THE PRESIDENT: What do you think about the members of the organization that got the paper out, that published it?
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I couldn't tell you. I can't have an insight of how far these papers were distributed to the members of the organization, but I do think that it would be an important enough a question to be submitted to the expert in charge of the SS Operational Main Office, I mean, as a witness, with regard to this question, If the question is important enough for the Tribunal. I don't know the man. I don't know him, but he might be called here and then we would hear how far this paper was circulated and distributed.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know who the man would be?
DR. HOFFMANN: No, unfortunately, Your Honor, I don't know, but probably that could be found out. Perhaps the prosecution could even help me and -
THE PRESIDENT: We are agreed, Dr. Hoffmann, that it isn't important to bring in the publisher or the head of the office to show what distribution tho paper had. It won't be necessary.
DR. PRIBILLA: (Attorney for the Defendant Tschentscher) Your Honor, before we start the recess, may I put in one word concerning the question put by Judge Phillips concerning the witness Stamminger. This witness, Stamminger, Your Honor, the one you have asked about, is the same witness Stamminger whom I am going to call as a witness before this Tribunal on Tuesday, if nothing enexpected happens.
THE PRESIDENT: Now what are we prepared to do after the recess?
DR. PRIBILLA: Your Honor, the Witness Mueller is is still waiting.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we'll hear him immediately after the recess, which we will take now.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for about 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, during the recess we have discovered a letter which I think will throw a good deal of light on the circulation that the magazine "Sub Human" achieved. This is a letter that was written by Gottlieb Berger, who mas the Chief of the Main Office, SS Hauptamt to Himmler. It is a rather long letter and deals with three different matters. Only the first one deals with the distribution of this magazine. I have given a copy to the translators; and if it please the Tribunal, I should like to have then read it into the record in English and in German.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a portion of it?
MR. ROBBINS: Just a portion of it, yes.
THE INTERPRETER: "To the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, the Fuehrer's Headquarters. Reichsfuehrer:
"1. Reich Treasurer Schwarz. On Saturday I had announced myself to see the Reich Treasurer Schwarz in order to personally sub it to him the magazine 'The Sub Human Being' and in order to be able to request his assistance. The Reich Treasurer was in very good humor and he told me that he had a discussion with the Reichsfuehrer SS, who gave him an order for on entire quarter of a year. He was extremely pleased about the magazine. He said that each German family should receive a copy and that he on his part would help us in its distribution. The Germanic work is of importance to the Reich Treasurer."
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, thank God it did not reach every German.
ERICH MUELLER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE TRIBUNAL ( JUDGE MUSMANNO): Will you please stand, raise your right hand, and repeat the oath after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. PRIBILLA:
A. Witness, please give the Tribunal your full name.
A. My name is Erich Mueller.
Q. When and where were you born?
A. On the 25th of January 1912.
Q. Where?
A. At Hagon.
Q. What is your civilian profession?
A. I am a watchmaker and optician.
Q. Since when were you a member of the Waffen SS? Were you an active member or were you in the reserve?
A. Since the 1st of September 1939, I was a member of the reserve.
Q. When were you a member of the SS Division Viking?
A. Since the 1st of December 1940 until the end of the war.
Q. What was your position there?
A. I was a master sergeant in the butchers' company.
Q. What was the organization of the supply units? Do you know the positions of Fanslau and Tschentscher?
A. The supply units were combined into one battalion which consisted of three companies. The first company was the supply office, The second company was the bakers' company; and the third company was the butchers' company.
Q. What were the positions of the defendants Fanslau and Tschentscher?
A. Fanslau was the commanding officer of the battalion, and Tschentscher had the same position as the other company commanders. However, he was Fanslau's right hand.
Q. Witness, in the time when Tschentscher was in charge of the food office, excesses are alleged to have been committed in the supply battalion against the Jewish population. Do you know anything about it?
A. No, I know nothing about it, and I never heard anything of that kind.
Q. Especially the butchers' company is alleged to have employed Jews for heavy work.
A. No, we did not employ any Jews.
Q. Why can you tell us that so precisely?
A. We never employed any Jews, and there was no necessity for us to employ them because at the slaughter places wherever we worked there was always a big crowd of people and very often many of them offered themselves as workers for us so they would get the remainders of the meat, whatever was not needed. Furthermore, we and our people were enough to take care of the work.
Q. The people who offer themselves for work--did you employ them?
A. No, they were not employed either because it was prohibited to use enemy personnel in supply enterprises.
Q. Why was that prohibited?
A. That was considerably too much danger because these people might try to poison the food with something, or might transfer disease and things of that kind.
Q. Witness, can you recall the city of Tarnopol?
A. Yes, I can recall the city. The company was outside of Tarnopol. There we developed our work, because the slaughterhouse, so far as I recall, had already been taken over by other units.
Q. A witness has alleged here that the Butcher Company had worked in the slaughterhouse of Tarnopol. Can you tell us precisely whether this is correct or not?
A. It is possible that several men worked there.
Q. If people were there, were they working there by order of the company, or how were these people furnished in the slaughterhouse?
A. If they worked there, then they worked there by order of the company, or they were assigned to the slaughterhouse by somebody's orders.
Q. However, your Butcher Company was also operating fully?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was that located?
A. It was located at Tarnopol.
Q. And you don't recall precisely where it was stationed?
A. How could I describe it. I cannot tell you exactly, but I think it was at least one kilometer outside the Tarnopol city.
Q. What place was it? Perhaps you can tell us what was going on there. I mean, how did that place look when the Butcher Company was operating there? Did you have tents there?
A. No, we did not have any tents. The company was billeted for the most part in houses, or we would use the vehicles. If, however, these facilities were not sufficient, then we would hitch up one or two tents. However, this only happened on very rare occasions.
Q. However, you knew that for a certainty that this slaughtering was being operated there?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anything come to your attention to the effect that these supply companies outside of their work with regard to supplying the units were also occupied in the assembling of Jews and transporting them to ghettos?
A. No, never. We never were used for any tasks of that sort. I never heard anything about the fact that Jews were driven together at the ghettos at that time.
Q. Witness, can you recall the city of Zhitomir?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were you located in Zhitomir?
A. At Zhitomir we were located in a barrack-like building.
Q. Who was stationed there, all the companies?
A. Only individual companies. The Baker Company and the Butcher Company. The food column, so far as I can recall, was situated outside of Zhitomir.
Q. You, together with the Butcher Company, were located in this barracks?
A. With the Baker Company.
Q. According to testimony here it is alleged that at Zhitomir excesses were committed and shooting of Jews is alleged to have occurred there. Above all, a member of the Baker Company is alleged to have shot six Jews while there in the barracks. Do you know anything about it?
A. No, we did not employ any Jews there, and I did not here anything about shooting or excesses against Jews.
Q. However, a witness by the name of Sauer has testified here by naming a man who is alleged to have committed this deed, and he stated that this was Oberscharfuehrer Suerth, and this witness also testified that every member of the Supply Battalion must have had knowledge of the shootings. What do you have to say about that?
A. I agree with the witness Sauer insofar as when he said that every member of the battalion would have had to obtain knowledge about the shootings.
However, I don't know about any shooting. I never heard anything about them, and therefore I assume that no shootings ever occurred.
Q. Can you recall Biala-Zherkiov?
A. Yes, I can recall that locality.
Q. Do you know where the food column was situated at that time?
A. The Butcher Company was located in a vinegar factory, and so far as I know the supply column was also located in the same factory site.
Q. The defendant Tschentscher, it has been alleged, shot at a Jew there who ran through the area, and it is alleged that, his shirt outside his pants, he came out of his quarters there, than he ran after the Jew, and he shot him there. You were there at the time. Did you observe any such incident, or such a similar incident?
A. No, I don't know anything about that. However, it would have been bound to have come to my attention if it had happened. Furthermore, since Tschentscher was always immaculately dressed according to uniform regulations, I cannot imagine that Tschentscher could have come outside of a building in that state.
Q. Witness, can you recall Fjedorki?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were you stationed in that city?
A. At Fjedorki we were located at a certain estate, a Kolchose.
Q. Did your office stay together with the Supply Company together with other units?
A. We were not directly together there, but we were only several hundred meters apart.
Q Did you hear anything about the fact that Tschentscher ordered an SS man by the name of Kirsch to shoot a Jew there?
A. No, I never heard anything about that.
Q. Would you state that such incident would have become general knowledge if it had occurred?
A. Yes, in any event.
Q. You are, therefore, of the opinion that such incidents were so extraordinary that if it had happened everyone of the men would have know about it if it had occurred?
A. Yes, in any event because things of that sort always became general knowledge.
Q. Were there any reports about Tschentscher to this effect? Did he have the reputation that he himself committed excesses, or that at least he permitted it that excesses could happen?
A. No, to the contrary, Tschentscher had the reputation that he was extremely correct, and that he would severely punish for the slightest excesses.
Q. What do you mean now when you refer to excesses? Are you referring to excesses towards the population in the occupied territories?
A. Perhaps I used a wrong expression here. What I mean is I am talking about violations of regulations.
Q. And how was it with excesses towards the population? Was he very strict or was he not very strict? Do you know anything about that?
A. Such excesses did not occur at all.
Q. However, you will have to admit to me, witness, that during wartime something in that direction can happen very easily. Do you know about Tschentscher's official attitude towards these matters?
A. If such excesses had occurred, then he would have punished them severely.
Q. How do you reach that conclusion? Is that from your own knowledge of the facts, or how did he get to have that reputation? Can you explain that fact a little more closely?
A. I have known Tschentscher since the battalion was established. I know him very well, and he had the reputation of always being correct, and he was even reproached with being too much of a pedant. In any case his orders were strictly fair and correct.
Q. And you have never noticed anything that did not fit that picture? You never observed any excesses or violations of regulations, or excesses during the wartime against the civilian population?
A. No, I have not seen anything of that sort, nor have I ever heard anything about it.
Q. You have just stated, witness, that all during the establishment of the battalion you were with the unit. I believe at the time you were the Master Sergeant there?
A. I was Acting First Sergeant.
Q. Do you know anything about the lectures which Tschentscher gave there? Can you recall anything particular whether he gave any lectures on the Jewish question? Do you know whether he did make very sharp expressions in that respect?
A. No, I do not know anything about such lectures. As the First Sergeant I was, of course, informed precisely about all lectures which were given. I can only recall two lectures. One of them dealt with the use of the Butcher Company, and the other task in combat zones, and one other lecture dealt with the intelligence question, the counter-intelligence.
Q. And you in your capacity as First Sergeant there, and during your participation in the entire campaign, can you tell something to the Tribunal the nature of which element only went around about Tschentscher in the form of a rumor, especially with regard to excesses towards the civilian population?
A. No, I did not ever hear any rumor about things of that sort.
DR. PRIBILLA: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. STAKELBERG (For the defendant Fanslau):
Q. Witness, I did not quite understand whether you previously answered the question who was in charge of the slaughterhouse at Tarnopol.
A. I cannot tell you that exactly, but since other units were already located at that slaughterhouse at Tarnopol, it is probable that the orders were given by the commanding officers of those units.
Q. There were other butcher platoons there?
A. I assume so, because otherwise we would have moved into that slaughterhouse.
Q. And there were butcher platoons of other units?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it come to your attention that at Zhitomir Jews were employed by the Baker Company?
A. No.
Q. Can you say with certainty that no Jews were employed there, or didn't you know it?
A. Of course, I can not say that for certain, because the Baker Unit was located in the same building, but they were located in a different wing of the building.
Q. Did you ever see any Einsatstruppen in operation, or did you hear anything about them?
A. No, I neither saw them nor did I hear anything about them.
Q. Not during entire campaign?
A. Later on during the Russian campaign they were talking about it.
Q. When did you hear about them for the first time?
A. I can not say with certainty any more, but I assume that it must have been in the year of 1941 and 1942.
Q. However, you are certain that during the first part of the campaign you did not hear anything about the Einsatsgruppen, and you did not see anything of them?
A. No, I did not hear anything about them, nor did I see them.
Q. Material in the form of testimony has been submitted here about the fact that relatively a short time after you passed through that area, Jews the execution Jews to a considerable extent were carried out. Do you know anything about that? Did you hear anything about it at the time?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear anything at all?
A. No.
Q. Did you gain any knowledge of the fact that before you reached that area, the reconnaissance troops had already carried out the executed of Jews?
A. I do not know anything about that either.
MR. STAKELBERG: Your Honor, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other questions by defense counsel? The Prosecutor may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, did I understand you to say that you heard of only two lectures that Tschentscher gave?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that all that he gave?
A. I can not recall any other additional one.
Q. You would have heard of additional one if he had given them, wouldn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. When were you in Zlotzow, witness?
A. I can not recall the exact date any more.
Q. Can you remember the year?
A. Well, it was when we marched into the area there in 1941.
Q. It was around the 1st or 2nd of July, wasn't it?
A. I can not say that any more, I don't know the date.
Q. You came in with the first troops, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see a citadel in Zlotzow?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see dead Jews lying around in the city?
A. The street which came from Lemberg, on that road there were many corpses and there was much material and army trucks and weapons, and things of that sort. In the city itself, I did not see any corpses.
Q. Did you go up to the citadel?
A. No, I did not go to the citadel.
Q. How close to the citadel were you?
A. We billeted ahead of the citadel, for one night, it was a distance between the citadel and us of between eight hundred to one thousand meters.
Q. How long were you there in Zlotzow?
A. It was only for one night.
Q. And you did not see any dead Jews lying around the street in Zlotzow, or anywhere in Zlotzow?
A. No, I did not see any in the streets.
Q. Did you think that you would have seen them if they had been there?
A. Yes.
Q. You say you heard of the Einsatzgruppen around the end of 1941?
A. Yes, I can not give you the year precisely any more, but I know I heard of them later on, but I don't even want to make an approximate guess at the time.
Q. Can you imagine any reason why you and several other smaller men of the SS should have heard about the Einsatzgruppen in Russia, and a man such as the defendant Fanslau not having heard about them?
A. I can not imagine that.
Q. Everybody knew about it, didn't they?
A. As I have said before, I can not say any more precisely when I heard about these things for the first time, it might been later on, I only know of one occasion I heard something, namely that some groups were using them in order to assemble Jews and in order to take them to the concentration camps.
Q. But you did not hear at any time in the East about any kind of mistreatment of the Jews.
A. No.
Q. And the Viking Division never used any Jews for labor purposes?
A. No, so far as I know they never used them.
Q. Did you see any Jews working any time while you were in the East?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever see a Jew while you were in the East?
A. Yes, we passed the cities where many Jews were residing. I can recall one place, I don't know the name any more, we passed through there, and there were a lot of Jews in that place.
Q. They were all quietly residing there. They had not been disturbed in any way?
A. No, since they were running around in their long dresses, pictures were taken of them.
Q. That was all that happened there?
A. Yes.
Q. Just a few pictures were taken?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you join the Allgemeine-SS?
A. In May 1933.
Q. When did you join the Nazi Party?
A. I can not tell you precisely any more. I believe in 1936 or 1937.
Q. Do you remember your Allgemeine SS number?
A. I can not recall that exactly any more. I believe it was somewhere around two-hundred thirty-one thousand.
Q. Do you remember you Waffen-SS number?
A. I did not have any number in the Waffen-SS.
Q. When did you join the Waffen-SS?
A. On 1 September 1939.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
DR. STAKELBERG: Dr. Stakelberg for the defendant Fanslau.
BY DR. STAKELBERG:
Q. Witness, when did you say that you heard for the first time about Einsatsgruppen?
A. I have stated before, I can not recall the year precisely any more, only know I head something about it, it may have been as late as 1944.
Q. Do you know when the defendant Fanslau left the Division Viking?
A. No, I can not tell you that.
Q. It was at the end of August 1941. If was the end of September 1941, I believe. During that time did you hear anything about the Einsatzgruppen?
A. No, I did not hear anything of them during that time.
Q. Do you know when the defendant Tschentscher left the unit?
A. No.
Q. He left approximately on 21 November 1941. Did you hear anything about the Einsatzgruppen at that time?
A. No, it must have been much later.
DR. STAKELBERG: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, will you furnish us with copies of Exhibit 637. I just have the one copy, which probably will should go with the original. It is a translation of the reading matter in the magazine, Document NO-1805.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor, Should I furnish the Tribunal also with a copy of letter from Berger to Himmler, concerning the distribution of it, or will the reading in to the transcript be sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be sufficient. Now, how do we stand for witnesses and testimony? Are there any more witnesses to be offered by the Prosecution?
MR. ROBBINS: Possibly one additional witness to the incident at Tarnopol and Zhitomir. We are trying to contact another person who was working in the slaughterhouse at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know where the witness is? He is immediately available?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, if we have time at all, he will be here by Tuesday.
THE PRESIDENT: And that will conclude the Prosecution's proof, will it?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now the defense?
DR. STAKELBERG: Your Honor, I had offered a number of witnesses, and they have been approved. This was the Divisional Commander Steiner, has been located and he is expected to arrive here any day now. The same thing applies to the former deputy of the defendant Fanslau, Martin Meier, Standavtenfuehrer. We were expecting to locate the former adjutant of the defendant Fanslau Stollhor, and the former driver of the defendant Fanslau, Wohlert,but did not succeed. Egon Egler, and Dr. Pohl I have withdrawn; in the case of Dr. Pohl, because Otto has concerned, and Egon Egles, as his knowledge is not very important in this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, you may have two more witnesses.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I hope I can call two witnesses for certain, Your honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pribilla?
DR. PRIBILLA: One.
THE PRESIDENT: One more witness. What about documents? How many hundred thousand documents will have to be offered yet?
MR. ROBBINS: For the Prosecution, Your Honor, I have six document books. I think, altogether, there are about 60 or 70 documents. There are six books, but all of them are quite small.
THE PRESIDENT: When will they be ready?
MR. ROBBINS: They will be ready Tuesday morning. I can start offering some now, as a matter of fact, if we have time.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, but let's take further inventory, however. Dr. Pribilla?
DR. PRIBILLA: I have heard that my document book has been translated now. It contains only 20 documents and will take only several minutes to take care of it. I request the Tribunal that, by virtue of this presentation of evidence, I may submit some more affidavits later on.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, how much later on ?
DR. PRIBILLA: I already have the affidavits here by several members of the Companies. They have only to be translated yet, and I believe we shall be able to do that by the middle of next week.
THE PRESIDENT: We are very anxious to close the proof in this case this coming week, and before the end of the week, if possible.
You will bear that in mind.
DR. PRIBILLA: Your Honor, I shall submit these affidavits on Tuesday or Wednesday. I am afraid only that they can not be translated so quickly and assume that this might take eight or ten days until they are translated. I do not place any emphasis on reading them here orally.
I ask you to consider, on the other hand, that my presentation of evidence was concluded two months ago and that I have seen a new presentation of evidence here about the military activity of the defendant Tschentscher. In this connection, I want to introduce a few more affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: As long as you do not wish to read them, Dr. Pribilla, the Tribunal can receive them at any time. Dr. von Stakelberg?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, I have just heard from Mr. Ponger that my colleague Bergold intends to call three additional witnesses from Wewelsburg. I don't know anything about it, but I want only to make this known here because my colleague Bergold is absent at the present time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Bergold asked for the approval of three witnesses, which he wasn't sure he would need. He said contingent or possible witnesses.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, with regard to the question of the documents, I would like to say that I have already submitted my document book, and I have only a very few additional single affidavits which I shall submit at the appropriate time.
I am certain that this can be done in the course of next week. It will take up only very little time.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Dr. Haensel?
DR. HAENSEL: For quite some time I have submitted a document book, about two months ago perhaps, which must be translated, and I also turned in one affidavit which has not been translated yet. As soon as it has been completed, I will submit it here.
Then, in the document book which has not been submitted yet by the Prosecution but which has been announced -- I believe it is No. 25 -- there is an affidavit by Georg Loerner which was deposed, before Loerner came to Nurnberg. I believe he gave it at Oberursel. It must have been submitted a long time ago, but it is being introduced only now. The question now is whether this affidavit of Loerner's in his own case will still be accepted now; otherwise, I would like to ask some additional questions of him about it. If this affidavit is not introduced, this will not be necessary. If, however, it should be introduced, then I should have the opportunity because during the examination of Loerner in the witness stand, the Prosecution had this affidavit in their possession, but they did not introduce it.
MR. ROBBINS: With regard to that, the Georg Loerner affidavit, I should like to say the following: We did not have the affidavit in our possession at the time. We would have offered it then if we had. It was taken, as Dr. Haensel says, at Oberursel under an entirely different agency not connected with the Office of Chief of Counsel, and it just came into our possession recently.