Had I been convinced that everything had been adequate and sufficient, this would not have been necessary.
Q. Now, what part did Georg Loerner play in this? Did Loerner help you to do everything possible?
A. I cannot recall individual cases, of course, but I am quite sure that he did what was in his power. It is quite possible that we discussed it now and again, but whenever I came across deficiencies, I attempted to clear them up as quickly as possible-- not through Loerner.
Q. And also directly you mean?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Now, what was your impressions of Loerner, on his own initiative did not do certain things he could have done from the point of view of supplying camps?
A. My impression was of Loerner that he always did his best, whatever was possible.
Q. And that was also discussed in your conversation?
A. I do not know what we discussed in detail in these conversations; if we discussed conditions I always had the impression that Loerner did everything that was within the balance of the possible, but I do not recall individual conversations. I simply don't remember.
BY DOCTOR HEIM: (for the defendant Hohberg)
Q. Witness, who carried out the legal obligatory auditory examinations? Was it Baier or Dr. Richard Karoly?
A. I believe Karoly, but I am not quite sure.
Q. Who carried out the compulsory auditing examinations before Baier became the chief?
A. Karoly joined us rather late. I believe he was called in by Baier, who did them before that. It might have been Hohberg himself, as an examiner.
Q. In cross-examination you said that Dr. Hohberg in 1940 started with his duties as an auditor. You also said that Co-Defendant Hohberg at that time was engaged in duties in the main office administration and economy. I would like to ask you, was Dr. Hohberg in that period and later on under your supervision in the WVHA or did he merely have a working contract with you?
A. Hohberg and the WVHA were connected, by a working contract.
Q. On redirect examination you stated that the institution of economic inspector was never actually carried out. After that period were there any changes in the activities of Hohberg's duties? That is the carrying out of the compulsory auditing?
A. No, not that I know of.
Q. On cross-examination you were asked this question: Is it true that Staff W was in charge of supervising DWB? And you said as fallows: Yes, as far as taxation, legal and reviewing matters were concerned. And I would like to ask you did you wish to say thereby that Staff W had the right to supervise and order these groups of firms?
A. No, I repeatedly said that members of the Staff W did not have the right to give orders to the firms. They merely were consulting agencies. Orders came from me directly to the firm.
Q. The Prosecution asked you on cross-examination whether Osit and the German medical supply G.m.b.H. were part of Staff W. You did not have an opportunity to answer that question. I would like to ask you this: Is your testimony when you were cross-examined correct, that Osti and the German medical supply G.m.b.H. were under you and Loerner?
A. As far as the organizational chart was concerned, I put it under Staff W, because somehow it had to be put somewhere, but really they were independent enterprises which were under their managers, directed by me, or I was a shareholder, and when I directed the enterprises I made use of the advice given by my collaborators.
Q. I shall now come to Document No. - 005, which is Exhibit 390, in Document Book 14, page 48 of the German version. In the cross-examination the Prosecution refered to that document.
It is an answer by Hohberg to a letter from Bobermin to Hohberg which is reproduced at the following page of the document book. Dr. Hohberg in his letter to Bobermin says that all auditors have been taken away from him and that the other auditors had been ordered to go to Lublin for special assignment. Here is my question: From that time onward when these people were ordered to Lublin that is, after January 20, 1943, Dr. Hohberg had the right to issue any orders to these detailed auditors?
A. I said that before. The auditors were not sent to Lublin only temporarily to the enterprises there. That was a final measure whereby they were given to these enterprises, and for that reason they were no longer under the orders of Hohberg or his successor and were immediately under the business managers of these firms.
Q. Did Dr. Hohberg have anything to do with these auditing measures in Lublin which are referred to in the document book?
A. I deduce from the document you mentioned, from the sentence, under the direction of SS Brigadefuehrer Globocnik and SS Oberbahnfuehrer Dr. Horn, that this refers to the foundation of Osti, with which Hohberg had nothing to do. That becomes clear even from the date.
DR. HEIM: Thanks very much. No further questions.
DR. FRITSCH: (for the defendant Baier) May it please the Court, this morning the witness was shown a document by the Prosecution from which it was to become clear or rather he answered a question as follows:
That Baier and he had been to Auschwitz together. I myself was not present at that time, and I deeply regret that I am unable to give you the document number. Perhaps, therefore, I might ask the witness now whether Baier at any time visited Auschwitz together with him or whether he went there with somebody else whose name sounds rather similar.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Court: I think I am in a position to enlighten the Court. By mistake the name Baer was translated as Baier. Baer was the commandant of Auschwitz. I myself did not as the witness that question.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no confusion there. The name was Baer, B-A-E-R.
DR. FRITSCH: All I wanted to do was clear up one point. On cross-examination you were shown Document 1036, Exhibit 66, Document Book 3, page 82 of the German version. Have you got that document Book? Will you please take a look at this document?
(Witness going through document books.)
Can you tell me how it came that Baier signed that document? Will you please look at the dictation initials?
A. Well, I don't know whether this was Weller--
Q. Would you be inclined -- could you tell us what these dictation initials are?
A. WR Dr. MF/CH.
Q. If your Honor please, may I ask that the witness be shown the photostat copy of this, so that he can see whether there is an error or not -- but perhaps meanwhile you can answer my question: How it came Baier dealt with things like that; as you explained it when I examined you, you said that Baier was mainly concerned with checking accounts and here without a doubt he signs an order which came from you in a matter totally unconnected with checking.
A. Well, I mean, a thing like that might happen, because here in the final analysis we are concerned with the transfer of a certain field of activities to Cracow and I probably discussed this with him, because in the first place this was a business of accounting which was to be instituted there, which----
Q. Witness, can you tell us who reported to you about these matters?
A. I do not know.
Q. Is it possible it was Dr. Hofmann?
A. I don't recall. It is possible, but I cannot say for certain.
Q. If the dictation initials were not MF but HF, who could it have been then?
A. Then it could have been Hofmann.
Q. And how would it have come about in that case?
A. In that case probably there would have been a conversation between Dr. Hofmann and myself. Dr. Hofmann worked on it and Baier signed it.
Q. And why did you not sign it yourself?
A. I do not know any more.
Q. You must have had some reason?
A. It is quite impossible for me to say among these thousands of documents why I did not sign that particular one, why Baier signed it.
Q. Witness, you misunderstand. It is not only this single document. Surely, there might have been an order from you to the effect that when you were absent, matters discussed with you previously by the exports might be signed by somebody else if you yourself were not present.
A. That is impossible but I cannot recall.
Q The possibility does exist, does it not?
A Yes, it does. It says something else here. The dictation initials says Dr. "Hf" which means Dr. Hoffmann.
Q May I ask that the record show this your Honor that the German version of this document is incorrect in this?
THE PRESIDENT: Will you name the document specifically right now by number?
DR. FRITSCH: It's in Document Book No. 3, Exhibit No. 66, German page 82. Unhappily I do not know the page of the English Book, and the number is 1036.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, you wish the initials appearing on the document to be shown as what?
DR. FRITSCH: Hf.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q For Dr. Volk and Dr. Bobermin. Witness, I should like to read to you once again Document NO-3161, Exhibit 543 which was submitted this morning on cross examination. Will you please tell the Court who were higher finance presidents?
A These presidents were officials immediately under the Reich Minister of Finance and they were in charge of the larger financial districts.
Q Did they have Reich authority then and in now way connected with the WVHA?
A They were Reich authorities immediately under the Reich Minister of Finance.
Q Will you please tell the Court who was the Reich Commissioners? Who were they?
A The Reich Commissioners were the representatives of the Reich Government within the Gau districts and their orders were to carry out defensive assignments.
Q Are you not making a mistake here, witness, under the paragraph of this occupied territory?
A Quite. Yes, I made a mistake there. What I was talking about here are the Reich Commissioners in the Reich Territories. In the occupied territories the Reich Commissioners were the officials immediately under the Reich Minister for Easter Territories, that is, Rosenberg, again an authority of the State.
Q Is it correct again that these authorities again were not connected with the WVHA?
A No, that is quite correct. They had nothing to do with the WVHA.
Q Under whom were the Army Commanders?
A The Wehrmacht commanders were, of course, under the OKW.
Q Who was in charge of the Government General? Who was that?
A That, of course, was the Reich Department.
Q And whose task was that?
A That was the agency of the Government General.
Q Who was in charge of that agency?
AAt that time it was Frank.
Q And under Paragraph 4?
A The German Ministry of State for Bohemia and Moravia again was a Reich Department and he was either immediately under Hitler or the Reich Minister of the Interior.
Q Is it therefore correct to say that administrations of Jewish mobile and immobile property was not connected with any agency of the WVHA but only the Reich Department?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q Now, will you please tell the Court now who seized or confiscated their property? Who was that?
A The seizing could only be carried out by authorities of the state.
Q What authority was it?
A It was either these mentioned here or when police were called in.
Q What police organs would be called in particular?
A The Secret State Police.
Q And under whom Was the Secret State Police?
A Under the RSHA.
Q Is it therefore correct to say that the WVHA as far as Jewish movable and immovable property was concerned had neither the right to confiscate or administer?
A That's correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, WVHA did something with the confiscated Jewish property. You didn't seize it, you didn't administer it. What did you do?
A Well, it says that under paragraph 2 if besides these competencies SS Agencies come into possession of Jewish property they had to turn it over to the above mentioned offices under paragraph 1.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right, somebody else seized it, WVHA transported it and channeled it and a third agency administered it?
A No, one could not call it a transport, Mr. President. One should understand rather this is the point of the decree actually that some SS agency came into the possession of Jewish property without my knowledge after it was confiscated by the competent authority without realizing how they had to deal with it and the manner of it processing. That is to say, the transfer to the Reich being explained -- it being ordered here.
THE PRESIDENT: That's right, but you are the one who gave the order -- the decree as to how it should be channeled. As to how it should be routed once it came into the possession of the SS.
A No channels. All we are concerned with here is to put it down into the books of the Reich --accounted. That becomes clear from paragraph 6 or 5 what Agency of the Reich Treasury -- how these pro perties should be accounted for.
THE PRESIDENT: And you specified the places where the property should be accounted for? That is, the several places that it should be inventoried and appraised and accounted for?
A Quite; where it was to be accounted for and inventoried.
THE PRESIDENT: All right; after that I come right back to the thing I said. The SD or the police seized the property and you inventoried and appraised it and prescribed the method for giving credit for it and the Reich Finance Minister or the Reichsbank took it in and kept it?
A Mr. President, it would be wrong to assume from here that the WVHA did look after or dealt with the administration of the entire Jewish property. That was only in order for the police case, if and when SS agencies should or had come into the possession of Jewish property. Jewish property was accounted for by the Trusteeship East, another agency. Large property would come into the agency. In our case we are only concerned with exceptional cases.
THE PRESIDENT: You are trying to say that you did not inventory or appraise all of the property that was taken from the Jews?
A I am quite certain that it was only a small section, because I was not the Central Administration Office for Jewish property. That the WVHA never was.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, how did WVHA happen to appraise any of it then? You appraised only that part that got into the hands of the SS.
A Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: But who else seized any property from the Jews -- I think I know the answer to this ahead of time, but who else seized any property from the Jews and appraised it, except the SS.
AAll of the agencies mentioned under 1 and more.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I am talking about who took the property from the Jews in the first place. The Gestapo?
A That can only be the Gestapo or State authorities who had the right to confiscate because the WVHA did not have the right to confiscate anything. I was not in position to confiscate Jewish property.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean no SS men confiscated any property from Jews?
A Members of the WVHA, no, nor could any SS men confiscate property. Conditions were always that there must be a State or Police measure which could be decided only by State or Police agencies.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. So the SS men did no confiscating for themselves, -- that's very bad. I'll start over again. You mean that no SS men confiscated any property from Jews?
A. He was quite unable to do so - impossible.
Q. Why unable to do so? All he needed to do was to get there ahead of the Gestapo.
A. Well, not any SS men could just go by and confiscate property. That is the matter of the highest authority. Only the police or the State authority could do that.
Q.Let me take it from there. No one could confiscate property from Jews, except the SD or the Gestapo?
A. The Gestapo and the agencies I mentioned here, which I mentioned here under "1". They are agencies of the State and they would use the Gestapo for that purpose, yes.
Q. All right. Now you did inventory some property taken from the Jews, I mean, the WVHA did, didn't it?
A. No, Your Honor. All I did was to deal with that property which was received from the SS treasury. I was to inventory that in the official manner, but that does not concern any Jewish property confiscated somewhere. The property could be inventoried and accounted by agencies of the Gestapo with the financial officials by any agency. -The Army even, which also confiscated, and they would inventory it there --- All State agencies.
Q. Don't be impatient with me. I may be a little dull. You told me that the WVHA did appraise and inventory some Jewish property. Didn't you say that?
A. No, Mr. President. It is quite impossible that I said that, because the WVHA was not able to confiscate anything.
Q. I didn't say "confiscate." I didn't say "confiscate" and you keep telling me that you couldn't confiscate. You did something with Jewish property, didn't you --- the WVHA?
A. As far as Jewish property reached the Treasury of the SS, it was inventoried on behalf of the Reich on the basis of this decree, but first of all there must have been a confiscation, which was not carried out by the WVHA.
Q. That is Number 27. You have said that 27 times -- that the WVHA did not confiscate, so I will settle with you on that score. The WVHA did something with Jewish property. They appraised it, didn't they. Didn't your organization appraise property that somebody seized from the Jews?
A. No.
Q. You didn't?
A. Immovable property, for instance, which is being referred to here, we only came into contact with when we purchased it, but then the appraising was also done by the Finance authorities and not by us.
Q. But what about securities, and golden fillings and spectacles, and fountain pens? Did you inventory any of those?
A. All these things went to the Reichbank.
Q. I don't care where they went. Did the WVHA inventory them and appraise them?
A. No, they were not inventoried or appraised by the WVHA. They were sent on to the Reichbank in the same way they came to Berlin. No accountancy or any other measure was taken by the WVHA.
Q. Well, I'll try to make this up. Am I to understand then that the WVHA had nothing whatever to do of any kind with any property that was seized from Jews by anybody?
A. Yes.
Q. You mean that seriously?
A. Yes.
Q.The WVHA never had anything to do with it -- with any of the Jewish property, movable or immovable?
A. What I mean to say, Mr. President, that confiscated Jewish property no matter why it was confiscated would be sent to the WVHA as a central administrative office.
That was not the case. Such valuables as reached Berlin, which is something quite different and has nothing to do with confiscating the valuables. All valuables from an action without accounting we sent all to the Reichbank and otherwise we had nothing to do with confiscating Jewish property.
Q. Well you did have something to do with Jewish personal property. Leave the word "confiscated" out. That is apparently your out. You did handle Jewish personal property that came from the East?
A. Only as far as -- only to the extent which we discussed here in the trial, but not in any other respect.
A. I don't care to what extent -- to some extent you handled Jewish personal property that came from the East, didn't you?
A. As far as it came from these actions to Berlin, we had to send it on to the Reichbank. Nothing else.
Q. That is what I have been trying to get you to say. You did have something to do with some Jewish personal property?
A. Of course.
Q. "Natuerlich", but a minute ago you said "no." All right, I won't quarrel with you. What did you do with the property that you did get from the East, from the Jews? You inventoried it and appraised it and sent it on to the Reichbank, didn't you?
A. No, it wasn't appraised or inventoried by us. As the transports reached Berlin they were sent on to the Reichbank.
Q. And you kept no record of it -- your department?
A. No, no lists were kept by us. Melmer, who accompanied these transports to the Reichsbank was given by the Reichsbank later a copy of the receipt without actual value being mentioned. that the transport had been handed over. I believe that was as far as the matter went.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. You said further something about this I don't understand and you sent this order dated the 4th of July, 1944, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. That is the Prosecution Exhibit for Identification 543, and you headed it "The Reinhart Matter, Secret."
A. Yes.
Q. What did you mean by "Reinhart"?
A. That is the dictator's initials. That was not the Reinhart -
Q. I am not asking you about the initials. I an asking you about Reinhardt.
A. That is the Reinhardt action.
Q. What is the Reinhardt Action?
A. That was carried out in Lublin in the Government General.
Q. Confiscating Jewish property?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, now, you said you sent this order out in regard to the Reinhardt Action and you sent it to several of your administrative offices?
A. Yes.
Q. You sent it to Amt. A-4?
A. Yes.
Q. And Amt. A-1?
A. Yes.
Q. And also to Amtsgruppe B?
A. Yes.
Q. And Amtsgruppe D in Oranienberg?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you in Section 2, you say this: As far as SS officers have come into possession of Jewish property they have to turn it over to the above mentioned offices. Well, now, what do you mean? If you don't intend to turn over confiscated Jewish property to the offices under you, what did you mean by that?
A. It is not to be understood here that confiscated valuables are to be transferred to the above mentioned offices. That is not the sentence here at all.
Q. I didn't say transferred. It says, "Turned over to them"; confiscated Jewish property.
A. It says, "The above mentioned agencies to which the letter went, as far as they had come into possession of Jewish property, had to turn it over to the above mentioned offices."
Q. Of course they couldn't turn it over unless it came into their possession. Anyone understands that.
A. The agencies mentioned here under Paragraph 1. That has nothing to do with the Reinhardt action.
Q. Then you told them to turn over to those agencies the property that had been confiscated under the Reinhardt action, didn't you?
A. No.
Q. If you didn't, I can't understand English. That's all.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO):
Q. Let me just ask one question. I share a little of the perplexity of my brother judges regarding your alleged ignorance of these articles taken from the Jews. I understand you now to say that you physically in no way had anything to do with the personal property. Now, answer that. Don't become ignorant. Just answer that now.
A. These are quite different matters here, I never denied the possibility that articles from the Reinhardt Action from the Government General were turned over to the Reich Bank; but that is an entirely different matter. Here I never disputed that we has something to do with Jewish property under the Reinhardt Action; but that is some thing quite different. The action Reinhardt was finished by July 1944; and the agencies which are mentioned here, all Higher SS and Police Leaders in the Reich and everywhere are being given the general directive here on how they should deal with such Jewish property as might reach them.
It is said here under 2, that they must turn it over to the agencies named under Paragraph 1. That is an entirely different matter. I never denied that we had something to do with Jewish property. Of course, we turned it over to the Reich. But they had nothing to do with this.
Q. Then you did at sometime have physical control over these personal articles taken from the liquidated Jews?
A. No control, because the transports-
Q. No control? Didn't you personally send to Himmler sixteen watches which were taken from dead Jews?
A. But that does not mean that I had control over it, your Honor.
Q. Didn't you repair fifteen of these watches yourself and send them to Himmler?
A. That is quite possible; but I don't understand that to mean control Control means supervision.
Q. You do not call the physical taking of an object, having it repaired under your supervision, and then sent to your superior, as control?
A. No, by control I mean something quite different.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's forget our control.
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal II will be in recess for 15 minutes.
( A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I believe that during the examination of the defendant by the Tribunal a certain misunderstanding occurred which was caused by a mistake in the translation. The witness spoke about the "Kontrolle", and that was translated with "control". The English word "control" has a different meaning from the German. In other words, it is "supervisory capacity" or "right of disposal", and the word used by the witness, the German word "Kontrolle" should have been translated with "supervision".
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we will so understand it, that "Kontrolle" in German means the right to direct or to supervise and something more than the mere physical possession of a thing.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Then, I would like to clear up another misunderstanding which might occur; namely, witness, you informed us that the government of the Government General was being directed or managed by a person by the name of Frank. Is that person Frank the same person who is the defendant Frank here in this Courtroom?
A. No.
Q. That was not the same Frank, was it?
A. No, that was Governor General Frank, not the defendant Frank.
Q. It was that person who was placed before the International Military Tribunal and sentenced to death?
A. Yes.
Q. Take a look at Document NO 3161 and read the first sentence of paragraph 2.
A. "As far as SS agencies have come into possession of Jewish property, they have to turn it over to the above mentioned offices".
Q. I ask you now, witness, to what offices was that Jewish property to be transferred?
A. To these mentioned under Paragraph I, 1,2, 3, and 4.
Q. There might be a misunderstanding, here. Would you clear it up.
A. In the Reich area, the Oberfinanzpraesidenten; in the occupied territories, the offices of the Reich Commissioners, i.e., the commanders of the Wehrmacht; in the General Government, the Government of the General Government; in Bohemia and Moravia, to the German Minister of State for Bohemia and Moravia.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal what the aims were that you pursued in that decree?
A. Well, generally speaking, so that the question of the administration of the Jewish property, as far as the SS agencies were concerned, would be cleared up.
Q. Is the following thing correct: I want you to answer my question with Yes or No. Did you want to state the following things; That the SS agencies are not competent for Jewish property but only the Oberfinanzpraesidenten, the Reich Commissioners, the commanders of the Wehrmacht, and that the SS agencies, if they possibly can and if they received property, have to transfer that Jewish property to the above mentioned Reich agencies?
A. Yes, that is the way I meant it.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Do you know of the fact if such a decree had been issued by other agencies, or rather, by other offices also in order to clear up those matters; namely, who was to administer Jewish property?
A I even assume that. I assume that this final decree was based on other general decrees of a similar nature.
Q Then there were probably some things that were unclarified about the right of confiscation in Germany prior to 1945. Who was it that could confiscate property in Germany, particularly Jewish property?
A The Gestapo, Secret State Police.
Q Could a member of the SS walk into an apartment of a Jew and confiscate property there?
A No, he could not do so.
Q Can you give us a reason? Can you tell us why the SS was accused of that and why the impression was created that the SS was doing so? Think of the uniform perhaps.
A Yes, I know. You see the members of the Gestapo were mostly members of the SS and wherever they appeared they were regarded as members of the SS.
Q What uniform did the Gestapo wear in the occupied territories?
A Well, I believe they were wearing the field grey uniform.
Q Was that the SS uniform?
A Well, I assume that that was the field grey SS uniform.
Q If such a Gestapo agent, who at the same time was a member of the SS, carried out a confiscation did he act in that capacity as a Gestapo agent or as an SS member?
A He acted in his capacity as a Gestapo agent.
Q And did the SS have anything to do with that. Did the SS issue any instructions?
A No, the SS could not do that.
Q In other words, an SS Fuehrer, an SS leader, could he give an order to one of his subordinate SS men who was at the same time a Court No. II, Case No. 4.Gestapo agent?