Hohberg had to place some of his examiners in the enterprises to create the conditions necessary for the audits required by law. There were enterprises that lacked the legal form of a leading company and had a corresponding lack of clarity in the entire conduct of their business, tax and accounting practices and almost every enterprise had to be altered and improved, some of the enterprises were too highly indebted, and many other such things.
There were in this economic chaos, two tasks of adjustment for Hohberg, besides his principle job of carrying out the legally prescribed examinations. These were: the centralization of control of the company stocks in one person and the reorganization of the over indebted companies. In order to untie this economic Gordian knot Hohberg proposed to Pohl should bring the shock of the various companies into a holding company and take over the stock of the Holding company as a trustee. Up to this time the origin of the capital of the various companies could not be determined because the numerous partners who became trustees had borrowed the money they invested from many different sources.
Another reason for this proposal was the fact that the managers of these companies had heretofore been able to do as they wished, without supervision, while they were brought, for the first time, under central control through the formation of a holding company. The managers offered considerable resistance to this plan because they justifiably feared this supervision.
As far as ownership was concerned, the NSDAP as well as the German Reich were proprietors of the holding company, DWB, and as a result of the various increases in the capital of DWB, at first the Party and later the Reich held a majority interest of the stock. After the last capital increase of DWB to 16 million RM, the Reich had a bare majority interest over the Party. In order to further strengthen the financial position of the German Reich, Hohberg recommended the 30 million Reich Credit from the so-called Reinhard fund.
The DWB company was founded at the end of 1940. Pohl, as fiduciary sole proprietor, appointed himself as chief manager and Georg Loerner as second manager. Hohberg helped, as his agreement stipulated, as an accountant and an economic advisor, to found the holding company. His agreement further required him to act in an advisory capacity until the specialists of the newly founded companies had fully taken over their duties.
Therefore a few of the accountants assigned to Dr. Hohberg helped, at first, to do the work at the DWB. They remained subordinate, as accountants, to Dr. Hohberg, until they were taken over by DWB as employees. Until that time they were either civilian employees of WVHA or attached members of the Waffen SS without an employment contract.
The stamp marking incoming mail dates from this period, when DWB was started and several accountants working for the defendant were temporarily turned over to DWB before they were permanently attached to DWB. The indictment falsely concludes from the letters "WL" on this stamp that the accountants turned over to DWB were still subordinate to Dr. Hohberg after their transfer as permanent employees of DWB. The letters "WL" indicated only persons who were active as accountants and were technically subordinate in that field. However, this technical subordination ceased the moment Pohl had decided that the accountants who had been transferred were no longer to work as Hohberg's accountants, but rather as employees of DWB. The basic reason, why the incoming mail stamp was left in its original form was that the largest part of the incoming mail pertained to tax matters, and the defendant participated in the common mail conferences, when he was in Berlin. But mainly only that part of the incoming mail was discussed that pertained to tax and accounting matters, and not the mail that touched on other legal questions or events of the DWB affiliates of plant group:
Staff G. Hohberg's interest for the incoming mail that referred to tax matters was due to his responsibility as tax advisor and the attendant property bond.
Apart from his collaborater in the founding of the holding company, the defendant Hohberg never, contrary to the unproved claims of the indictment, built up or managed any business enterprises.
Obviously the prosecution arrived at this conclusion because they evidently don't understand the actual position that Dr. Hohberg held as a certified public accountant with the DYB.
The officially appointed certified public accountant is a semiofficial supervisory organ which was created by the law prescribing examinations of municipal and commercial corporations. The certified public accountant acted as a supervisory organ under the Reich Ministry of Economy. The task of a certified public accountant is not to further and assist business enterprises to build up and develop, but rather to guide the organization and development of companies, in the public interest, along certain a legal course, so that in general any harm to the whole economy through conniving intrigues especially of a financial nature, can be prevented. In the certified accountant's profession it became customary to give economic advise to the firm being examined, in accordance with an advisory contract.
A prerequisite for any certified public accountant is his independence. He was subordinate to the Reich Ministry of Economy as well as the Institute of certified Public Accountants, which was the professional organization.
The defendant has no connection with the WVHA, because the DWB was a combination of a great many trading companies into a holding company, and not part of WVHA. There was a connection between DWB and WVHA in that fact that POHL was the chief of WVHA and at the same time the sole fiduciary trustee as well as chief manager of DWB.
The salary Dr. Hohberg received as certified public accountant came exclusively from the companies, and not from WVHA.
Herr Pohl, in accordance with his military background, gave military designations to the civil law structure of DWB, in order to provide a common denominator for all his business enterprises, the official-military as well as the legal-commercial ones, and to be able to show them together on a single plan of organization. This is how the distorted picture of the organization of the DWB arose, which is the basis for the charge against Dr. Hohberg, because DWB is incorrectly looked upon as an official agency. Neither the concern, nor the plants which were affiliated became official agencies or municipal corporations, but remained subject to civil law.
However, it was not the DWB or its employees who were subordinate to Dr. Hohberg, but only those accountants who had been put at his disposal by agreement, and these only in professional matter and not in discipline. This setup was not altered when the Prokurists were appointed, rather Hohberg was and remained solely a certified public accountant and exercised no other function. He never became their superior.
In his capacity as an auditor and economic advisor it was Hohberg's duty to advise the management on economic questions, but no could not exert an influence on this management as to whether they accepted and observed the advice. As Hohberg was liable for intentional or negligent acts in the auditing of any enterprise to the extent of 100,000 RM, and as he could be made responsible by the taxing authorities to the extent of his entire property for tax evasion, it was impossible for him to occupy himself superficially only with the auditing and advising of firms. This obligatorily intensive activity obviously caused the impression that Hohberg had directing authority over these firms. In reality he was only a semi-official supervisor appointed by the state, who was expressly prohibited by legal regulations from exerting influence on the management.
If Hohberg as an auditor of the DWB companies had found normal, well-ordered conditions, he would never have been obliged to care to such an extent for the creation of well-ordered conditions with respect to finance, commercial law and taxes. Only the great number of objections which Hohberg made as an auditor and his various reformpropositions inspired the Prosecution with the idea of a managing activity.
The following paragraphs headed "The Staff" and "Office Chief -W" I shall not read now. I think this is an instance where I can do without reading them, because the two steps mentioned deal or give minute details in the case, and my whole statement about the subject matter has gone into all of this. I shall ask the Tribunal to take note of these paragraphs without reading them.
May I just remark here that on the witness stand Pohl, when he was asked by the Tribunal about this, said that he had never appointed Hohberg Chief of Staff W or Amtschef W.
I shall continue on Page 27 of the German text. The paragraph is headed "Political Attitude of the Defendant as DWB auditor."
The defendant never made any secret of his hostile attitude to the SS so that his political attitude and principles were also known to the SS Fuehrer and resulted in enmity. Many affidavits submitted for the Defendant Hohberg, as well as the statement of the witnesses Dr. Wolf and Dr. Tenberged confirm unanimously that Hohberg since the introduction of the National Socialist way of thinking was an uncompromising enemy of National Socialism and its ideology and what he never changed his opinion. Not a single one of the co-defendants dared to assert that Hohberg adopted a loyal or even friendly attitude towards the SS and NSDAP.
What the defendant thought about the ethics of the SS as expressed in the publications of the Nordland press is evident from the statement of Dr. Tenberged. Hohberg in 1943 urgently dissuaded this book-seller who had been bombed-out more than once and who wanted to renew his stocks and acquire extensive stocks of books from the Nordland press, too, from taking into his book-shop any books whatever from the Nartland press for sale, if he valued the good name of his own enterprise.
The aims of Hohberg's activity for the DWB were in accordance, too. After he had gradually looked behind the scenes, one goal remained fixed for him; annihilation of the planned economic SS power. As auditor he exercised a certain control over Pohl's economic enterprises; this control function he used in so far as he was able to reach his goal. The defendant could not proceed with brutal force for that would have cost him his head at the very first attempt as evidenced by Himmler's Posen. speech. Rather, by using his position as an auditor he pursued his aims which were opposed to the interests of the SS unnoticed but all the more intensively.
How the defendant gave expression to his struggle against the economic strong position of the SS in particular, I shall deal later with that.
It now remains to be examined whether, on the basis of the evidence, the defendant Hohberg was involved with regard to his activity as an economic examiner (Wirtschaftspruefer) and economic counsel (Wirtschaftberater) of the DWB (German Economic Enterprises) with the criminal goals and happenings as asserted by the prosecution, and whether he participated in them in objective and subjective manner; or to put it differently, whether his activity conforms with his personal, contraryaims, just now described. I shall continue on the same page lower down under the heading, "Concentration Camps".
The prosecution asserted that the concentration-camps have been the principle tools through which the defendants carried out the acts with which they are charged. The WVHA (SS Main Economic Administrative Office) had been allegedly competent for all KL-matters beginning with the spring of 1942. it had been in charge not only of the establishment and the construction, but also of the management, maintenance and administration of the KL's. The leading men in the WVHA are therefore allegedly the responsible ones for the conditions and for all criminal happenings in the concentration-camps, as they were active for this task in close collaboration.
This assertion, of the prosecution was not supported by the evidence. It is true that on 1 February 1942, the inspection of the concentration camps was put under the supervision of Mr. Pohl, and as Division Group D integrated in the WVHA, established in the spring, in an organizational manner together with the other divisions A B C and W.
As testified by all witnesses, and as could not be refuted by the prosecution, the Division D, however, worked entirely independently and did not have any organizational connection with the other divisions.
As already stated, the DWV-Konzern exists as organization alongside the WVHA, and did not have any organizational connections either with the inspection of the concentration-camps or with the concentration-camps themselves, nor with the other divisions of the WVHA.
The attempt of the prosecution, to prove by documents that Hohberg had developed an activity dealing with the establishment and maintenance of concentration-camps, was bound to fail. The defendant visited several establishments of the DWB-Konzern, in which prisoners were employed. This was for him as certified public accountant a cogent necessity, if he was to get an opinion regarding the correctness of the economic conditions, which had to be expressed in the remark confirming the balance. His inspections of the plants therefore did not take place on account of the use and the allocation of concentration-camp inmates but were a professional necessity for the legally prescribed examination of the economic conditions of the companies.
In his capacity as certified public accountant Hohberg in the same way visited establishments which did not employ prisoners. In this connection it may be mentioned that only small part of the companies employed prisoners, namely, during the activity of Hohberg 6 of a total of 40 companies. The traveling report, presented by the prosecution, of the then manager of the firm group W IV regarding an inspection trip made together with Hohberg, to Butschewitz, Auschwitz, Lemberg, Lublin and Posen does not contradict these statements. It results from the report that Dr. May and Hohberg inspected the wood working establishments of the DWB-Konzern located in the mentioned places, and that the manager of the group of firms W IV paid visits to responsible persons, among them a concentration-camp commandant, foreman etc., in which Hohberg participated because he was interested, but without having a special duty. The Lublin establishment of the DAW was located in the midst of a labor camp, which at the time had no connection with a concentration camp.
Part of the inmates went in and out without being guarded. The conclusion and suspicion drawn, from this document, that concentration-camp matters were also discussed, has been credibly removed.
Hohberg's participation in this trip was not due to the necessity of a joint accomplishment of an assignment, Dr. May's trip had the purpose of acquainting him with the establishments under his supervision in the places mentioned, and to negotiate with the competent persons. Hohberg only seized the opportunity of the joint trip in order to visit his fellow-student Dr. Savelsberg, who had returned from India, in Auschwitz. Furthermore, some matters had to be attended to, which were connected with his activity as certified public accountant. At the discussions and visits described by Dr. May, Hohberg was present only partly and then only as a person not concerned and just as a listener, as that he would not have to wait in Dr. May's car like a servant. As far as results from the document of the Prosecution that Hohberg participated in discussions, they referred to his sphere of activities as certified public accountant, in the case of Dr. Savelsberg and Dr. Bobermin to purely personal interests. Neither on this trip nor at any other time did Hohberg visit a concentration camp, whereby concentration camp is to be interpreted basically as protective custody camp. He also would have needed a special permission to enter a concentration camp and he never applied for such.
Also the two communications of the Division D to Hohberg, presented by the Prosecution, regarding changes in the payment of compensation for expenditure to concentration camp commandants are not proof for establishing a criminal connection of the defendant Hohberg to the concentration camp matters. Both letters are only two of probably a hundred letters of similar contents. They are without doubt only addressed to Hohberg as a precautionary measure, because Maurer or Gluecks did in the beginning not know the competent referent of the DWB, Anserge. Hohberg could explain credibly and uncontestedly that the payments, to which the letters refer, were deleted, on account of a personal decree of Pohl, to a trust estate which was carried at the DWB and over which Mr. Pohl disposed exclusively.
As far as charges in personnel were concerned, Maurer had to inform the bookkeeping department of the DWB accordingly. Evidently Maurer, not knowing at the beginning who was competent for the current authorization of the payments, therefore, sent the two communications for simplicity's sake to Hohberg. It was hereby made certain that they were forwarded to the correct address.
Slave Labor Program.
If I now turn to the count of the indictment "Slave Labor Program," the following may be prefaced to the result of the evidence: It is uncontested that in a part of the enterprises included in the DWB, prisoners from the concentration-camps were employed. It is furthermore correct that the prisoners in the enterprises, against payment of a certain daily compensation to the Reich, were made available by the concentration-camps and that the prisoners, apart from work premiums, did not get any compensation for their work. The defendant did not know conclusion that the Reich as lesser of the prisoners at 30 Reichs plennige daily pay, hardly puts a part of this pay at the disposal of the prisoners as working wage. These conditions were the same at the economic enterprises of the MB which employe-, prisoners, as at other enterprises, for example the Messershmidt-Works, Junkers-Works, and hundreds of others private enterprises. But that the defendant did actively participate in this slave labor program, could not be proved by the Prosecution.
The Prosecution has claimed that Hohberg participated in a leading and influential way in the planning and execution of the slave labor program, that Hohberg had, as leader and chief of the staff W, built up and managed the economic enterprises in which prisoners were employed, The co-defendants Pohl and Loerner had allegedly been the managing directors of the DWB and therefore the responsible managers of the whole economic enterprises.
The management of the industries was allegedly supervised by members of the staff "W", the chief of which Hohberg had been, Hohberg was alleged as adviser of the Generaldirekter Pohl, to have had the direct supervision over the directors of the DWB and the enterprises under their control.
This representation does not correspond to the facts according to the evidence. When Hohberg, in 1940, came to the DWB, in order to work as a certified accountant and adviser of the management of the enterprises, the DWB-Konzern did not yet exist. What Hohberg did find, was a great number of economic enterprises of many business branches, which worked entirely independently, for the greatest part under the management of SS-leaders, and which had no organisatory connection to one another A part of the companies was excessively involved in debts, and neglects from a bookkeeping organisatory, tax - and price viewpoint. The requirements of an orderly businesslike management of the companies was only deficiently fulfilled, Hohberg knew of the fact that in the beginning 3, at his withdrawal 6 out of 40 enterprises employed prisoners. If Hohberg intended as directive to bring the enterprises into a shape of being capable of examination, then first of all the commercial mismanagement which he found, and especially the disorder in the accounting system of the enterprises, had to be abolished. In this connection the defendant had nothing to do with questions regarding prisoners.
Hohberg did not have any influence on the establishment of enterprises or undertakings. According to Hohberg's statement, 20 commercial companies were newly founded during his activity as certified public accountant, among them three in which prisoners were employed. These 3 prisoner enterprises had already previously existed, however without having the legal form of a commercial company. Upon Hohberg's suggestion these 3 prisoner enterprises without legal form were provided with a legal commercial form, for example, Textil - und Lederverwertungs GmbH. From this moment on, the capital substance of these enterprises was withdrawn from the arbitrary grasp of the SS.
The providing of this for did not have any influence on the employment of prisoners.
If we consider the fact that the three enterprises, put into a legal commercial form had already previously existed to the same extent, not a single company with the goal of employing prisoners has been founded during the activity of Hohberg.
Hohberg also had never to decide whether and in which way prisoner were to be used. Not once was he consulted regarding the decision of a question of prisoner allocation, nor questions of creating and financing of new enterprises within a company already existing and employing prisoners, for example Dest or DAW.
Hohberg never exercised a supervision over directors of the DWB and the subordinate enterprises which exceeded his supervisory activities as certified public accountant, and would have placed him in the position of a superior. This results from the document NO.-3*** Exh. 698, in which Pohl expressly declares that the Office Chiefs and Main Department Managers, working in the DWB-Konzern, are from a disciplinary standpoint, without any exception subordinate to him personally.
The documents, presented by the Prosecution, can not refute Hohberg statement. If the defendant was at all in any way consulted regarding the new founding of companies, then questions of financing, form of the company and occurring questions were exclusively involved.
The documents presented by the Prosecution in this connection, contain the minutes of negotiations which were conducted for the construction of a factory for the purpose of the utilization of clinker from the Hermann-Goering-Works at Linz. From these documents the Prosecution tries to gather that Hohberg was the instigator for the delivery of raw material by the Hermann-Goering-Works, and allotting of the task to the WVHA of building the factory and of making available KL-prisoners for the plant. However, these assertions of the Prosecution are refuted by the contents of the documents presented by the Prosecution themselves as well as by Hohberg's statement.
As clearly results from the Doc. NO 1913 Exh. 394, the plan of the construction of this plant, which later was not built, was based on an agreement between Himmler and Goering, which was forwarded as an order to Generaldirektor Pleiger of the Hermann-Goering-Works and to Pohl as Chief of the WVHA. Pohl gave Schendorf the order to conduct further negotiations, after he himself had got in touch with Pleiger. He reserved to himself a decision. This results from the facts, as Hohberg testified as witness, that on the document is a handwritten remark of Pohl reading: "I will work the plan through myself". The remark on the document NO 1915 Exh. 396, that Hohberg was "federfuehrend" in the matter and should "keep Pohl informed", means no more than that Hohberg, in as much as he was at all consulted, should keep the minutes and report to Pohl, as he indeed twice did.
The real negotiations were conducted by Schonderf without Hohberg. That Hohberg was at times used as Pohl's reporter does not involve him because it is a part of the normal duties of a certified accountant, to assist as an adviser regarding questions of new establishments where the form of the company, financing and tax questions are concerned. This activity however, does not have any connection with the founding as such, and especially not with the question of prisoner allocation. This results from the document itself, according to which as a result of the negotiations with Schondorf, three projected contracts were discussed during one discussion in which Hohberg participated. The contract regarding the prisoner allocation, however, was not among them. Therefore Hohberg neither had anything to do with questions regarding prisoner allocation, nor did he assist Mr. Pohl or the other participants in considering this question. As Hohberg states in his testimony, he could not exercise any influence regarding the question of prisoner allocation simply because this allocation had already been agreed upon in principle with Pohl, on the basis of an agreement with Goering. That Hohberg did not participate in anyway authoritatively, results furthermore from the affidavit of the Generaldirektor Pleiger, negotiating for the Hermann-Goering-Works, in which he declares **** he does not know Hohberg at all and therefore can not have negotiated with him.
Likewise, it can not be assumed from the document of the Prosecution NO 1916 Exh. 397, presented in the same connection, that Hohberg participated in discussions regarding prisoner allocation, and this applies to its financial aspect as well. Hohberg reports in this document to Pohl that the participation of the WVHA in this enterprise from a financial standpoint, would be senseless, unless the HermannGoering-Enterprises would agree to deliver a part of the turnover to the "Lebensborn". Hohberg declares in this connection that he was the recording clerk, and that the document contains the result of the negotiations. He had as a certified public accountant, only pointed out the fact that under given circumstances, the Hermann-GoeringEnterprises wanted to reserve the right to always syphen off the prof according to their own judgment. The objection regarding Lebensborn did not originate with him. By the way, this document dissuades from carrying out the transaction.
Neither has the project been carried out so that, already seen from this viewpoint no punishable action could have been committed, because, according to the Control Council Law No. 10, there is no punishable participation in an attempt, but only participation in an accomplished offense.
Also the other documents presented by the Prosecution cannot prove the accomplicity of Hohberg in the slave labor program. Similar to the case "Schlacke-Linz" are the discussions, which took place between the WVHA and the People's Car Plant (Volkswagenwerk) Fallersleben. They aimed, in execution of an existing written command by Hitler, at the construction of a foundry with the use of concentration camp prisoners, also ordered by Hitler, in the plant of the works. Pohl called Hohberg by telephone to this discussion, without his knowing in advance the subject of this discussion. However, to all intents and purposes he did not participate in the discussion. His presence was necessary, in order to be available in case questions of a ****** cial, price- or tax-nature arose.
Questions regarding the use of prisoners were not discussed during this negotiation, either, as results from the memorandum. Kammler transmitted the minutes of this negotiation to Hohberg only because, Hohberg was present during these negotiations. The defendants record of the negotiation was not passed along. They were out-dated by Kammler's remark. Aside from discussion, Hohberg was never again consulted regarding the question Fallersleben. Nor does he know of the further development of the matter.
In a report by Kammler to Pohl regarding discussions with State Councillor Dr. Schiebdr concerning the transfer of armament enterprises to the concentration-camps, Kammler, who did not know anything of the organization of the DWB-Konzern, falsely designates Hohberg as compete for negotiations regarding prices. The conclusion of the Prosecution resulting herefrom, that Hohberg was also concerned with these questions and had discussed them with Dr. Schieber, is according to the statement by Hohberg and the affidavit presented by Schieber incorrect. Schieber declares that it is not at all possible in view of the nature of the object of discussion, that he or one of his collaborators negotiated with Hohberg regarding this subject. Hohberg himself has credibly stated that there was no necessity at all to use him regarding this subject, but that Kammler, because he did not have sufficient knowledge of the German laws concerning prices, and starting from false suppositions, had referred to Hohberg's competence.
If I now turn to the contents of these documents of the Prosecution, which refer to the questions regarding the pay for the prisoners, it might seem at the first moment as if it were difficult for the defendant Hohberg, to invalidate the reproach of having participated in the exploitation of prison labor and the slave labor program on the whole.
And just here we have to deal with a typical example, of how next to a field of activities punishable in itself, there may exist an activity which is not punishable by the Penal Law.
The document NO 1035 Exh. 405 contains a letter of Hohberg to Pohl, in which he discusses the amount of the prisoner's compensation to be paid to the Reich by the enterprises of the DWB, and proposes to Pohl to increase them from 0,30 to 2,50 RM. The difference between O.30 RM and the prisoner's wages to be paid, should be currently collected at the SS-Wirtschafts-Verwaltungs-Kauptant and put, totally or partly, at the disposal of the "Lebensborn". By this, the assertion of the Prosecution seems to be justified, that the entire economic activity of the SS aimed at the enrichment of the SS by the use of criminal methods, and the obtaining financial means for the execution of further crimes. And yet, the defendant is able to exonerate himself beyond any doubt.
It is the task of a Certified Public Accountant to check the different balance columns of the companies as to their correctness and check at the same time adherence to price--stop regulations. An examination of the amount to be paid to prisoners is necessarily bound up with the check of the different balance columns as trustworthily explained by Hohberg. The low rate of 0.30 RM for each day's work by a prisoner had to be objected to as incongruously low by the Certified Public Accountant Hohberg as the acceptable amount paid to the Reich for work done by prisoners amounted to more in any case. To this was added the fact that due to the exceptionally low rate of pay the SS enterprises gained a large non-substantiated headway economically, in comparison with the other economic enterprises. Hohberg was unable to ratify the balance of the Certified Public Accountant without having corrected the amount remitted to the Reich for prison labor.
If he wanted to do so anyhow, then he had to succeed in raising the prisoners' pay beforehand. According to his statement he tried unsuccessfully for 1 ½ years to have the prisoners' wages raised. Final he used a trick and tried to inveigle Pohl into raising the wages, by proposing to put the difference between the 0.30 RM to be paid to the Reich for every prisoners day's work and the actually charged rate at the disposal of the Lebensborn society.
It was actually well known to Hohberg as an old financial specialist of revenue and price laws, that according to rules and regulations of the war economy decree and tax-law, practically the entire proceeds of the middlemans profit would go to the Reich leaving nothing to the Lebensborn. This is certified by the opinion of a respected tax-export. It seems that Pohl noticed the devilish intent in this very quickly, considered the matter as unfit for discussion and threw Hohberg's proposition into the wastepaper basket.
Apart from the fact that this Hohberg proposition was never realized and that Hohberg never could have made himself thereby an accomplice in crime one could never speak of prisoner exploitation at the instance of Hohberg, even if his proposition had been carried out. For in so far as the prisoners did not receive wages anyhow due to a legal ruling by the Reich it was absolutely a matter of indifference to them how much the enterprise had to pay to the Reich for the prison labor. The prisoners would have received no more anyhow.
The Reich was authorized to pay the amounts or part of these received to the prisoner in form of wages. The Reich hired them out and received their wage payments. The defendant as Certified Public Accountant had no influence on the fact that the Reich paid wages to the prisoners. It was merely his task to see to it that the Companies kept their payments to the Reich, as the agency hiring them out, at a suitable level. As a result of raising the prisoner-payments from 0.30 RM to an adequate level, desired by the defendant, the Reich was for the first time in a position to pay wages to the prisoners. Hohberg can not be made responsible for the fact that the Reich did not do so anyhow. Hohberg's concern was that of tax-advisor namely that a Company fulfils its tax obligations. The tax-advisor is also not responsible for the way the Fiscal Office manages the taxes receive.
If it had been a case of paying the prisoners suitable wages, the defendant would have been the first one to do so with his strong social inclinations. But he was not one of those to decide this and had no personal nor official connections with this agency of the Reich.
Not in order to further exploitation of Prisoners did Hohberg have to concern himself with the question of payments for prison labor, no, only because to him as Public Accountant it was a legal duty to see to it that payments made for expenditures of the Reich, - and such was the making available of prisoners kept by the Reich to the Companies - showed up correctly in the balancesheets of the companies.
With regard to the question of prisoner employment it to be said in summarizing, that Hohberg hold no position in organization of the German Economic Enterprises (DWB) nor did he set in any capacity which provided him with influence on the direction and management of the economic enterprise and therefore on the allocation of prison labor. For this reason it is out of the question to speak of criminal responsibility of the defendant in regard to planning and accomplishment of the slave-labor program.
I now come to a new chapter.
It seems obvious that the Prosecution believes itself capable of proving by different documents that Hohberg participated in the pillaging of private and government property in occupied territories. But the prosecution was unable to present proof to this effect. It is a question of furniture factories for sale in the Government General in Document NO-1034 Exh. 444 A. A criminal act of the defendant Hohberg with regard to the furniture factory has not been proved by his telephone conversation with his former fellow college student Dr. Pfeiffer, because this concerned a normal purchase which was never realized.