Cout II, case 4
Q During the war, were you in the direct neighborhood of Tschentscher?
A I was his permanent deputy, and I marched with him. I lived with him. In short, I was his right hand man.
Q Did you hear about what happened with the other companies of the Economic Battalion?
A In the broad outlines, yes. There was a certain contact, even a very close contact between the individual companies, and, of course, I had to receive some information as to what happened.
Q Witness, during the period, when Tschentscher was in charge of the Supplies Battalion -- I mean the Supplies Office; I beg your pardon -- it is alleged that considerable excesses had taken place concerning the Jewish population at the Economic Battalion. That is, maltreatment and even executions. Do you have any knowledge about that?
A. I never get any knowledge of such excesses.
Q. Were there Jews in employment with the bakery and butchers companies?
A. The employment of auxilliary workers in our supply organization during my time was unauthorized, basically at least. I have knowledge only that once the people were examined by doctors very thoroughly, only a very few skilled workers and artisans worked with us.
4. These laborers in employment with you, were they mistreated or were they killed once they had done their jobs?
A. No.
Q. Witness, do your recall while you were at Zhitomir where you stationed in that locality?
A. The Supplies Office at Zhitomir was places in farm-house.
Q. And the bakery and butcher companies, were they also stationed in that farm-house?
A. As far as I know, no. As far as I recall, they were stationed in a sort of barracks, in a barracks-like building, at least.
Q. This block of buildings, was it located in the town of Zhitomir itself?
A. It was quite a bit away from the town. We were out of the town. The companies were in the town itself.
Q. And where was Tschentscher stateiced at Zhitomir during that period?
A. Tschentscher was with the Supplies Office. He was stationed there, and at that time he had the so-called "Russian disease", which was a sort of dysentery. He was in bed, and he was helpless and apathetic, on a camp bed in our command car.
Q. Do you have any knowledge as to whether at Zhitomir with the bakery company Jews were employed and had to carry the water and bake the broad? Is that correct?
Do you know anything about it; or to transport and carry the bread?
A. No, I don't know anything about it. Such promitive work in our installation would have been without any point. We needed every day a few thousand liters of water. The bakery had two boiler wagons, and they could take up to 6,000 leters--up to about 700 gallons--of water in one stretch, and we had the most modern pumps, with hoses and everything, and we could get water everywhere we wanted and get directly to the point where it was to be consumed. As far as the transport of bread was concerned it was unauthorized to have it carried by foreign workers.
Q. Why was it unauthorized?
A. Because of epidemics and diseases.
Q. The witness Sauer has testified with regard to Zhitomir as follows: That an Oberscharfeuhrer by the name of Suert had, near the barracks in a barn, shot six Jews. The witness furthermore stated that these rumors had circulated in entire battalion and every single man in the battalion had to know about the affair. Did you ever hear anything about this occurrence, or see anything of it?
A. No, I did not.
A. If that had actually happened, would it have been absolutely necessary for you to hear about it, as the witness said?
A. Well, if you can humanly judge it, yes, I would have had to hear about it. May I just briefly make a statement with regard to that? At the very reception of the supplies most of the rumors were received and passed on. Here all the men in charge of supplies for the division met. They exchange news, and it may will he said that that was a very dangerous news exchange.
Q. But you never heard anything about such an occurrence or anything similar?
A. No.
Q. Witness, did you also go to Biala-Zherkiev? Do you remember that location?
A. I was in Biala-Zherkiev, and I do recall the locality. The Supplies Office at the time was billeteding vinegar and jam factory, together with the bakery company, or the butcher company.
Q. If I have understood you correctly, that was not a bivouac but a real bittet for you?
A. Yes, we had permanent billets there.
Q. Were you there together with Tschentscher?
A. In Biala-Zherkiev I had an office building together with Tschentscher. We had our billets there, and we worked there.
Q. Now, it is alleged that there in Biala-Zherkiev a Jew had run through what you call the bivouac, or the billet, and it is said that the defendant Tschentscher had only a pair of pants and a shirt hanging over the pants, and he is said to have run after the Jew and shot at him. Did such an occurrence ever take pleace there?
A. I never heard--I never witnessed such an occurrence. I think it is just a fairy tale, and even a very primitive one. Our billet in Biala-Zherkive was a closed estate. It was fenced, and there was a guard at the door. Near the gates, cars of our battalion had been parked, and the marking lots and the collecting lots of the supplies agencies were there, and I can hardly imagine that a fugitive would penetrate into such an estate, which is fenced all around as a billet for the armed forces and can be recognized as such, and, apart form that, is guarded by soldiers.
Q. Were you also with the company when it was in Tsugorkis?
A. I was still with the company there. I started my official trip only when they went to the next location, namely to Losovatks.
Q. The same witness told us about something he had heard about, namely, that the defendant Tschentscher in the office of Tsugorski is supposed to have threatened an SS member by the name of Kisch with a pistol and make him shoot a Jew, gave him the order to do that.
What do you say to that witness?
A. Well, there again, I can only state very shortly that quite clearly is a fairy tale. In Tsugorki together with Strrmbannfuehrer Tschentscher, I had a joint office, and in this office there were other co-workers of ours and of our unit, and they worked there too.
Q. Were you still with the company when it was in Tarnopol?
A. Yes, in Tarnapol I still was with the same unit.
Q. Now, the Economic Battalion, was it stationed in the town itself?
A. In Tarnapol we were close to the village, and when we went on, we touched the village.
Q. Do you know the slaughterhouse of Tarnapol?
A. No, I don't know it.
Q. Do you know whether this slaughterhouse was used by the butchers' company of your Economic Battalion?
A. I have no recollection of that.
Q. Witness, it is a fact that in these locations and in other localities of the front area numerous killings and maltreatments of Jews actually took place. Do you know anything of a participation of the Economic Battalion in such occurrences?
A. To that I can only say that through our tasks we had so much work that certainly we had no time left for such things.
Q. Well, could you enlarge on that and give us some reasons why your tasks were so hard and took up so much of your time?
A. Every day we had always from twenty to twenty-four thousand men to supply with food, and apart from that we had to look after the clothes of our division. We had to bake, to slaughter, to make sausage, and to produce whatever the soldier had a right to get, and then we had our issues. Every two or three days we had to issue things, and therefore, for such accessory work, we certainly had no time left.
Q. Witness, during the whole period you saw the Defendant Tschentscher next to you, could you tell the Tribunal perhaps something concerning the attitude of Tschentscher in his official capacity? Well, look, after all every Army unit has some offenses committed by some people, minor offenses or more severe offenses, and it might be offenses, in the exercise of their duty and it might also be violences committed against the population of the area one goes through. In these instances was Tschentscher very tolerant and lenient and official, or what was his general attitude?
A. I can only state quite clearly that Sturmbannfuehrer Tschentscher represented for us whatever could be called the most correct person. He was the very correctness. He was severe in his attitude, but he was just and fair. He had his own characteristics. One might even go as far as saying he was pedantic, like a schoolmasters. He was so conscientious that he judged very severely and harshly little bagatelles and minor instances that happened in our own offices. He never tolerated any excesses against the population. He didn't like fraternization in the localities where we were billeted. Again and again he emphasized that every connection with the populations had to be broken off, that nothing should he accepted from the population. The few free minutes he had, we were always very surprised to see that he used to learn Russian.
Q. Therefore, also with regard to the civilian population, according to what you said, Tschentscher would not tolerate any excesses. Do you recall any instances, I mean, you don't have to give us any details there, but do you remember any occurrences where he took disciplinary action when something happened ?
A. Yes, I do remember such instances. He didn't even tolerate that the territorial soldier, if I might state it that way, that the soldier would even get an egg or something like it from the civilian population. He viewpoint was the troop feeds well, they get sufficient supplies, and it is out of the question that they get things from the population.
Q. Well, wasn't, this attitude of his rather exceptional ? That is, didn't he make exceptions in his attitude, namely , that if there were excesses committed against a Jew that he would overlook it and he would be lenient in such cases?
A. I can only answer that with a very clear and brief "no".
DR. PRIBILLA: Your Honor, I have no further questions to this witness.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG(For the Defendant Fanslau):
Q. Witness, I have only very few questions here. Now, concerning Zhitomir, I would like to know whether the Hauptsturmfuehrer Braunagel was with the troop?
A. Hauptsturmfuehrer Braunagel can't even have been with our troop at Zhitomir. Hauptsturmfuhrer Braunagel, shortly before we were assigned to Russia, had a motorcycle accident and he broke his ankle. According to my clear recollection he returned one or two days before I came back from my official trip. That would be about the 16th of September, and that was at Losovatka.
Q. Therefore, if somebody asserts that Braunagel had been at Zhitomir, and well, at least that he had been in Zhitomir when this Suehrt occurrence is supposed to have taken place, then can you say with certainty that is inaccurate?
A. I can assert it with certainty, because on the 18th or 19th of September I came back from my official trip, and there I only met Hauptsturmfuehrer Braunagel, who came back two days before I came back, and he only then had rejoined the battalion.
Q. During the advance, or during your time with the Viking Division, did you receive any knowledge of shootings of Jews by Einsatz groups or other detachments?
A. No. The concept, Einsatzgruppen, I only heard of after the war. When I was interrogated by the interrogator I was informed by this interrogator that in the area covered by my division there was supposed to be the Einsatz Group 6.
Q. But did you have knowledge at that time of this Einsatz Group 6?
A. No.
Q. Well, now, there are even certain documents concerning the fact that probably this Einsatz group committed shootings of Jews on a large scale in your rear, for instance, as early as the 7th of July 1941, at Zclozow and during the period from the end of July until the middle of August in Tarnapol.
Did you never hear anything about those shootings?
A. No, of that I never heard anything.
Q. Well, how can you explain the fact?
A. Well, I was with the fighting troop, and we got no knowledge of these matters.
Q. This morning we heard testimony that the bakery and butchery trains -- the bakery and butchery detachments, were active in Tarnapol. Now, this bakery and butchery detachment of the Viking Division, were they working in Tarnapol?
A. At Tarnapol we had the two companies, namely the bakery and butchery companies. As far as I know these things were issued also at Tarnapol.
Q. Go on.
A. Therefore things must have been prepared and produced there if they were issued. Whether that actually took place in Tarnapol itself or near the town, I couldn't tell you.
Q. You don't know the exact location of the companies, whether they were located in the town or whether they were located off the town?
A. No. Our supplies office was located off the town.
Q. Yes, I see. Well, the supplies office was the first company, and the two other companies you don't know anything about, at least not in detail?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Do you know anything, whether the slaughterhouse in Tarnapol was used by your companies?
A. No, I couldn't give you any information with certainty there.
Q. Oh, you don't know anything with certainty , either there. Now, how close and how frequent were the connections of the Defendant Fanslau with the supplies battalion? Was he there often; was he there constantly?
A. Well, Obersturmbannfuehrer Fanslau in his capacity as admin istrative officer and as commander and as supplies inspector of our battalion kept up direct contact between us and the operational department.
He was with us only always for a few days, and then he would come for a day or two and stay with us altogether and he always inspected the stocks.
Q. Now, concerning this Suehrt occurrence, you said a while ago that you never heard anything about it, is that correct? Could you tell us that an official report concerning this alleged occurrence was never made?
A. I never received any information of such an occurrence.
DR. VONSTAKELBERG: Your Honor, no further questions to this witness either.
THE PRESIDENT: Any questions by other Defense Counsel?
(No response)
THE PRESIDENT: If not, the Prosecution may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, did you see Tschentscher in Zclozow?
A. In Zclozow, you mean? Well, yes, I saw Sturmbannfuehrer Tschentscher there. After all I marched with him in the same column?
Q. Did you see Fanslau in Zclozow?
A. I do recall that the Commander at that time had paid us a short visit.
Q. Excuse me, witness, just answer my questions. Did you see Fanslau in Zclozow?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. You were not in the presence of Tschentscher all of the time that he was in Zclozow, were you?
A. Yes.
Q. You were with him every minute while he was in Zclozow?
A. Well, of course today I couldn't tell you whether Sturmbannfuehrer Tschentscher wasn't once separated from me and whether I always went with him wherever he went.
Q. Did you see Tschentscher in Tarnapol?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you in his presence all the time while he was in Tarnapol?
A. Most of the time of our advance I was in his presence because our tasks bound us to each other.
Q. You never heard of synagogues in Tarnapol being used by the bakery company?
A. No.
Q. You never heard of Jews working in the slaughterhouse at Tarnapol?
A. No.
Q. Did you see Tschentscher in Zhitomir?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Were you in his presence all the time at Zhitomir?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see him at Biala-Zherkiov?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Were you in his presence all the time there?
A. Yes.
Q. And were you with him all the time when he was at Tsugorskij, in his presence all the time?
A. Yes, I was there too.
Q. Well, I asked you were you with him all the time in his presence?
A. Well, that is a question of conscience. You know now after six years it is very hard for me to say whether I didn't leave him for ten minutes or whether I was constantly with him. All I can confirm is that my tasks were of such a nature that I had to remain with the company constantly and therefore I had to remain near Tschentscher also.
Q. You said that you returned on the 19th of September to the Viking Division?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you know that Braunagel left the Viking Division on the 16th of September?
A. Well, I never asserted that Hauptsturmfuehrer Braunagel left the Division on the 16th of September. What I said was something else.
Q. Excuse me, How do you know, as you said, that Braunagel returned to the Division on the 11th of September?
A. Well, because when I came back I was told from my company that Hauptsturmfuehrer Braunagel had come back two days before.
Q. All the time that you were in the East, at no time did you hear of Einsatzkommando, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And at no time at all did you ever hear of any mistreatment of any kind of the Jews?
A. No.
Q. When did you join the Allgemeine SS?
A. On the 1st of July, 1931.
Q. 1931?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you join the Nazi Party?
A. In the summer of 1925.
Q. Excuse me, did you say 1925?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember what your party number is?
A. Yes, 23424, 2-3-4-2-4.
Q. And your Allgemeine SS number?
A. 63000.
Q. Did you hold the blood badge?
A. No.
Q. You are in the automatic arrest category, are you not?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In the what category?
MR. ROBBINS: Automatic arrest.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins) And when you joined the Nazi Party in 1925 where did you join it, what part of Germany?
A. In Schleswig-Holstein.
Q. Are you now in an internment camp, Witness?
A. Yes.
Q. And what internment camp?
A. In the 5th C.J.C.
Q. Where is that located?
A. At Staumuehle near Paderborn.
Q. Have you ever been in the camp at Langwasser?
A. No.
Q. Witness, did you ever hear while you were in an internment camp of the SS an internee being severely beaten by his comrades for giving testimony against defendants in SS cases?
A. No, I never heard of such a thing.
Q. This is the first time you ever heard of it, is that right ?
A. Well, I can't quite follow what you are referring to I am afraid.
Q. I am asking you if you ever heard of an internee, after he had given testimony against SS officials, after he had returned to the internment camp, being beaten or killed by his comrades in the internment camp?
A. No, I don't know anything about it; I didn't heard anything about it either.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, I have.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. Witness, you just said that you had seen the Defendant Fanslau at Zclozow. Would you give us the exact location where you saw him there?
A. Yes. We were slowly passing through Zclozow. It was very bad weather and the roads were muddy, and therefore we had to stop many times. At those occasions the Hauptsturmfuehrer Fanslau came from the Division, he gave us a short, new report, and then he left again.
Q. Was that in the town itself, or had you already passed the town?
A. As far as I remember we had passed the town already and we had gone in the direction east.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Thank you, your Honor, no further questions to this witness.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. Was your rank the rank of a captain when you succeeded Tschentscher?
A. Yes.
Q. How long had you had that rank before Tschentscher left the battalion?
A. I held that rank as from the 3rd of January, 1941 .
Q. And this is when you joined the Viking Division?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear the lectures that Tschentscher gave to members of the battalion?
A. No.
Q. Never heard him give any lectures on any subjects to the members of the first company or any other company in the battalion?
A. I have already testified I was transferred to Tschentscher to the supplies office on the 22nd of June, 1941, and during the war no such lectures were made at all. Before that I was with the divisional staff.
Q. When you entered the town of Zclozow, did you see dead Jews on the street?
A. Well, I have seen dead people on our advance but whether they were Jews I couldn't tell you today.
Q. They were civilians, were they?
A. I couldn't tell you that either today at least.
Q. How were they dressed?
A. Well, when we were advancing I saw so many dead that I hardly could tell you whether those were civilians, soldiers, or whether they were dressed or undressed.
Q. Did you see the Jews taken from their homes, herded into groups, and taken to the citadel in Zclozow?
A. No.
Q. Do you know Sauer?
A. No, I don't know Sauer personally.
Q. Do you know Otto ?
A. Otto I do remember, yes.
Q. Did you know a member of the First Company by the name of Stamminger, S-t-a-m-m-i-g-e-r?
A. Yes.
Q. Was he with you on this advance through Eastern Poland and Western Ukraine?
A. Stamminger was with the administration of the First Company and therefore he was our subordinate.
Q. Well, the answer is "yes"?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether he is living or dead?
A. I never heard anything about his being dead.
Q. Do you know where he is now?
A. No.
Q. Do you know anything about Stamminger having to leave his truck while Tschentscher was shooting at a Jew, because the bullet had hit the truck?
A. No.
Q. Never heard of that?
A. No.
Q. Do you know Suerth, S-u-e-r-t-h?
A. Well, I do remember the name.
Q. Well, as Captain of the First Company, don't you know him? He was one of the soldiers under you.
A. Yes, but he was not in my company.
Q. Which company was he in?
A. He was in the Second Company.
Q. What was his rank?
A. I think he was an Obershharfuehrer.
Q. So you do know him and even his rank?
A. Well, I told you I know the name and I do know the rank, yes.
Q. And you know the man?
A. Well, I don't know whether I would recognize him now today, because after all, I left the Viking Division in 1942.
Q. And you say you didn't hear anything about this man shooting six Jews while you were at Zhitomir?
A. No.
Q. Do you know a man by the name of Kirsch, an SS man by the name of Kirsch, K-i-r-s-c-h?
A. No.
Q. You didn't know that he was a member of the First Company?
A. Well, today I couldn't tell you that any more.
Q. Do you know anything about Tschentscher ordering him to shoot a Jew and when he refused to shoot the Jew that Tschentscher then told him if he didn't obey the order that he would shoot him?
A. I don't know anything of that.
Q. You never heard of any of that?
A. No.
Q. Well, if the records would show here that while you were an officer to the Viking Division in the area in which you were located and in which your command was located, in a space of time of several weeks, there were more than 6,000 civilian Jews killed in that area, would you be surprised?
A. Well, I couldn't imagine how that could be shown. I never heard or saw anything about it. I couldn't imagine how the record could show that.
Q. And, if the records do show that, you have absolutely no knowledge of it either from seeing it, hearing it, or from any other course?
A. No.
Q. Now, isn't the reason that you are here testifying as you are the deputy of Tschentscher that if you did admit these facts that you know you would be inducted yourself?
A. No, that's not the reason.
Q. Even though you would be indicted, if you admitted knowledge and participation in any of those things, you would tell the truth about it now while on the stand?
A. I can't testify anything else or admit anything else than what I have to testify here under oath.
Q. And you would testify as you are testifying even though-
A. Yes.
Q. Just a minute -- even though you would incriminate yourself if you did admit knowledge of these killings of the Jews. You would still testify as you are how?
A. I can't testify in any different manner from what I have testified.
Q. Even if it would incriminate you?
A. I don't understand the question.
(The interpreter repeated the question.)
Q. That's all.
A. I have no other knowledge. I can't testify more than what I have testified.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: That is all.
EXAMINATION BY DR. VON STAKELBERG: (Attorney for the Defendant Fanslau)
Q. Witness, when you were examined by the prosecution, didn't you receive a promise that you wouldn't be charged if you admitted incriminating actions?
A. I was only told that I would be heard only as a witness and that I would be returned to my camp then.
Q. Oh, I see. But you didn't receive any direct promise?
A. No, I didn't.
THE PRESIDENT: That was a good try.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: One of these witnesses has been assured. I'll try anything once.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, he didn't say that. The witness may be excused.
(The witness was excused.)
DR. BERGOLD (Attorney for the Defendant Klein): Your Honors, it was reported to me this morning one could not find out what year this publication was issued. May I point out to the Tribunal that towards the middle of the paper one can see that the newspaper must have been printed a short while after the war started against Russia, because it reads here, and I am quoting literally, "Much, very much, we knew already of the occurence in the Soviet Union and in spite of that amounted to little if one compares it with what could be seen behind this blood red curtain, compared with reality, namely, millions of European soldiers have been able to shoot a glance behind that curtain. Fanatically they all fight for their homes and their family, and their houses." Therefore, it can be seen that this newspaper must have been issued when the armies of the axis powers fought in Russia, because otherwise it wouldn't have read, "Millions of European soldiers have been able to shoot a glance behind this curtain."
For me, establishing the time when it was published is important, because Herr Klein, as Mr. Robbins has mentioned, previously was no longer a procurist of the Nordland Publishing House at that time. He already testified to that when he was on the witness stand himself.
DR. HOFFMANN (attorney for the Defendant Scheide): Your Honor, may I take the liberty of enlarging on this newspaper. First of all, I would like to remark that, as far as -- I think-- this -- well, shall we call it a piece of paper, is not a newspaper. It can be seen that it wasn't a periodical, because, in accordance with the press law of the German Reich of that time the periodical would have had to print the number of copies issued on the back of the paper. Therefore, I think it's a private copy, a private issue, which was not sold in public.
And, if the Tribunal should assume that this edition of this slanderer who is responsible for this paper, had been sold in public and if it had been available to a large number of Germans, then I ask to be granted permission to be able to proveit to the contrary.
THE PRESIDENT: What would be the purpose, Dr. Hoffmann, of publishing it, but not distributing it? Why?
DR. HOFFMAN: Well, it would be a publication, Your Honor, If you see why the legal requirements indicated that the number of copies and other legal requirements would be listed on the back of the paper, if it had been sold in public. That was a well known fact, Your honor, and every newspaper man in Germany can confirm that.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it was distributed to somebody, wasn't it? They didn't just print it and leave it in bundles.
DR. HOFFMAN: Well, of course, Your Honor, it is well possible that a few, let's say 100, I don't know how many -- have been distributed, but it was not sold and distributed in public like a newspaper or periodically. That is my assertion and I support this assertion on the strength of the legal form under which the paper was printed.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think that anyone, the SS, would have gone to the expense and trouble of gathering all those pictures and having cuts made and the paper printed and then only show it to a 100 people?
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I do think really that whoever was the criminal who wrote this dirty stuff had an interest in getting it out of his hands but I hope had not sufficient paper to print enough copies so that you could say it was generally and publically distributed.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, you may be right, but don't you think it had a rather wide distribution without being sold?
DR. HOFFMANN: Well, Your Honor, I couldn't deny that, but I mean that the large public did not have knowledge of these matters, at least according to my own opinion.