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.
Q. Certainly, you were advancing just as fast as you could; but you left security troops or security measures for every place you took?
A. No, that was completely impossible. It was impossible to leave any security troops in such a big area; and so these areas just remained unoccupied. The troops had to go up ahead as a uniform combat unit; and they had to approach the Dniepr in a uniform manner, this including all troops that were available. What remained in between was not the business of the troops. They received the order to advance on such and such a locality, and our destination was at the Dniepr.
Q. I understand all that. Were you in the army during the first war?
A. In the first war I was an officer.
Q. With what outfit were you?
A. I was in the Infantry Regiment von Bayern.
Q. What division?
A. I was in the 1st Division, the 1st Infantry Division.
Q. You stayed in the army after the First World War?
A. Yes, I remained an officer.
Q. Then when did you join the Waffen SS?
A. 1935.
Q. You were transferred as an officer from the Wehrmacht into the Waffen SS?
A. No, I left the army because I had injured my arm a long time before.
Q. Well, when did you leave the army?
A. I left the army on the 1st of January 1934.
Q. You were then out about a year and you joined the Waffen SS?
A. On the 6th or the 10th of May 1945 I entered the Waffen SS as a battalion commander at Erlangen.
Q. You couldn't have entered it in 1945; that was after the war.
A. 1935.
Q. That's what I said. You were out of the Wehrmacht about a year when you went into the Waffen SS?
A. Yes.
Q. What rank did you go in as--as a major?
A. I left the army as a major and was called into the Waffen SS as a lieutenant colonel.
Q. Did you know about the program of the extermination of the Jews as advocated by the SS?
A. I didn't quite understand your question.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): Will the interpreter please repeat the question?
(Question repeated by interpreter.)
A. Of the extermination program of the Jews nothing came to my knowledge. In peace-time this matter was never discussed nor were any steps taken to that effect. Nothing could lead me to conclude that the SS was exterminating Jews. It is very painful to me but during war-time I heard that these things happened when we were engaged in combat with the enemy. Between us and the perpetrators of these regrettable and painful things there was a very big distance.
Q. Are you in custody now or are you free?
A. I am in custody. I am a British prisoner of war.
Q. Have you been indicted by the British?
A. No, I have not been indicted.
BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO):
Q. General, I don't think it is of any great consequence, but perhaps you erred when you said you joined the Waffen SS in 1935. The Waffen SS had not come into being in 1935, had it?
A. No, the SS Special Duty Squads existed at the time.
Q. The Waffen SS came into being in 1939 in the Polish campaign.
A. Yes, it was activated in 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken. ) -7247
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, will you put on the earphones. When did you join the General-SS, witness?
A. I did not belong to the Allgemeine -SS.
Q. When did you join the Party, the Nazi Party?
A. In 1937, collectively, within the scope of my unit.
Q. And do I understand your testimony to be that at no time while you were in the SS that you heard lectures on racial doctrines to the members of the troops?
A. I did not hear such lectures, as the commanding officer of the troops. We were not expected to listen to things like that.
Q. Do you know that such lectures were given to the troops?
A. In the unit in peacetime we had what we called a man in charge of the training; that officer gave lectures, which were about a variety of topics; not as you say that they were lectures on racial doctrines.
Q. I am just asking you if there were any lectures on racial theories?
A. Yes, I am sure that there were, quite sure.
Q. And were there lectures on anti-Jewish doctrines?
A. No, I personally as a matter of principle refused to attend any such thing. I said myself that a persecution of a Jewish Nation I would refute, for from my intimate feelings-
Q. You say that you refused to attend them, but did you know that they were given, do you not?
A. I think it is possible, yes. We had not any definite plan within the special task units. That was entirely up to the training man in charge of the training.
Q. Witness, you told us that you heard about excesses while you were in Russia.
During any of these excesses were any of the civilian population killed?
A. Of what excesses are you talking about now?
Q. You told us that you had heard of a number of excesses by the SS, also by members of your Division, didn't you?
A. No members of the civilian population were ever killed. I really don't understand your question, because it is the truth these troops were not fighting the civilian population, but we fought against the enemy.
Q. Witness, you said that there were a number of court martials within your Division because of excesses against the civilian population. I am asking you were any civilians killed in the course of those excesses?
A. No civilian was killed off. The excesses I was talking about were concerned with violations of property, of the enemy population. For instance --
Q. That is sufficient. You state that the excesses dealt only with the property, and it is your testimony ---
A. Yes, excesses against the property.
Q. And it is your testimony that you never heard of any killing of the civilian population by members of the SS, is that correct?
A. Naturally, in the course of a campaign excesses against property, and other things did take place. Never did troops kill any member of the civilian population.
Q. And your testimony is that members of the SS did not participate in killings of the Jews. Do you know that from your own knowledge? Is that correct?
A. I did not fully understand your question. Would you please repeat it, it is very difficult for me.
Q. I understand your testimony to be that you know from your own knowledge that members of the SS did not participate in killings or Jews, or of any of the civilian population?
A. What I know is that my Division fought the enemy and not the enemy civilian population, and that every excess of any type, which was an offense under the penal code of the German Reich was dealt with by court martial in the Waffen-SS, when it reached the knowledge of a superior officer.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: That is not answer to the question at all. Put the question.
BY MR. ROBBINS: You just listen to my question and try to give me a direct answer. Is it your testimony that members of the SS, the WaffenSS, did not participate in the killings of Jews and the Civilian Population?
A. I think it is entirely out of the question that combat units took part in these things.
Q. Witness, if the documents of the Einsatzgruppen, officially captured documents, should show that units of the Waffen-SS did participate with the Einsatzgruppen, would you be surprised at that?
A. The units of the Waffen-SS had nothing to do with the Einsatzgruppen, neither organizationally nor personally. They had no idea of them and knew nothing of what they were doing. Last year here in Nurnberg I heard that some officers of the S Waffen-SS, a small, minute minority, had been ordered, that in fact, some of them had been misused. Nobody can protect themselves against that.
Q. So you have heard that members of the Waffen-SS did participate with the Einsatzgruppen?
A. I heard it last year here in Nurnberg, during the trial when the Einsatzgruppen was discussed.
Q. Is it your testimony, witness, that the Viking Division did not use the civilian population as laborers, and that they did not employ Jews?
A. Again I have not understood your question. Do you mean the "SS" or the Waffen-SS?
Q. I am talking now about the Viking Division?
A. The Viking Division did not employ any civilian workers at all.
Q. Excuse me, that includes the slaughtering houses, the bakery units, and all the supply troops, is that correct?
A. I don't believe that the supply units had civilian employees.
Q. Witness, if proof in this case should show Jews did in fact work in the slaughtering houses, would that fact surprise you?
A. The Butcher Company, of course, I don't know too much about them, was Working in the field, that is at the front, and at very short notice, and these units at various localities, and then from there they would follow the advancing units at great speed, therefore, never settling down anywhere, it, therefore, was not able to employ civilian labor, and it is quite impossible for them to do that.
Q. How close was Fanslau and Tschentscher's troops to you as you were advancing?
A. Tschentscher was never near our units, because he was busy at the rear with his division. Fanslau on the whole was linked with the quartermaster general; he was the liaison with the I-B, between the fighting units and the combat units, and the supply unit had on several occasions to be close; he was at a distance of forty to thirty kilometers from my units. On certain occasions, Fanslau together with B-I of the quartermaster came to me and reported briefly. Of course, when you advanced fast, this happened only very briefly and infrequently, and the quartermaster general usually came every second day.
Q. Now how far behind your troops was Tschentscher usually?
A. Tschentscher was at a distance from my battle headquarters of the Division, that is, of course, I would say the first foremost speerhead, about eighty kilometers.
Q. And it was Fanslau task to act as liaison man between the supply units and your battle headquarters of the Division?
A. Fanslau was responsible for the whole of the supplies of the Division, the food and the clothing. He also had the official supervision of the pay.
Q. Excuse me. I am just asking you about liaison now. Had he carried out the liaison between the supply and the battle headquarters, is that right?
A. Yes, quite; he had to fetch the orders.
Q. And he had to travel between the supply units and the headquarters a good deal, did he not?
A. Almost every second day, or in some cases every day he had to inform himself with I-B about the intentions of the Division, that means marching route, Etc., and on that depended the further supplies to the units to be established.
Q. Excuse me. I am asking you about his traveling. Did he travel a good deal between the supply units and the battle headquarters?
A. Almost every day, or every second day, at least.
Q. You told us about atrocities that you heard of at Tarnopol, and, you said that you heard that they were committed by the Ukrainian population, and, that you ordered an investigation, and found that none of the Viking Division was in Tarnopol at the time these atrocities occurred?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. What I said was that the Division had not the possibility to do anything of that sort, because they were outside of Tarnopol.
A. Witness, how far outside of Tarnopol were they?
A The division had been divided into various fighting unit. I must give you all the examples. Otherwise, you won't understand. The Ninth Armored Division went straight ahead, pursuing the enemy. The Viking Division followed as the second fighting unit on the left and right of Tarnopol and occupied and secured the forests, particularly to the south and southeast, because there the area was still unoccupied by German units. That is the reason why the unit was at a distance of about six kilometers outside Tarnopol, and a small part--a battalion perhaps--one kilometer-to the southwest, the others had completely disengaged themselves from the town.
Q Then it is not true then that the Viking Division was not within the area of tarnopol; they were very close to Tarnopol, were they not?
A No, the Viking Division was at a wide radius around Tarnopol, with various tactical orders.
Q And some of them as close as one kilometer?
A That was a small unit directed towards the southwest. They had disengaged themselves from the town in order to do their job there.
Q Do you know that the supply units stayed at Tarnopol from eight to ten days?
A I don't think that can be right, because the division went form Tarnopol on the next day after their arrival to the former Russian frontier. There it had an engagement with the enemy that lasted for two days. Then it went on to the south via Proskurowsk, through the forest north of Proskurowsk toward Zhitomir, and the pursuing units of course, followed up immediately behind them. The supply units, therefore can not have been in Tarnopol for more than two or three days.
Q Well, witness, if the proof should show that during those two or three, days, around the 5th of July when these atrocities occurred would that fact surprise you?
A I didn't follow that question. It is very difficult for me.
Q If the proof should show that during the two or three days that the supply units were at Tarnopol, around the 5th of July, 1941, and that during those days, the atrocities against the civilian population occurred, I asked you if that fact would surprise you.
A It is extremely difficult for me to imagine that at all. Hardly possible at all, in fact, that officers like Tschentscher and Fanslau, who after all were in command of those troops, who were always obedient and orderly soldiers, that those of all people should have deviated from the orders and become insubordinate in this point on which I particularly laid emphasis. I also believe that my B-I, my former regimental adjutant who was a very close friend of mine and who entirely shared my views, that he would not have reported this to me--I can't imagine that. That would have been a very grave impossibility on his part.
Q If atrocities had been committed by the troops under Tschents and Fanslau, I take it that you would consider yourself responsible for those crimes, would you not?
A I would have immediately done something about that. I would have put the commanding officer of the company before the next court martial.
Q Excuse me I asked you if today you would not consider yourself responsible for those crimes having been committed in your division.
A I think it is impossible that crimes did take place.
Q Did you hear about any excesses at Stelotzow, any atrocities that were committed there?
A I have heard nothing about it--that any German unit should have committed any atrocities; I think it is entirely out of the question.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: any other questions by Defense Counsel?
EXAMINATION BY DR. STAKELBERG:
Q General, I would like to hear you on the difference between a man who gives orders to the troops and the man who is in charge of the area geographically.
A The man who is in charge of the troops uses his troops according to a specific operational order. All he is concerned with is his competent duty within an extremely narrowly drawn scope. He is not responsible for any are beyond ten kilometers in depth, and otherwise he is simply to prevent that the enemy achieves a breakthrough. Behind that area the corps area and the army area to the roar begin, which do not go beyond the area of 100 kilometers from the foremost front line. In that area you have the military commanders, or whatever you may call them.
Q Were you ever in charge of the area, geographically speaking?
A No. My tasks were only strategic and operational ones.
Q What about Fanslau.
A He belonged to the troop, and nowhere did he have to fulfill territorial tasks. He did not even have the task of local commander, because that was not part of his duty.
Q How many kilometers did you advance per day as an average?
A It depended on the military situation of the day. When we did this quick encircling march with our motorized unit, we did 100 or 150 kilometers.
Q During the day?
A Yes, during the day, and during the nights, these enormous motorized advanced sometimes stopped also, of course, When one had contacted the enemy, one had to fight him, which stopped the division. The division would go forward an area of about 30 or 40 kilometers.