A. Yes, Radetzky was present at this discussion with all the other leaders. I did not speak to him myself when alone with him, We were there when the information was made know.
Q. Did Radetzky ever voice an objection against this order to you?
A. At the time Radetzky waid that he had been assigned to the SK-4a as an interpreter and in my direct examination I stated that I drew Radetzky's attention to the fact, in Sokal, that he, as an untrained police expert, he could not ne put in change of a subkommando in the Army units; therefore he had to take over the safe-blasting kommando where he had been put in charge of security files and documents.
Q. Herr Blobel, you did not answer my question, and it is quite obvious that you evaded answering the questions I am putting to you. The question was very specific. Did Radetsky over voice to you objections against the Fuehrer order?
A. Yes, he talked to me about it, and the discussion took place that he would not be considered for this order he had gone to the S-III, and therefore he carried but those tasks.
Q. I do not think that what you have just said answers the question. Did he object specifically to the contents of the order, that means to the killing of all Jews, gypsies and Communists. Did he do that?
A. Do you mean to say -- Is that what I understood?
( The question was repeated by the interpreter.)
A. Yes, he drew my attention to the fact that he was only there as an interpreter and that he was not qualified. He said that he was not qualified to be with anything else, and of course, he thus expressed objections.
Q. What did he say as to the objection? You said, "You can't be," to him. You said that he had objected, What kind of objection did he voice?
A. He said, "I have been engaged, and I have been detailed here as an interpreter, and I do not have to deal with tasks of the assignment of the Einsatz itself.
I must be used as an interpreter only." "Yes", I said, "as a police expert without any training you cannot be put in charge of a kommando and therefore you will be an interpreter."
Q. You have told us what he said?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he over ask you to be relieved from his position as he could not bear the fact that defenseless people were constantly killed in very great numbers by the unit in which he served as an officer?
A. Such a personal suggestion, or rather personal plea, Radetzky did not send to me, I don't know if he spoke to Dr. Rasch about it.
Q. What was done if Radetzky or others of your officers would have voiced such objections and asked to be relieved from the assignment?
A. It would have been my duty to send this gentleman to Dr. Rasch and ask him to discuss the question with this authority, As far as that is concerned, he could have gone.
Q. You would have sent him to Dr. Rasch, is that correct?
A. Yes, I would have sent him to Dr. Rasch.
Q. There would have been no action against this officer on your part?
A. Well, that depended on Dr. Rasch's stops or Dr. Rasch's attitude.
Q. I asked on your part, Herr Blobel, and not on the part of Dr. Rasch. You would have taken no action against Radetzky or another of the officers if he would have asked to be released as he did not want to carry out the Hitler order. You would have taken no action, is that correct?
A. If I had received the orders for it, but if he just said, "I want to be released from my post", as far as I am concerned, I would have said, "Go to Dr. Rasch. As far as I am concerned, you can go."
Q. I would like now to turn to your assignment in Einsatzkomando 1005, That was a special task of the burning of the corpses in mass graves, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Is that a document number, Mr. Hochwald?
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: No, if Your Honors please, this special assignment which was given to the witness by the Chief of the Gestapo, Mueller, was known under a code name, Einsatskommando 1005, and that was what my question was.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but I didn't get any question from your statment to him.
Q. (By Mr, Horlick-Hochwald) The question was whether Einsatzkommando 1005 was the code name for this special task of burning of the borpses in mass graves?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: That was the question, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HEIN: (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT BLOBEL) Your Honor, I object to this set of question. The Operation 1005, that is, the burning of corpses from the graves in the East is of no value for the proceedings here. In my opening statement I made statements to this effect and I said that the burning of corpses is not a punishable act and it does not matter by whom these persons were executed. In the opening of this set of questions, I only see an unnecessary extension of the proceedings here and I deem this set of questions of no probative value whatsoever. I would like, therefore, to ask you not to have these questions answered.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, if I am not very much mistaken. Dr. Heim asked the witness many questions about these special assignments. It is in the nature of cross-examination that I should be permitted to ask the witness any questions which, were put to him during direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Regardless of whether Dr. Heim opened this subject in direct examination, the subject is mentioned in the documents and therefore it becomes part of the res gestae of the case. Cross examination may be continued.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: Before I go into this point, it possibly would please the court to see the affidavit of Blobel in order to ascertain whether the passage "By order of the Higher SS and Police Leader" in para. 8 of the document is in the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first indicate so that the record will be very specific on the subject what the mimeographed copy states, what the original photostat states, and what the witness himself stated so that if there is any discrepancy along the line it will appear in the record.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, I want to quote from page 131 of Document Book I, in which this document is contained. This is NO-3824, Prosecution Exhibit 31. Paragraph 8 of the mimeographed copy, is contained in the document book roads: "During the last days of September 1941, the Sonderkommando 4a, in cooperation with the Group Staff of the Einsatzgruppe C and two units of the police regiments stationed in Kiew carried out the mass execution of Jews in Kiew."
Would it be agreeable to the Tribunal to have the interpreter check the German text of the exhibit with this English translation?
THE PRESIDENT: Now is that the sentence which is in dispute?
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: That is the sentence which is in dispute.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The photostat may be submitted to the interpreters. It is enough if the interpreters will compare the photostat with the mimeographed copy and indicate whether the translation in the mimeograph is faithful or not.
(The interpreters did as requested.)
INTERPRETER HILDESHEIMER: It is the exact wording, Your Honor. The wording of both sentences is identical.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Let us proceed now to something else.
Q. Herr Blobel, is it true that you entrusted with the special task of burning of corpses in mass graves by the Chief of the Gestapo Mueller, is that correct?
A. No, that is incorrect in this form. The assignment was turned over to the Commander of the Security Police and SD on the Eastern Front and I had merely the task to collect the order from Gruppenfuehrer Mueller.
Q. Did you not do anything else?
A. No.
Q. You didn't do anything else but go from Berlin to the Higher SS and Police leaders and tell then there is an order in existence to the effect that you have to burn these things?
A. No, I had nothing to do with Higher SS and Police readers either. I acted by order of the Gruppenfuehrer Mueller.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us get this very specifically, and see if we can avoid the wasting of unnecessary time. Your affidavit reads as follows: "In the Fall of 1942, I was assigned to go to the occupied territories as Mueller's deputy and to wipe out the traces of mass graves of people executed by the Einsatzgruppe," Is that correct?
TEE WITNESS: In this form it is not correct. I have the document here.
THE PRESIDENT: It is followee by the sentence, "This was my task until summer of 1944." Is that correct? Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Gruppenfuehrer Mueller gave me the order to submit the order to the SS leaders to burn down the graves.
THE PRESIDENT: How does that differ from what appears in this affidavit?
THE WITNESS: There is no exact difference.
THE PRESIDENT: How, witness, you are causing us to lose a lot of time. When a question is put to you very specifically, you say it is not correct. Then we talk about it a little while and you say it is correct. How please listen to the questions and answer. How you tell us that this is correct, your statement in the affidavit is correct.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. How don't waste any time upon that feature. That is correct.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
Q. When did you start with these tasks?
A. At the end of June 1942 Gruppenfuehrer Mueller gave me the order for the first time to go to the BDS, in the Ukraine, and to pass on the order to burn down the graves on his special order. This first journey had to be postponed, however, because I had received another order and I had to wait then in the vicinity of Litzmannstadt. The burning were carried out, test burnings, in fact, and in September 1942 I went to the Ukraine to see Dr. Thomas for the first time and I passed on the order to him. Dr. Thomas refused to carry out this order and he said it was non sensical.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: May I interrupt the witness, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q. That was not what I asked you. I only asked you when did you start?
You have said all that which you have just told to Thomas already in direct examination. You started in summer 1942, is that right?
A. In Summer 1942, we had these test burnings. The actual task was only started in the next year, in June and July.
Q. 1943, I take it. Was it?
A. Yes, 1943, yes.
Q. Were you present during such operations?'
A. During the test burnings I was present, yes.
Q. And were you also present when mass graves were burned, later when the experiments were already finished?
A. Yes, on one particular soot, I saw a place near Kiew which had been burned.
Q. By when was the actual work carried out?
A. In Kiew there were Ukrainian SS men or a company of SS men, members of the BDS, and members of the SS and Police leadership Office and the Regular Police.
Q. Were no laborers used in order to carry out the dirty work? Only SS men would do that?
A. Ukrainian SS men were assigned to the digging works.
Q. He laborers, no Russian laborers or soldiers?
A. He, Uniformed Ukrainian SS men, a company.
Q. I didn't catch this, They were not in uniform, these SS, is that what you said?
A. They were in uniform, uniformed Ukrainian SS units.
Q. And they carried out -
A. They were uniforms.
Q. And they carried out all the dirty work. You did not use any Russian laborers at all?
A. For this purpose, no Russians were used.
Q. Only SS men?
A. Yes, these SS men.
Q. And what happened to these SS men, as you say, after such an operation was finished?
Did you take then along with you, or did they stay at the place, or did you have some specialists, some special laborers, who did the work?
A. I was never in charge of any komnandos at that place. That was a matter to be dealt with by the competent commanders or the Supreme Commander of the Security Police. It was under his charge.
Q. Whose kommandos were they?
A. Those were the commandos of the Supreme Commander of the Security Police in the Ukraine.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal what Einsatzkommando 1005 was?
A. This name, this term, 1005, must have been invented by somebody or other. It wasn't an official term, It was coined, and that is a self-assumed name.
Q. I just want to know, you stated in your affidavit that Mueller entrusted you with the task of removing the tracesof executions carried out by Einsatzgruppen in the East. He entrusted you. You are going to tell me that you were not at all interested in this task, that you just locked on, when the Higher SS and Polizeifuehrers arrived there. Is that what you are going to imply?
A. He, no, that is not correct, as you say it. I had to take this order to the BDS and the BDS had to take care that in his territory all these places were actually burned. He had to assign his own kommandos for these tasks.
Q. Did you have some specialists with you who showed these people who were actually active in the burning, how they should do it, or did you advise them to, or how was the whole thing done?
A. No experts, no skilled workers were necessary for this assignment. The covers were lifted, the covers of the graves; motor fuel was filled into them, or any kind of fuel, and suddenly a great torch was lit. That was the whole task.
Q. And this task was carried out solely by SS men and no laborers were used, is that your contention?
A. He, we needed no civilian workers. I never saw any civilian workers in this task. They were all SS men. They were paid for their work. They got double and three times their ration for their work.
Q. But no civilians--
THE PRESIDENT: He has stated that several times, Mr. Hochwald. He civilians. They were SS men.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: I am sorry. I would like to offer Document NO-5498, which is an affidavit of the affiant Adolf Ruebe, Your Honor, as Prosecution Exhibit 181.
DR. HEIM (Attorney for the defendant Blobel): According to principle of the best evidence it would be possible for the Prosecution to call this affiant on the witness stand, especially as this affidavit was only made out seven days ago. At least, I want to apply to have this only admitted in evidence, if the affiant, a certain man called Ruebe, can be called in to the witness stand here.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If Your Honor please, I was not in a position to find out the whereabouts of Ruebe, but there can be no question that Dr. Heim can get the address of the affiant any time and that if he makes an application he can get the witness here for cross-examination. I therefore do think that the affidavit is perfectly admissible.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I would like to call your attention to the fact that in this affidavit, as well as in the affidavit by Hartel, submitted by the Prosecution this morning, the address is not mentioned, contrary to the regulations prevailing here for the submission of affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution is called upon to furnish Dr. Heim with the address, if they have it, of the affiant Hartl and the affiant Adolf Ruebe. With regard to the doucment now before the Tribunal, the same ruling will be made as was made this morning in connection with the Hartl affidavit. It may be used for the purpose of cross-examination but it will not be admitted in evidence at the present time. If Ruebe is called as a witness by either side and he confirms what is in the affidavit, then the affidavit may be introduced for the purpose of contredic tion. In questioning the witness on this affidavit, it will be suggested to the Prosecution it will not be necessary to read the entire affidavit into the record but only to read such parts as are immediately relevant in the cross-examination of the present Defendant on the witness stand.
HR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If Your Honor please, I intended to read only paragraph 4 of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If Your Honor please, Mr. Schwarz, these interrogator is just here and I can ascertain now the whereabouts of the affiants, Hartl and Ruebe.
THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would do that immediately.
HR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: Would you excuse me for a minute?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, the affiant Hartl is in the Hurnberg jail. The affiant Ruebe is hold by the Spruchkammer of Karlsruhe. Karlsruhe.
THE PRESIDENT: If Dr. Heim will present his application for the production of these witnesses, present his application to the Tribunal, it will be approved forthwith.
MR. HORLICK HOCKWALD: May I read not, Your Honor?
THE RESIDENT: Yes. please.
Q. (Reading) "In October 1943 I was transferred to Kommando 1005. This kommando was under the leadership of Standartenfuehrer Paul Blobel." Herr Blobel, is that you, Standartenfuehrer Paul Blobel?
A. I an Standartenfuehrer Paul Blobel, yes.
Q. (Reading) "It was the task of this kommando to destroy mass graves. This work was done by Hauptsturmfuehrer Harte. The graves were opened by Russian civilian prisoners, the corpses taken out by means of iron picks, piled up and later burned. After completion of the work, the Russian civilian prisoners were shot by the members of the kommando. The corpses were burned too. I was present at such shootings several times, namely at Minsk, Schmolewitzsche, Pinsk, Janow Koprin, and Slonim. At the beginning of December 1943, Standartenfuehrer Blobel, accompanied by Hauptsturmfuehrer Harter, arrived for the purposes of making an inspection of our work." End of quote. Do you want to comment on that, Herr Blobel?
A. Yes, I can comment on this that the Kommando 1005 was not under my leadership, but as I have already declared, that the Supreme Commander of the Security Police, I have not seen myself, or, that is, the commanders had this order.
As this man here describes in Minsk, a burning of the corpses and I never met a Hauptsturmfuehrer Hartl. In September I went to Kiev in the Eastern Territory to Oberfuehrer Piffrader. The commanders, or, at least, the BDS were responsible for the carrying out of these tasks in their independent sectors.
Q. So you deny these facts stated in this affidavit, is that correct?
A. In Minsk I have not attended any burning of corpses. In Kiew I saw a burning of corpses with Ehrlinger and from there I was detailed to the Eastern territories to Piffrader, and I never had such kommandos as an actual kommando leader.
Q. If I sum up your testimony, so you told the Tribunal in essence that Sonderkommando 4-a executed 10 to 15000 people when you were in command of this unit, is that correct?
A. He, that is not correct. I said that the SK 4-a participated in such executions, but that the komnando itself carried out an execution of 10 to 15000 people is not correct.
people. You have further stated that all these executions were justified in accordance with the laws of war, as reprisal against the inhuman and Criminal warfare on the part of the Russian enemy, and as just punishment for grave crimes the perpetrators had committed against the German armed forces. Is that correct?
AAgain, I did not say that. I especially emphasized that retialiation measures for crimes were judged by me apart from the retaliation measures, and that these executions were of 10 - 15000 people were never emphasized by myself, and was never in agreement with measures, but only which I have in time described in my direct testimony. against the carrying out of execution orders.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that the defendant has testified a great deal on that subject, and that is pretty general.
MR. HOCHWALD: This, your Honor, concludes my cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will now be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I offer Document NO-5498, which is the Ruebe affidavit which I just quoted to the witness, and the Tribunal ruled that it will be held in suspense until the Defense decides whether the witness should be called or net. But I would respectfully request that the Exhibit No. 181 should be reserved for Document NO-5498.
THE PRESIDENT: I think by all means when a document is referred to that it should receive an exhibit number, whether it is accepted later or not is another matter. But for the purpose of continuity it would be well to give it a number and that number will be assigned to the document in question.
MR. HOGHWALD: Very well, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will announce that this Tribunal will not be in session next Monday all day, so that when it recesses tomorrow afternoon at three o'clock it will be recess until next Tuesday morning at nine-thirty.
Does defense counsel desire to question any further? BY DR. HEIM (for defendant Blobel): tion by the Prosecution. In the cross examination the so-called Fuehrer order was mentioned, as Streckenbach announced it in Pretsch. I want to ask you about this. Was this order as it was announced in Pretsch already binding for you.... that is, based on the order which was announced, could you start your activity? him in my opinion included the entire order, and I expected certain more detailed instructions about this order. And to me they were given as Dr. Rasch ordered me at Cracow, - to report to the commander of AOK 6 Reichenau and to take orders of lives and his orders were within the framework of this main order the so-called "Fuehrer decree". Commander-in-Chief Reichenau had approximately the same order in front of him, in writing. I would like to ask you about this. This order, as Reichenau had in front of him in writing, was it valid for you in the same form, that is, for your activity. hands of Major Palzhof. It was concerned with the subordination of the Commando of the Security Police and the SS under the army, and described the tasks in the same listing as I have mentioned it in the examination. This referred in particular to this Commando. could you only than become active according to these directives?
or rather the divided SK-4-A, had to go to the army unite, and to work according to the sense, and the sense of this decree is issued with same order the division commander as it came from the AOK 6. order which Jeckeln announced. Based on this order which was announced by Jeckeln did you ever execute Jews merely because they were Jews, even when those Jews had not committed any crimes against war laws?
A. I never gave an order of my own. authority for any such thing, and didn't have Jews executed at my order memely because they were Jews. That never happened.
Q. In the cross-examination you also said that only those leaders of the sub-kommandoes know about the Jeckeln order, who were active in the executive staff. Did I understand you correctly there?
A. The leaders who were active in the executive were familiar with the exact executive directions and when the leaders met the leaders of the remainder of the command (Rst-Kommando), whether administrative leaders or others, it can be understood that they discussed this matter.
Q. During the cross-examination the prosecution mentioned document in which the execution of 1160 Jews were mentioned. In this document it is mentioned that this reprisal action was carried out because ten German soldiers had been murdered. You said - when this subject was discussed that this proportion, or this ratio of 116:1 Seemed rather high to you and you continued to say that the ratio of one to nine, or the to ton seemed appropriate to you. Witness, do you know whether according to the valid International Law a ratio in reprisal measures is prescribed?
A. I don't know that. I only knew that other countries also carried out reprisal measures, and have given orders for such reprisals, about one to two hundred according to the well known order of General Eisenhower.
THE PRESIDENT: You say there is a well known order of General Eisenhower that two hundred were to be executed to one?
A. All the German people know, Your Honor, that an order was given by General Eisenhower that for every one American who was killed, two hundred Germans are to be shot.
Q. You say, all the Germans knew about an order of that kind?
A. It is well known in Germany. Whether all Germans know this, I don't know.
Q. You said that all the Germans know about this order. Now do you say that every German and every defense counsel here know of such an order?
A. Your Honor, I am convinced that many of the defense counsel know of this order.
Q. Can you point out one defense counsel who will make the statement that he knows that General Eisenhower issued an order that two hundred Germans would be killed for any one Allied soldier killed? Will you defense counsel make that statement?
A. Your Honor......
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, may I add something here. This matter so far as I know was mentioned in the proceedings against the Southeast Generals in this courthouse, a few days ago. I know that the Defense in the Southeast Case has requested that General Eisenhower and a French General, whose name I can't remember, be called as witnesses into the witness box, in order to examine both on the subject. Also I learned that in this case a witness, a German witness testified that during internment in Thuringia, at the end of the war or after he saw pesters of the American Power of Occupation, according to which for each American soldier who is killed, I believe, one hundred Germans should be shot as reprisals.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state this of your own knowledge?
DR. HEIM: He, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now coming back to the statement of the witness, he said, first, all of Germany Knew about this - ALL Germans knew it. Now, we will retrace our steps. Do you say that all Germans knew of such an order? Answer that yes or no.
THE WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then you modified it, and said that many Germans knew of it. I would assume that it would be those Germans who were very intelligent, and who were aware of current affairs. May I come to that assumption?
A. That some Germans know about this, those Germans who read these announcements?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Did you yourself know of such an announcement?
A. In the individual camps like Garmisch.....
THE PRESIDENT: Did you yourself know of such an announcement?
A. I didn't read it myself.
THE PRESIDENT: No. Now you said that many Germans knew of it. In this Tribunal today, in this courtroom, there must be, undoubtedly, many Germans. Can you point out one who knew of this order which you have just stated. Your own counsel has denied that he knew of it. Does any counsel here know of this order?
A. I think the Defendant Ohlendorf for example....
THE PRESIDENT: I ask about counsel, first, the attorneys. Does any attorney here know about the order, yes or no?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Which one?
A. Dr. Heim, for example, read about, it.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim already denied of knowing about an order. Mention the next person.
A. I don't know the other gentlemen as well. I said I presume that people knew it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, so, therefore, this bread statement that all of Germany knew about it has now been dwindled down to a statement that you just don't know of it, your own counsel does not know of it, and you can not point to one single German in this courtroom who knew about it, outside of the defendants' box. How is there anybody else you can call in all of Germany who can state that he knew of such an order?
A. Your Honor, such orders were announced in the camps as well as by letters of relatives.
THE PRESIDENT: You yourself didn't see the order, or the announcement, that is correct, isn't it?
A. The announcement, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You say you did see the announcement? Did you See the announcement?
A. I personally didn't see it. I didn't leave the camp.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, no one in Germany can be called by you to state that he saw the announcement. Then you refer to the defendants. Now can you refer to any defendant in that box there who will state that he saw this announcement?
A. Whether anyone personally saw the announcement? Your Honor, as to the people who knew about it......
THE PRESIDENT: I want you to answer that question, whether any defendants here in this courtroom today who can state that he saw this announcement which you mentioned a few moments ago?
A. I'd have to ask each one individually.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will direct a question to all of the defendants. The witness has stated, of course, you have heard what he just stated, that an order had been issued by General Eisenhower that for every Allied soldier killed two hundred Germans would be killed. You heard the Questioning back and forth between the Tribunal and the witness. Is there anybody here now to justify that statement insofar as the defense counsel, or any other citizen in all of Germany. Now, did any of the defendants here in the court ever see such an announcement. If any one did, he will please raise his hand. No defendant has raised his hand, so now we come back to your original statement, that all of Germany knew of this announcement. Do you want to withdraw that statement?
A. If that inquiry by the President to those people show this result, I must say the fact is only known to individuals.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you withdraw that statement in view of the results which has followed your original declaration?
A. I shell have to do that because I personally didn't see it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and will you now make an apology for having cast this aspersion upon the name of General Eisenhower, who up until this very time has earned the respect of not only those in his services on the Allied side, but even the respect of the foe?
A. Under those circumstances I have to beg your pardon.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed, please.