entirely incorrect. Baier in the course of March, 1945, became the procurist of DWB. At that time he was entirely in charge of the duties of a procurist. In connection, and only in connection with a business manager, he could represent DWB and sign on behalf of it. At that time, however, DWB, for all practical purposes, was no longer in business, which was probably the reason why the two procurists who had been with them for so long, Dr. Wenner and Dr. Volk were transferred to the front. Baier merely filled the gap. It was a solution of an embarrassment simply. He did not do actual work any more because DWB had lost all its contact with its subsidiary companies through the military situation, bad communications, etc.
Q.- Witness, let me go back to my initial question, - I am not interested in designations and titles.
Did Baier occupy the position of a Deputy Director General and work as such? That is the essential point.
A.- No, he did not, nor did he do the work connected with it. I might add that apart from the somewhat deficient authorities under commercial law and also in consequence of his professional and other knowledge and experience, Baier would not have been in a position to fill a position of that sort.
DR. FRITSCH: Thank you very much, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: When you spoke of Deputy Director General, did you mean of DWB?
DR. FRITSCH: This is what the affidavit which I have quoted has not made quite clear. All it says there is deputizing for the Chief of the Amtsgruppe, that is to say, of Pohl, as Chief of Office Group W, and under commercial law reference is made to the position of a Deputy Director General. Whether he means the entire WVHA in this case as far as Office Group W is concerned, of course, or only DWB does not become clear from this. In my opinion Baier was neither the one nor the other, but as this assertion has been made I had to clear it up.
THE PRESIDENT: There was no such thing as Director General of the WVHA?
DR. FRITSCH: No, that did not exist.
THE PRESIDENT: So that he must have meant Director General, Deputy Director General of DWB?
DR. FRITSCH: I assume so. Yes, quite possibly. I have no further questions to this witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:Q.- Witness, I think this already probably appears in the record, but to make sure, I would like to ask you to tell the Tribunal what Ansorge's position in DWB and Amtsgruppe W was?
A.- Ansorge was a civilian employee of DWB and had the authority to act on behalf of DWB. As far as I know in the old days, he was employed in the auditing department at Hohberg's time, and then under Hohberg he was a plenipotentiary of the DWB, all the civilian employees of DWB, from an organizational point of view, as far as the civil service was concerned, belonged to Staff W, and as such he was a member of Staff W.
Q.- You have described the position that he held. Would you not say that he was in a position to know the functions and the duties of the Chief of Staff W? I am just asking you, he should know the duties, should he not?
A.- He should, yes.
Q.- That is all I wanted to know. That is all I wanted to know.
A.- But I should add something to make it quite clear if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: Finish your answer. Go ahead.
A.- Ansorge, in February, or at least early in 1945, was called up to the Home Guard the Volkssturm. When Baier became the procurist, he, as far as I know, was no longer with Staff W. Therefore from his own knowledge and observations he would not be in a position to say that Baier was the business manager or Director General at that time because he was no longer there.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all.
(Witness excused.)
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, Lieutenant. Are you ready for Fritsche? Fritsche may be brought back.
DR. KARL HAENSEL: Karl Haensel for Georg Loerner. May I call Hans Fritsche to the witness stand?
HANS FRITSCHE, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Will you raise your right hand and repeat after me, please?
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HAENSEL:Q.- Will you please give the Court your name, place of birth, and anything about your personal history?
A.- My name is Hans Fritsche. I was born on 21 April 1900, at Bochum.
Q.- You were a defendant in the IMT trial, were you?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Will you please tell the Court what your sentence was?
A.- I was acquitted.
Q.- All counts?
A.- On all counts of which I had been indicted.
Q.- Will you give us details about your profession? You were the Editor in Chief and in charge of the Department for German Press and Wireless. Will you please tell us, very briefly, of course, how your career and position were in this respect?
A.- Until 1932, I was in charge of a foreign press agency. From 1932 until 1938 I was Editor in Chief of the German Radio News Service which one year after my joining it was made part of the Propaganda Ministry. In 1938, in December, until the spring of 1942, I was in charge of the Department German Press in the Press Department of the Reich Government which was under the Propaganda Ministry. After December, 1942, until the end of the war I was in charge of the Department Wireless and Radio of the Propaganda Ministry.
Q.- If I have understood you correctly, you, throughout that period of time when the Third Reich was in existence, which originally was scheduled to last for one thousand years, you were a journalist and a propagandist.
One might assume, therefore, you are particularly expert in all propaganda matters and journalistic affairs?
A.- I could not contradict you, here.
Q.- In front of you, please look at this map, Exhibit 639. This is an illustrated magazine. Please look at it, take your time, and tell us whether you know this product? It is slightly damaged. Handle it carefully, please. Do you know this production?
A.- I do not recall having seen this magazine in the old days. What I do remember is similar publications; having seen similar publications.
Q.- Do you know who published these similar publications?
A.- These publications of this sort were usual and even popular during the more primitive phases of wartime propaganda. Not only in Germany but anywhere else as well, these things were made all over the world.
Q.- Will you tell us briefly first of all what impression this publication gives you as a expert and what you can tell us about the title publication. What is it, a magazine? Has it been published once? Was it a regular publication?
A.- First of all about the technical aspect, the magazine does not give the impression of being just one copy of a magazine. It seems to be an isolated publication. This pamphlet is not entirely in accordance with the rules and regulations for publications which were in existence then. The name of the responsible editor is missing. The publishing firm is only named, and then the name SB-Main Office is given as the editorial agency. This is most unusual because it was the rule that the name of the author and the person of the responsible man must be named.