AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1345 hours.)
TEE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
FELIX STEINER, a witness, took the stand and testify as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Witness will you stand and raise your right hand and repeat 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 PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. von STAKELBERG:
Q Witness, I believe it will be better if you take your earphones off because I am speaking German.
A Yes, I can hear you very well.
Q Would you, please, tell the Tribunal your full name?
A My name is Felix Steiner. I was born on the 33rd of May, 1896. I am unmarried and I am of the Protestant religion.
Q What rank did you have in the Waffen-SS at the end?
A I was a General in the Waffen-SS and a Commanding General.
Q What position did you have at the beginning of the Russian campaign?
A I was a Major General and a divisional commander of the armored division, "Viking".
Q General, would you, please, speak a little more slowly and, above all, will you just wait one moment between your answer and my question so that the interpreters will be able to follow up along with us.
General, do you know the defendants Fanslau and Tschentscher?
A Yes, I know Fanslau and I also know Tschentscher.
Q What rank and what position did the defendant, Fanslau, occupy at the outbreak of the Russian campaign?
A Obersturmbanhfuehrer. Franslau was the divisional administrative officer of the division.
Q And the defendant Tschentscher?
A Sturmbannfuehrer Tschentscher was in charge of the food office.
Q You can certainly still recall the first few days of the advance?
A Yes.
Q When did the division "Viking" enter campaign operations?
A The division "Viking" was part of an armored corps whose task it was to advance as quickly as possible to the south of the big road to Kiew toward the Dnjepr. There it was to complete the encirclement of the Russian forces between the Dnjepr and the old Russian border.
Q You said that the division "Viking" was part of an armored corps?
A Yes.
Q Was this an SS armored corps?
A No. This was the 14th Armored Corps of the Wehrmacht.
Q Of the army?
A It was a combined corps, the 9th Armored Division and the SC Armored Division, "Viking".
Q Can you till approximately describe to us the route of the advance? When approximately did you enter combat?
A The break-through over the Bug River was carried out by infantry divisions while the armored forces were still on the other side of the Bug River waiting there in preparation for the attack. After the infantry units had carried out the break-through, in particular on the road towards Luck and near Lemberg, the armored units were brought into operation so that they could carry out the operation of engaging the enemy in combat. The armored units according to a certain distance of these break--through spots were engaged in combat with Russian armored reserves. Severe armored battles took place here near Luck, and other armored tank battles took place in the vicinity of Tarnopol. The 14th Armored Corps, first of all, was south of the road to Luck and it had an engagement there. There it came through Lemberg, Szlotzow, Tarnopol, Broskurow, Zhitomir, Biala Zierkew. It just kept its advance along this route, and the SS Armored infantry division "Viking" during the advance was the second division of the corps.
That is to say, at the head of the corps there was an armored division and behind it there followed, the SS armored infantry division "Viking".
After Biala Zierkow the division was subordinated to another armored corps. This was the Third Armored Corps. This Third Armored Corps then advanced directly to the Dnjepr and from the north to the south it advanced on Dnjepr-Propetrowsk where it established a bridgehead over the Dnjepr. Then the division "Viking" was located at this bridgehead together with other divisions. That is the route which the division "Viking" took along this combat sector.
Q The speed of the advance as I can assume it from your words apparently was very great.
A The speed of the advance was extremely great and the divisions were only halted whenever some engagement existed with the enemy.
Q Now what happened to the rear echelon troops? Did they always follow up directly behind you or was there, I might say, a certain vacuum?
A The units which followed behind us were the infantry units which had forced the crossing of the Bug River. Naturally they were on foot and they arrived much later at the frontal sector. However, these troop units were engaged farther to the south because on the north and flank of this entire big army the fast units were actually operating.
Q Well, you belonged to a combat unit and the infantry probably was also considered as being part of the combat units. When did the occupation army arrive?
A The occupation army came a considerable time later. Within four weeks the units had reached the Dnjepr. Between the Bug and the Dnjepr there is in my opinion, a distance of five hundred kilometers. That includes almost the entire Ukraine.
Q. General, now I must ask you something about the discipline of your units. We have heard testimony here about the fact that the spearheads of the advancing German units assembled Jews, tortured Jews and that they shot and murdered Jews.
Can you tell us anything about that?
A Mr. Attorney, that is entirely out of the question. This is entirely out of the question because of the speed of our advance which did not leave the troops the necessary time even in order to have itself supplied, and, secondly, it is completely impossible because of the strict orders which were issued and which were known to every man. It was the order that any excess toward any parts of the population would bring about court martial proceedings. The regimental commanders were precisely informed about this and it was their duty to strictly comply with these very clear and energetic orders down to the lowest unit, down to the last man under this command. This was done, and I have no doubt whatsoever that this order was complied with in the strictest sense.
Q Was not there an order by the OKW that excesses toward the civilian population in Russia would not be punished?
A There was such an order. I know of this order. This order was issued before the advance of the German forces into the Russian territory, and announced to the divisional commanders. This order, however, had an amendment. Excesses toward the civilian population are not allowed to be punished provided they do not constitute severe dangers for the discipline of the troops. Every responsible and reasonable troop commander, however, had to tell himself naturally that a simple enlisted man or an officer should never be allowed to commit arbitrary acts of any kind or to tolerate them. I consequently maintained the point of view that in every case discipline and order were threatened if any arbitrary acts were not to be punished. Consequently, I did not carry out this order. I reported my opinion to the Commanding General, with reference to the dangers with regard to discipline which this order might harbor and I acted accordingly toward my unit. I gave the appropriate orders.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Which Commanding General do you refer to the corps commander or the army commander?
THE WITNESS: The Commanding General of the 14th Armored Corps was the General of the Infantry, von Wiedersheim. The army commander was "Generaloberst" von Kleist.
BY DR. von STAKELBERG:
Q General, where was the supply battalion in the course of your advance?
A The supply battalion followed up behind the combat units. It was approximately the interval of a march with vehicles so that the troops could send supply vehicles to obtain the food and the distance could be covered within one single day. A separation of the supply units from the combat units was impossible because it was part of the supplying and actually of the life of the troops.
Q Therefore, you say that the supply battalion followed behind you and that they were always within reach of you?
A It had to be within a certain distance.
Q And how was the contact of the supply battalion toward the units to the rear?
A The supply goods were sent to the troops by means of the next higher unit, that is to say, the army. The corps itself did not have any bigger supply units. Therefore, from the rear echelon vehicle columns would go towards the front so that the supply goods could be furnished or the army would at a central place establish an army food depot.
Q Therefore, the supply battalion itself did not have any contact with the rear army echelons?
A The supply battalion did not have any business whatsoever in the rear area of the army, but it was in the area of operations.
Q: Evidence has been submitted here to the effect that a relatively short distance behind you in various locations, for instance in Zclozow and Tarnopol, executions of Jews took place to a large extent by so called Einsatzgruppen. The reason was given that these were reprisals because of the shootings of naturalized Poles and Ukraines by the Russians whenever they evacuated an area, Did you hear anything about that at the time?
A: The Einsatzgruppen were police authorities, according to what I heard here and what I heard in this trial last year, and I have heard several long statements about it. At the time in the armored units the Einsatzgruppen did not even make their appearance, because it was impossible, according to the state of affairs at the time that in a combat unit there should be a police force.
Q: At the time did you obtain any knowledge about these shootings of Jews?
A: When we marched through Tarnopol I heard by way of rumor that the Ukrainian autnome forces had committed excesses. As I fundamentally did not like these things, and here again I can remember one Incident which happened during the Polish campaign -- here within an armored division an individual excess had taken place and in this case in the sharpest possible manner I publically intervened so that this individual was punished much more severely than was usual. At the time he received 15 years in jail. In a larger circle it was stated that a much more severe punishment should be meted out here. I have therefore, condemned such excesses to the utmost and when I heard this rumor, I immediately had an investigation started as to whether any man in my unit had even been in the vicinity of the place where these excesses took place.
I also received the report that nobody of the unit which could be considered at all had been located in the City of Tarnopol because this combat unit was at the main protective line outside of the city and they had advanced towards the front and consequently they had not even entered the city.
Q: How long did you stay at Tarnopol with your unit?
A: One day and a half.
Q: One day and a half or half a day?
A: One half a day. The troops move in directly behind the armored division which had already passed through Tarnopol. This was only a very small fraction of my division. It was only one battalion. This battalion belonged to the protective line at the southeastern edge of Tarnopol.
Q: General, you have just told us about several excesses which were severly punished during the campaign in Poland. Do you know of any excesses within your own units?
A: Yes, naturally, excesses occurred. In a unit of 20,000 men it can hardly be avoided even if the sharpest orders are issued.
Q: Did you Intervene against such excess?
A: Yes, in the most rigid manner which was prescribed by law.
Q: Can you recall any individual cases?
A: Yes, I believe I can give you some individual cases. I can recall, for example, three cases, typical cases, which have remained in my memory. In one case an excess had occurred. It was committed by a non-commissioned officer of the 5th artillery Regiment. He had committed this excess toward a Russian peasant.
A dispute arose at a road and some struggle broke out there. They beat each other up and the peasant then was beaten up so severely by the soldier that he died. I then told the Regimental Commander that fundamentally in such a case I demanded the severest penalty which was prescribed by law. I told him that I considered this necessary in this case. The Regimental Commander then gave me some long statements about the personality of the person who had perpetrated the deed and he tried to excuse him for having committed this deed. However, I refuted his point of view. The man afterwards was tried by a court-martial and a severe penalty was imposed on him. I want to give you another case. A deserter who was located between Dnjeprepetrowsk and the Mios, in my opinion, in the vicinity of Dnjepropetrowsk and Pawlograd and who had stayed there for many months, was caught there, together with another man, after he had terrorized the population in an almost Incredible manner. He had plundered them out completely, looted them. When this man was caught in February, I believe at the Mios, he was tried by court-martial and he was given 15 to 20 years in jail. This was a particularly significant and most severe case. It was extremely embarrassing to me. This case had already been dealt with by court-martial in Dnjepropetrowsk before and here one of the perpetrators of the deed was sentenced to death.
Q: Can the man who was sentenced in February 1942, -could the name of this deserter have been Otto?
A: It is extremely difficult for me to give you one of the names of 20,000 people today. I don't know that. In any case, this was the only instance of the kind in the division. It was the only case when in that winter a death penalty was requested and recommended by the court-martial board, which, of course, remained so precisely in my memory.
Q: Do you know of any excesses in the supply battalion which had been committed by an Oberscharfuehrer Sirt at Zhitomir?
A: No.
Q: Do you know whether the supply battalion employed Jews?
A: I consider that to be completely impossible.
Q: And why?
A: This supply battalion was located -- it was constantly on the move and it followed the troops which were rapidly advancing at the same speed. This unit did not have any more extended stays which would have been the prerequisites for employment of any native of any localities. This did not occur at all, unless it happened when the division was engaged in the severe fighting at Taraschka. This lasted for approximately one week. However, for a supply unit it was impossible to stay at any one locality for any long period of time. In my opinion, the unit was excellently equipped with machinery and therefore it did not even need any employees to work for it.
Q: It has also been stated here that immediately after the first combat unit entered Tarnopol, posters were hung up which told the Jews to report and to turn in their valuables.
A: The combat unit did not have any orders of that kind. They did not have any of such tasks or tasks of a similar nature. I have not seen anything of that sort. Furthermore, it is completely out of the question that the combat units should have occupied themselves with anything of a local nature.
The combat units were either engaged in combat or they were on the route, were marching along. One must not forget that this advance through the Ukraine occurred at an extraordinarily quick rate of speed and that the decision was dependent on the fact that the fast units should come in touch with the rear of the enemy.
Q: It is well known that later on -- I don't know when, that then Jews had to wear a certain star or a certain arm band, or something of that nature. Was this ordered by your troops?
A: It is completely out of the question. The combat troops, as I have already said before, were engaged in a combat and they were confronted by the enemy with whom they were in full contact during the battle. These combat units did not have any task whatsoever to fulfill in the rear. These units did not have any territory towards the rear either where they could have taken such a measure. Furthermore, I think it is very poor taste to identify Jews in any particular manner, which is something which I told my officers and men already in 1937 and 1938.
Q: And you can prove that, you said?
A: Yes, certainly, I can prove that through witnesses. That is an opinion which fundamentally was shared by the officers.
Q: It has further been stated here that in the battle against the partisans in the East, murders and atrocities had also occurred at that time. Was there any battle carried on against partisans?
A: In the entire Ukraine up to the year 1942, in the spring of that year, in my opinion, there was no struggle against the partisans at all.
The fighting of the partisans, in my opinion, took place in the rear areas only as late as 1942 and between the combat units and the area where the partisan fighting was taking place there was at least an interval of almost 1,000 kilometres. For instance in the Caucasus individual drivers who came from Berlin went through the entire Ukraine and there they would be all by themselves and they would billet themselves with farmers and peasants.
Q And nothing happened to them?
A Naturally nothing happened to them when they did that.
Q In any case, at the time when the Defendant Fanslau was the administrative officer with these units things of that sort did not happen at all?
A It was completely out of the question.
Q Now, I want to say something else about the training of the troops. Was the racial policy a subject of the training?
A My units were composed of almost 50% Germans. Then we had Dutchmen, Danes, Norwegians, and Finns, and it was quite impossible that any party ideology could be applied with these units. I fundamentally entertained the point of view that my troops fundamentally were to be trained according to the basic principles of the military service and military discipline, order and cleanliness.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: General, were you a career officer of the Wehrmacht?
THE WITNESS: I was an officer of the Wehrmacht.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: And assigned to the SS Division?
THE WITNESS: No, in 1934, early in 1934, I left the Wehrmacht as the result of an old injury of my arm, but I was a member of the Army up to that time and that was from the moment on when I became a lieutenant, and that was when I was 18 years old.
Q General, do you know the publication or the pamphlet, "The Subhuman Being" issued by the Main Office of the SS and printed by the Nordland Publishing House?
A The pamphlets from the SS Main Office in my opinion were only published as late as 1942. I only had, courier contact with Berlin and every four weeks, or sometimes even six weeks, this courier would go to Berlin. It is quite certain that I received a number of pamphlets from the Main Office on those occasions. However, I believe that one cannot blame a combat unit if these people do not look at literature of that sort, because, after all, from the desk back in the homeland you cannot exert any influence on a combat unit by propogranda when a unit is more than 2,000 kilometres away and lives under completely different circumstances and has a completely different picture of life.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stakelberg, did he answer your question as to whether he was familiar with this particular document?
DR. VON STAKELBERG: No, he did not. I will ask him again, Your Honor.
Q Witness, you haven't quite answered my question. Did you read this pamphlet yourself, "The Subhuman Being"?
A No, I didn't know it.
THE PRESIDENT: Did he get it?
Q Did you get it?
A I can't tell you that. I don't know.
Q And now you said in answer to my last question that your unit was only a combat unit organized according military standards, not a political unit?
A It was an armored infantry division and, as such, from the very beginning it was a component of the field army of the troops in combat.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q It was an SS unit, wasn't it?
A Yes, it was an SS Armored infantry Division.
Q And wasn't every SS unit a political unit, as well as a military unit?
A It was strictly a military unit without any political character.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Have you understood the question? The witness has not understood the question.
Q Wasn't the SS a political organization, as well as a military organization?
A The Waffen SS was a strictly military organization.
Q Without any political significance?
A Without any political significance.
Q Do you honestly think that, General?
A I am firmly convinced of it. The Waffen SS was a combat troop.
Q Why was it separate from the Wehrmacht then?
A It consisted of especially selected men.
Q And selected for political reasons?
A No. The Waffen SS was not selected for political reasons.
Q All right. You are an old timer and I don't suppose I could convince you of that, but why do you think it was a separate organization from the Wehrmacht, if it was purely military?
A May I make an explanation of that? The SS-Verfuegungstruppe, the Special Duty Squads, which was the predecessor of the Waffen SS, at the time was established for reasons which concerned more or less the protection of Adolf Hitler. That a task of that nature could not occupy all of the time of a special unit is quite obvious and that is why this unit on its own initiative fundamentally and decisively set itself military tasks. These tasks consisted of the fact that this unit was to receive more modern training and also the development of its officers was to be more modern. In the Special Duty Squad, the SS-Verfuegungstruppe, for example, there was not the establishment of the officer candidate which existed in the Army officers corps.
Q This is taking too much time, General. Was the head of the SS a military man? Who was the head of the SS? Who was the Reichsfuehrer SS?
AAre you referring to the Reichsfuehrer?
Q Yes, SS.
A He was a completely non-military man.
Q You are talking about Himmler?
A Yes.
Q He wasn't a military man, was he?
A No, that is completely out of the question.
Q And he was the head there, the supreme leader of the SS? Well, was he?
A Reichsfuehrer Himmler was never the commander of the SS in the fullest sense of the word.
Q Well, what is higher than a Reichsfuehrer?
A Well, the tasks are in different fields.
Q That's right. That's right. The other field was the political field.
A. Yes, if one does not dispose of a sufficient knowledge of the subject matter, then one cannot be a superior; and the troops did not consider him to be that in the fullest sense.
Q. Wasn't it perfectly possible for Himmler to remove any general in command in the SS?
A. Well, for that we had the Inspector of the SS Special Duty Squads.
Q. And he was subordinate to Himmler?
A. Yes, he was subordinate to Himmler.
Q. That sounds to me as though Himmler was in command of the SS and in supreme command.
A. Well, yes, certainly he was; but he was not a military commander. He was not the military leader. He couldn't do that.
Q. Well, no matter what you call him, the man in supreme control of the SS didn't know a bayonet from a helmet, did he?
A. He knew many things but he could not be in command of a unit.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, that's enough.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. General, I have one more question in this direction. For example could Himmler dismiss you?
A. Yes, of course, he could do that. He could do that, yes, naturally.
Q. Even during combat operations?
A. Yes, naturally. However, the superiors of the field army who were in between the commanding general and the commander-in-chief of the army could have objected to that. Of course, whether he would have sustained these objections is another question.
Q. Your direct superior, however, was the general of the corps?
A. Yes.
Q. That was the General of the Army General Von Wiedersheim?
A. General Von Wiedersheim, the Commanding General of the 14th Armored Corps.
Q. He was the General of the Army?
A. Yes, naturally.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Cross examination? Dr. Hoffmann, are you going to clear this up and make it all clear now?
BY DR. HOFFMAN:
Q. Witness, I have only one question to ask you. On one occasion did you hear a speech by Himmler?
A. Of course, I listened to Himmler's speeches.
Q. I'm not trying to incriminate you or tell you off about it. I only wanted to ask you what you think of these speeches. What was your impression of them? Were you deeply impressed by them?
A. The speeches of Himmler always dealt with a romantic subject, with romanticism.
Q. Witness, I want to ask you quite concretely -- did you hear the speech at Posen or at Metz?
A. No, I heard the last part of the Posen speech. That is to say, I was not within the circle of the people who were invited to attend. On this day I wanted to talk to Reichsfuehrer Himmler because I had to discuss with him urgent questions regarding the equipment of my corps. They were completely urgent questions; and I wanted to report to him. I wanted to have an appointment with him. I then heard that he was giving a speech. During the last part of his speech, I went into the room where the speech was being given. I heard how he spoke about an advance on the Ural Mountains at the moment when the German units were engaged in severe battle and retreating in the Ukraine and I heard of how these units were suffering from inferior equipment. This idea seemed so unreal to me that I was actually quite speechless. I just couldn't imagine what was happening here. I told myself, "It is not possible that in view of the present situation we can speak of an advance on the Urals."
Q. You listened to such a speech. Did you distribute the contents of this speech to lower eschelons?
A. No, that was impossible. I couldn't have passed on a speech of that kind. Had I told a troop unit when it was retreating that they were to advance on the Ural Mountains, then they would have considered me to be completely crazy.
THE PRESIDENT: They would have been right.
DR. HOFFMANN: I have no further questions.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO):
Q. Well, General, after hearing a speech of that character, which you have very properly summed up as seeming to come from someone not only romantically minded but a little bit crazy, did you still continue to adhere to the SS doctrines?
A. Last year I read Himmler's speech here in Nurnberg for the first time.
Q. No, but you've told us you heard part of the Posen speech when he was talking about advancing on the Urals when you at the time were engaged in a retreat, and you regarded that as a maniacal utterance.
A. Yes, I considered that to be quite wrong and without any sense.
Q. Yes, but this man was your supreme chief and he laid down the law for the SS. Knowing that you were dealing with a crazy person, did you still continue to adhere to the SS doctrines?
A. Reichsfuehrer Himmler sometimes said the strangest things which without any doubt he was serious about at the moment. However, he would change them again and again because he was not a stable person. I can recall one incident which is perhaps typical.
Q. Don't make it too long, General. Give it to us briefly.
A. Well, I don't think that he was crazy in the true sense of the word; but he was very unreal in many things.
He just did not have his feet on the ground.
Q. Although he may have vacillated and changed his views, he never at any time deviated from the program of mann extermination of what he regarded as the sub-humans of the human race? That's true, isn't it?
A. Well, I have heard that now afterwards. However, I was not acquainted with this extermination program, and I did not consider it possible.
BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS):
Q. General, did you know of the mass extermination of the Jews in your area during the first -
A. No.
Q. Just a minute. --During the first few weeks of the advance in the Ukraine?
A. During the first days of the advance we advanced very quickly, and we did not have the slightest idea what happened to our rear. We were looking at the enemy and fully occupied with the operation and the battles in which we were engaged.
Q. Your headquarters was some distance behind where the actual fighting was taking place though, was it not?
A. My combat command post was right up front.
Q. How close to the actual fighting?
A. Often I would be right in the middle of it. Frequently I would drive right through the Russian lines with my little vehicle.
Q. General, if the prosecution would show you authentic documents issued by the Einsatzgruppe indicating that your area from the beginning of the Russian campaign, up until about the 21st day of September in the area of which you were in command, in the towns that you named here which your units went through, over six thousand civilian Jews were killed during those dates, would you still say that you knew nothing about it?
A. I can state the following. My units marched together with a big army corps, and they touched all these localities only very briefly.
The troops would hardly stay in these localities more than one afternoon because their aim and destination were not there but at the Dniepr. Consequently, it is quite impossible that these units could be charged with such things in any form. It is also completely impossible that the troops, with their discipline and considering all the severe measures which were ordered for the protection of the civilian population, could have committed offenses of any sort.
Q. In other words, you were the command officer of the area and neither you nor anyone else under your command knew that these six thousand people were being killed?
A. I didn't quite understand your question. In my area or by my units?
Q. In your area where you were the commanding officer.
A. May I make the following statement. I did not have any area at all. We had only an advance road which we had to pass as quickly as possible.
Q. You had the area you captured, didn't you?
A. I did not have any area under my command as a troop commander. I had just a combat sector or a route of advance; but I did not have any area.
Q. In other words, when you captured a place, you didn't take charge of it; you let somebody else have it? That's the way your army ran?
A. Yes, once we had taken a locality, we would leave the locality again on the following day; and then we had to go on ahead within the scope of the operation.