So he was not quite successful when he invented this particularly story if he told the story here about having loaded coal. Furthermore, Braunagle was not his company commander, what Braunagl had to do with the driver Otto, since Otto did not even belong to the baker's company, I cannot understand at all.
Q. Otto then described the next incident at Biala-Zerkow where the defendant Tschentscher is alleged to have shot at a Jew. Did you ever hear of any such incident, officially or unofficially?
A. No, I never heard anything about it.
Q. If you had obtained knowledge, would you have objected to all the atrocities which have been mentioned here - Senn, Surth, Braunagl and Tschentscher? Would you have taken any action there?
A. Yes, naturally, I would have taken immediate steps with the Army courts-martial.
Q. You would have asked for an army courts-martial procedure?
A. Yes. after all, if I had not done that then I myself would have been placed before a military courts-martial by my divisional commander and I certainly would not have exposed myself to that danger. Any act which could be considered to constitute a murder, a war crime, or any other atrocity, I would never have tried to cover any such acts.
Q. Did you have any connection with the Einsatzgruppen of the SD?
A. I neither heard anything about the Einsatzgruppen nor did I see anything.
Q. Did you know anything about there existence?
A. No, I knew nothing about this existence at all. We never say any SD men in our combat sector.
Q. As the last locality, the witness Otto mentioned Fodorke. Do you know that locality and do you know anything about the billets there?
A. Yes, I know the locality. However, I cannot recall any billeting conditions any more because I have been there only a very short time and during that time I left for the Reich.
THE PRESIDENT: Where did you go after you were detached from the battalion the last of September?
THE WITNESS: I went to Berlin.
THE PRESIDENT: And was that the last field duty that you saw?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You were not at the front after that?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 28 August 1947)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 28 August 1947, 0930-1630. Justice Robert M Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 2.
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. STAKELBERG: Dr. von Stakelberg for the defendant Fanslau. Your Honor, with the permission of the Tribunal I shall continue my examination of the witness Fanslau.
BY DR STAKELBERG:
Q Witness, yesterday, we had already mentioned all the localities and all the incidents, and we discussed them here, which were the subject of the testimonies of Otto and Sauer. I want to ask you some additional questions with regard to the incident at Zloozow. Can you recall the marching order which the witness Otto had stated?
A Yes
Q Can you give us any information about that marching order?
A Yes, I can tell you the general marching order.
Q And what was the general marching order in your unit?
AAt the head of the column there were one or two motorcyclists; then came Tachentscher's car; then came the car of Schaefer, and Schaefer was the deputy of Tschentscher; than came the vehicles of the physician of the field treasury; and then for the most part there were one or two more passenger cars of other officers. The sequence of the last four vehicles which I have mentioned may have interchanged from time to time. However, as I said before, they were at the head of the column. Then came a small truck, which carried the twin machine gun. This was done in order to protect the column from air attacks; then several other trucks followed.
Q Do you therefore consider the sequence which Otto had stated here, and in all his description of the position with the heavy trucks, do you consider that it was possible?
A. No. That probably would have been the only time this happened, as Otto has told us about it.
Q And therefore you do not consider it possible?
A No, I consider it to be out of the question.
Q And the witness Otto has further stated the vehicles had stopped very close to each other, right behind each other. Does this sound creditable?
A No, that is out of the question. The drivers would not have dared to do anything of the sort. Whenever the column stopped, immediately cars would patrol the column and see to it that the certain distance was kept between the vehicles in the case of an air attack. This in particular was the order which was repeatedly read to all drivers, and all officers had to see to it that this distance between vehicles were kept. An interval of twenty meters between each vehicle was prescribed, in order to prevent in case of bombs being dropped, any unnecessary loss of men and material.
Q Now, witness, I have another question to ask you. You told us yesterday that you had been the Divisional Administrative Officer, and at the same time you had been the battalion commander of the Supply Battalion?
A Yes.
Q The witnesses Otto and Sauer had testified that Tschentscher had been the commanding officer of the Supply Battalion. What position did Tschentscher occupy?
A Tschentscher was the chief of the first company. He was the commanding officer of the food. He was the company commander with a senior rank. In that capacity he had been appointed by me to be my deputy.
Since it was my task to take care of the supply and administrative tasks for all regiments and the battalions of the Division.
Q Did Tschentscher's deputizing only refer to the supervision, or did he also have the authority to impose disciplinary punishment and to carry out such on men of the other companies?
A This only referred to general supervision with regard to marches, the reports, that is he had to transmit my orders from above, and these were routed through the first company, through Tschentscher; and, also reports came to me through that channel. He did not have the authority for promotions to anybody. He did not have any disciplinary authority either, with regard to the other companies.
Q Since, as you say, you spent most of your time with the Divisional Staff just how did you maintain contact with the Supply Battalion?
A The transmission of orders in the Supply Battalion took place in exactly the same way as it was in the case of all the other battalions, mostly by messengers on motorcycles. It sometimes happened saw either my ordinance officer, or if I went back myself I personally would transmit the orders to the Divisional Staff personally, and, also my orders with regard to the supply matters.
Q You recall that the witness Otto had testified here that the defendant Tschentscher had given lectures on the Jewish question, when he was giving the training courses at Dachau. Do you know anything about that?
A No, there were lectures by the Division, or by the OKH, or the High Command of the Army for combat units. However, the lectures did not deal with political problems of that kind, but the subject of these lectures dealt with the attitude in enemy territory, counter-intelligent matters, and, then extracts would be read from courtmartial proceedings, offenses against wartime laws, and the consequences of these violations, as a warning for the troops.
Q Witness, the Prosecution has charged you with the fact that during your first examination you had not stated the truth insofar as the question of extermination of Jews were concerned, and of your participation in the atrocities.
Do you still maintain the testimony which you made the first time?
A Yes, I maintain it now as before.
DR STAKELBERG: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any cross examination by defense counsel. If not, the Prosecution may cross examine, if it wishes.
BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q. Witness, I believe you testified that you spent most of your time around the Divisional Staff Headquarters?
A. For the most part during our advance I worked or spent most of my time, also when there was a stop in the Divisional Staff, that is with either I-A, the combat command post, or with the Quartermaster General.
Q. And while you were on the stand you testified that Tschentscher was the senior officer in the supply services?
A. After me he was the officer with a senior rank.
Q. So when that you say that you were actually the commanding officer of the supply services, a good deal of the time you were senior officer in absentia?
A. I do not understand the question quite clearly.
Q. In other words, a good deal of the time you were not there with the supply services, that is true, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you were not there the senior officer present was Tschentscher?
A. In the supply battalion it was Tschentscher, and up ahead with the Divisional Staff my first co-worker would deputize for me.
Q. Now I believe you also testified yesterday that one of your duties was to act as liaison officer between the Divisional Staff and the Army Corps, is that correct?
A. Yes, however but, I would like to point out that I was only doing that in administrative matters to my superior army officer of the Army Corps, or, in special cases whenever for a temporary time we were not subordinate to any corps, then directly to the Army Commanding Officer.
Q. Now in carrying out this liaison duty, did you frequently go to the Army Corps Headquarters, the Army Corps Staff?
A. I may have gone to Army Headquarters on one or two occasions.
Q. But you did communicate fairly frequently between Divisional Staff Headquarters and the supply services?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. I assume that you had your own car to make these trips in?
A. Yes.
Q. So that you were moving around pretty frequently, and had an opportunity to know what was going on, did you not?
A. Well, I don't know what happened there and in what respect.
Q. I mean, you had an opportunity to observe what was happening in the Ukraine generally. You had as good an opportunity as most people?
A. I did, of course.
Q. Now, in your testimony yesterday you had as an aid to your memory, first, the battle calendar of the Viking Division, which was torn out of this certain book upstairs in the library; you had that as an aid to your memory, did you not?
A. Just where this calendar originated from, I don't know. I copied it.
Q. I am not interested in that, but you had it before you to refresh your memory as to the dates and places?
A. Yes.
Q. On two or three occasions you also consulted your personal diary to refresh your memory?
A. I do not have my own diary.
COURT II CASE IV
Q. Well, you referred to a diary that you consulted before you answered Dr. Von Stakelberg's questions.
A. I did not support myself on any diary but I looked at the notes which I made now by virtue of this battle calendar.
Q. Well, you are reasonably sure, after studying this battle calendar, that the places and dates that you gave yesterday are correct, are you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now you recall that the witness's Otto and Sauer testified either without any notes at all or with some little notes that they prepared themselves from their own memories.
A. I don't know what material they had available.
Q. You don't recall that Dr. Krauss went over to investigate what Otto had in his hand?
A. It is quite possible but I don't know exactly.
Q. Has it occurred to you how exactly the dates that you gave yesterday coincide with the dates and places that Otto and Sauer gave?
A. Afterall, I did not have Otto's statements available to me. The record of Otto from only part of one afternoon session I only received last night, and up to now I have only been able to read about 20 pages of it.
Q. But you heard him here in court, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you heard Sauer?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall that there is any great conflict between their testimony as to the places and dates with your testimony?
A In part, yes, however, in detail I must examine the material first when I shall have it available in the record.
Q In other words, the differences are so minute that you can't remember them with having the transcript before you?
A I did not write down the dates, and whenever I have to listen to ten or twenty different dates and figures, then it is impossible for me to remember them.
Q Well, are you in general agreement with Sauer and Otto that the supply services of the division were where they said it was at the time they said it was? The dates approximately coincide, do they not, with your---
A I have just stated that I can't judge that as yet. I well first have to read the transcript and make a comparison.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel let me tell you the dates that I made a note of from Otto's testimony.
MR. FULKERSON: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Tarnapol, 15 of July.
MR. FULKERSON: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Shitomir, 30th of July; Biala Zorkow, 15 August Dnjepropetrowsk, September 1st.
BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q You will concede, will you not, that Otto and Sauer were actually in the supply services of this division?
A It is impossible for me since I myself did not set up this battalion and since I did not spend much time with this battalion to know more than 300 men who were in that battalion.
As the company commander, one needs at least three months if one stays with a company each day in order to become acquainted with the 180 or 200 men.
Q Well, you will at least admit, won't you, that if they weren't there they have a fantastically minute recollection of what happened?
A Up till now I have never stated that I was of the opinion that they were not there.
Q Then you wish to say that you emphatically deny their testimony about the rounding up of Jews and shooting of Jews, but you agree that the outfit was at the places, at the times that they said?
A What drew may attention so far, what I don't know anything about, is Bodganowka.
Q But all the other places you recall?
AAs far as I can still recall, yes.
Q Now you said yesterday that the only atrocities you heard about were at Lomberg, Zloczow, and Tarnopol?
A Yes.
Q And these were all atrocities that had been committed by the retreating Russians before you get there?
A Yes.
Q Now yesterday you said that you heard that a mass grave was opened at Zloczow and that it developed that a number of Ukrainians had been previously buried there by the Russians.
A I stated literally that I heard that afterwards.
Lomberg and Tarnopol, on the other hand, I have seen that myself. At Lomberg I only saw it from a distance. At Tarnopol I saw it from somewhat closer.
Q. But you heard about this mass gave at Zloczow?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you hear about it?
A. That must have been either at the time when I was with the baker's company or it must have been two or three days later at Tarnopol, but at that time.
Q. It was sometime either at Zloczow or sometime right after you left there that you heard about this?
A. Yes, I have just said that I heard about it either when I was there to the east of Zloczow or I heard it afterwards at Tarnopol.
Q. Well did you hear that these Jews were being used to open this mass grave there?
A. No.
Q. You only heard that a mass grave was opened and that there were atrocities revealed that had been committed by the Russians?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, witness, I am going to hand you this Document No. 2938 and I want you to open it to page 15 and read the passage that is marked there but first tell the Court what it is. Read the title of it to the Court, please.
A. "The Chief of the Security Police and the SD, file mark 4A1BnRB-41."
Q. Never mind going into all those symbols, but what is the general nature of the report as shown by the title of it?
A "Report about an incident UDSSR-24." Do you want to hear any more?
Q No, that is enough, and it is addressed to the Chief of the Security Police and SD at Berlin.
A To Him? Or does it come from him?
Q All right, his name is on the first page, is it not? And what is the date of that document?
A The 16th of July, 1941.
Q Now when were you at Zloczow?
A It must have been either on the 30th of June or the 1st or 2nd of July.
Q Now turn to page 15 of that document, please, and read the part that is marked in pencil to the Court.
A Very well.
Q Read it slowly please so that the translators won't have too much difficulty.
A "A detachment from the Group Staff on the 7th of July, 1941, began its operation at Zloczow, One Einsatz Kommando 4-B had passed it slightly on its advance. In the agency of the NKWD, apparently a lot of important secret material which had already been sealed and which was ready for shipment had been taken over. The discoveries at Cloczow have shown that the Russians prior to the evacuation of that area, without any special selection, however, amongst them, the entire Ukrainian intelligentsia, altogether arrested 700 Ukrainians and murdered them. As a reprisal for this, by order of the Wehrmacht, the militia has taken several hundred Jews into custody, who were shot. The number of the liquidated Jews amounts to between 3 to 5 hundred."
Q: Thank you very much. Now isn't it rather odd that you heard about what was contained in the first paragraph that you read about the shooting of the 700 Ukrainians but you never heard about the reprisal action that took place here?
A: Well, I don't believe that you have the right idea about what happened. I was located with a combat division; however, I want to point out that I am referring to a combat division here, a division actually engaged in combat and we constantly were moving up behind the enemy. On one occasion we would be behind the lines for 24 hours and then as a result of a break through by the Russians we again were thrown into combat.
Q But you don't think that-
A May I also point out that this shows quite clearly that these Russian murders have actually occurred? Furthermore, it becomes clearly evident from this document that only on the 7th of July this detachment with which we are concerned here came to Zloozow.
Q Well now, doesn't the document refer to the fact that another Einsatzkommando had already been in Zloozow before this happened?
A I was unable to see that this was a real Einsatzkommando here.
MR. FULKERSON: Dr. Stakelberg, in the first paragraph of that, does it not say that an Einsatzkommando 4-B had already been through the town?
DR. STAKELBERG: "Which was already slightly passed by the Einsatzkommando 4-B when it was passing through the town."
BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q Now you say you may have heard about this mass grave incident several days after you left Zloozow. You might have heard about it at Tarnopol?
A. Yes.
Q Now you left Zloozow around the 2nd of July?
A It must have been on the first or second of July.
Q And this shooting of 3 to 5 hundred Jews took place in Zloozow on the 7th of July?
A Whether it took place on the 7th of July, I don't know.
MR. FULKERSON: Dr. Stakelberg, doesn't the document say that the shootings took place on the 7th of July?
DR. STAKELBERG: It says, "A detachment of the Group Staff on the 7th of July, 1941, began its operation at Zloozow.
MR. FULKERSON: That is all, thank you very much.
BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q In other words, the incident described in that document took place five days after you left Zloozow and then on the 7th of July where were you?
Were you still in Tarnopol?
A On the 7th of July, combat operations took place between Tarnopol and Roskilow; at that time I must have been between Tarnopol and Roskilow, or I must have been south of that sector because we were protecting the 9th Army Division towards the North.
Q But at the time that you heard about this mass grave at Zloozow, it was never mentioned to you that any reprisals had been taken against Jews?
A No. Not on our part and they were not ordered by us either. I don't believe, either, that a combat unit which was directly engaged in combat ever has enough time to occupy itself with any SD measures.
Q Well now, when you were in Zloozow, did you see any signs of mistreatment of Jews by the Army or the SS or the SD?
A No, however I would like to emphasize that I only passed through Zloozow. I did not stop there at all. On the following day, I came from the front and I did not even pass through the locality of Zloozow.
Q Didn't you testify yesterday, as a matter of fact, that you never heard of the SD the whole time you were in Russia?
A Yes, I testified that.
Q Now, let's move up to Tarnopol. You say that you never actually went to the slaughter house there yourself?
A Yes.
Q You never did?
A I cannot recall ever having entered a slaughter house in Russia.
Q So you are not in a very good position actually to contradict what the witness Sauer and Otto says about what happened there, are you?
A I can't judge it because I wasn't there and I didn't see anything and I didn't hear anything about it.
Q Well, do you think that Sauer as a noncommissioned officer should have been able to recognize one of the outfit's trucks when he saw it?
A To recognize a truck? Yes, of course. Everybody can recognize a truck.
Q Could he recognize that it was a truck which belonged to his outfit?
A Of course, we had our divisional insignia and the tactical insignia had been painted on every vehicle.
Q And he could also recognize the personnel of his own company, could he not?
A I must assume that.
Q Now you recall his testimony on re-direct examination to the effect that he was Jews working in the slaughter house at Tarnopol? Don't you?
A Yes, that is what he said.
Q And that they were hauled there under guard in trucks of the butcher's company by men of the butcher's company?
A Yes, that is just what he said also.
Q And your explanation is that he invented this story out of whole cloth?
A I am quite convinced of that.
Q You say you never heard of any excesses against Jews at Tarnopol?
A No.
Q When were you at Tarnopol?
A That must also have been on the 2nd or 3rd or 4th of July.
Q I am going to hand you Document No. 2652. Please read its title to the Court and its date.
A "Activity and situation report No. 2 of the Einsatzgruppe of the Security Police and the SD in the USSR."
Q All right. Now will you please-- What is the date of that, please? I am sorry.
A The time of report from the 29th of July up to the 14th of August, 1941.
Q Now will you please turn to page 9 of that document?
A Yes.
Q And will you please read slowly to the court the passage marked No. 1?
A "Pogroms against the Jews could only he brought up at several places. In this way, for example, at Tarnopol, 600 and at Schoroskow 110 Jews were killed by the population.
Q That is all right. That is the second passage. You will got to that in a moment. Now this was about 2 or 3 weeks after you left, according to your testimony, wasn't it?
A There is no date stated here.
Q The date is given on the front of the document itself from the 29th of July to the 14th of August?
A Yes.
Q You never heard of any excesses against the Jews at Tarnopol?
A No.
Q Although you had your own car and were travelling around between the divisional staff and the army corps staff and the supply services of the division?
A Well, 200 or 300 -- I actually could not go 200 or 300 kilometers beyond the front lines. I did not have the time. I believe that you have a false idea about the Russian territory there, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q Well if I do, I wen't be the only lawyer in this Courtroom who has been accused of that. And you say that the whole time that you were in Russia, you never heard of any Einsatzgruppes or Einsatzkommando?
A. Yes, I never heard anything about it.
Q And you never heard of any connection, of course, between the Waffen-SS and the Einsatzgruppe and Einsatzkommando?
A I only heard about it after the war.
Q Well, you recall that the witness Otto testified about such a connection. He said that there was not a close liaison between the Waffen-SS and the Einsatzkommando, but that from time to time squads of the Waffen-SS were lent for the time being to the Einsatzkommando.
Do you recall that he said that?
A I can recall that the witness Otto did make such a statement. However, I can also recall that afterwards the witness Sauer answered that question in the negative, although both of them were in the same butcher's company.
Q. Well, then, in other words, you are just trying to tell the Court that this statement of Otto's was another hallucination on his part?
A. I can not say what Otto saw when he was hanging around behind the front lines. I really can't say anything about that. I can't say what he saw when he was not with the unit anymore.
Q. Are you trying to tell us that a simple SS man, a truck driver, was better informed about what was happening in Russia than you were?
A. You see, if he accidentally happened to be 300 kilometers behind the front line in that particular area of course. And if he stated by false statements and through lies, as Otto himself has -he was able to make friends everywhere --
Q. But you would classify this statement of his about the connection between the Waffen-SS and the Einsatzkommando as just another one of his prevarications?
A. I cannot say what Otto saw when he was not with the unit. I can only say what I saw and just what happened when I was with the unit.
Q. I am going to hand you Document 2846. Please read its title and date to the Court.
A. "Incident Report, USSR, No. 58. Berlin, 20 August 1941. The Chief of the Security Police and the SD."
Q. Now, will you please turn to Page 7 of the original and read the passages that are marked there?
A. Oh, yes; it is marked very slightly here. "Now, according to plan, almost all villages and larger localities in the large vicinity of Berdishev and Shilouiv have been taken."
Q. Continue. Continue to read on that page. There is another passage, I believe.
A. Oh, perhaps, it is further on, that is on the next page.