THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Surholt, what you have stated in the latter part of your statement is not a valid excuse because every Defense Counsel is confronted with the same situation. He listens to the witness and then he must immediately stop to the podium and begin to examine, and he must make notes as best he can. That is a lawyer's job; that is what I had to do when I was practicing law. But what you have stated with regard to the condition of your client is another matter, and certainly we give full weight to what you have said to the Tribunal so that we will permit you to do one of two things. You may, if you wish cross-examine the witness in such fields as you now feel you are sufficiently familiar with and have already talked over with your client, reserving the remainder of your cross-examination to a later day; or you may, if you wish, decline to cross-examine now and at a later date cross-examine the witness Schulz completely at one time.
DR. SURHOLT: I would prefer that.
THE PRESIDENT: You would prefer the latter?
DR. SURHOLT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. That right will be reserved to you then.
DR. SURHOLT: Your Honor, may I address another word to the Court? I know and agree to the way you understand the duties of a Defense Counsel, but there is a great difference that after each session I cannot talk to my client about the testimony of a witness and I cannot discuss with him anything a witness may have said and ask my client to clarify it.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the very reason we made the ruling we did. Mr. Hochwald, do you have anything to say about this?
MR. HORLICH-HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, if the Defense will question at a later date the Defendant Schulz concerning his connection with Rasch and so on may the right be reserved to the Prosecution to cross-examine Schulz on such questions which may arise out of this, later?
THE PRESIDENT: That right naturally follows, Mr. Hochwald, will be reserved to the Prosecution.
Any other Defense counsel ready? BY DR. HOFFMANN: (Counsel for Defendant Nosske) Q.- Witness, you were personnel expert in the RSHA?
A.- Yes.
Q.- In that position you had to know about all institutions in the RSHA, did you not? Not the way they worked, perhaps, but about the fact of their existence?
A.- Yes.
Q.- I would now like to ask you: Was there a top staff in the organization of the Einsatzgruppen?
A.- I have never heard of that expression.
Q.- Was there a Staff Command of Security Police and SD?
A.- I have never heard that description either.
Q.- And now only one more question to you. Could you tell me your views about the way in which orders were passed on? That is, the Hitler Decree, and the official channels through which it was sent to the various agencies of the Einsatzkommandos?
A.- Yes, I believe that this official channel is very clear. First of all, it must have come from the Fuehrer himself. For the Police in its entirety it must have come via Himmler;from Himmler it must have gone via the Main Office Chiefs, that is at least by the Chief of the Main office of the Police, the Regular Police, because such men had been put at their disposal. And for the Security Office, via the Chief of the Security Police-- that is Heydrich-- then it must have been handed down in such a manner that the Einsatzgruppen were informed by the Einsatzgruppen chiefs and the Einsatzkommando leaders were informed by the Einsatzgruppen chiefs.
BY DR. MAYER (Counsel for defendant Steimle):
Q.- Witness, as a former Gruppen chief for personnel questions in the RSHA, do you know anything about the way Steimle was transferred to Office VI?
A.- The Chief of Office VI, Schellenberg, dealt with Steimle's transfer and tried to achieve it for some time. I remember that at the time I tried very hard to get Steimle to Office VI because Schellenberg at the time was just setting up his office, and Himmler bothered him very much in this, and almost daily either he or his experts were in my office in order to try to get some personnel. I therefore tried to bring Steimle there as well, particularly as Steimle himself would have liked to go there. If I remember correctly, basically his office chief, Ohlendorf had approved this.
Q.- And why did you not succeed in this?
A.O Steimle's transfer for Office VI was put aside by Streckenbach temporarily. What detailed reasons were decisive for this, I do not know However, they may have consisted in the fact that between the two office chiefs there was not very much close cooperation.
I want to add something. Schellenberg's requests for personnel at the time went to such an extent that they could not have been confirmed.
Q.- In any case, Streckenbach refused, isn't that right?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Did you know whether Schellbenback tried to have Steimle transferred to Office VI at such a time when Steimle was already in command of a Kommando in Russia?
A.- Yes, I also remember that. The Russian Campaign was decisive for Schllenberg to call me up at my office and to inquire about the position regarding Steimle. On that occasion he told me "If Steimle goes to Russia now I surely won't have a chance of getting him to my office for a long time to come." For that same reason, if I remember cor rectly, that same day I tried again and asked Streckenbach to give us Steimle.
Streckenbach told me then that Steimle, after he had finished in Russia, would be sent to Office VI, Q.- How did you manage to get Steimle to Office VI after all -- and earlier than Streckenbach had intended this to happen?
A.- I think Streckenbach did not have anything to do with that because, if I remember correctly, shortly after I took over Office I, Steimle was sent to Office VI.
Q.- When did this happen?
A.- I took over Office 1 on 1 February 1943.
Q.- And soon after you transferred -
A.- I cannot remember all the details but I know that it was very soon after, because Schellenberg would not let go.
Q.- Thank you, BY DR.FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fendler):
Q.- Witness, since when have you known the defendant Fendler?
A.- I met Fendler when I got the order, in the spring of 1943, to take an Einsatzkommando in Oppelm. In this Einsatzkommando Fendler was assigned to me as an SD expert.
Q.- What jobs did he have at the time when he was SD expert in the Kommando?
A.- The tasks of the Einsatzkommanders at the time were such that as long as the army itself was mobile they looked after the locations, housings, and saw to it that a proper office was set up. was Fendler's task to make these preparations for a final office.
Q.- Was the manner in which this SD Office, was set up and founded the same as in the agencies in the Reich?
A.- I think I can say that they were exactly the same.
Q.- Do I understand you correctly to gag that Defendant Fendler at the time, even when Czechoslovakia was occupied, was not active in the executive staff?
A.- He had nothing to do with the executive staff. The executive tasks were dealt with by a Criminal Commissar.
Q.- In the year 1940 Fendler became a candidate for the so-called Executive Service (Leitender Dienst). Will you please inform the Tribunal what was considered to be the Executive Service?And candidate for Executive service?
A.- This position was set up as a result of the shortage of personnel owing to the war. Since all available personnel were put at the disposal of the Wehrmacht and the command offices and since the police and the Wehrmacht themselves who legally had the duty of handing on men stopped to transfer men, the Security Police was in an emergency state, to supply their own candidates for leaders and chiefs. For that reason, a great number of men were chosen whose abilities were above the averabe. Their character had to be good enough for this, as well. After they were selected these men were put together in special training courses, and had to study law at one of the universities. When they completed this law course and had trained with the administrative offices, such as the County Councillor, the Government President, and so forth, these men then passed their final State examination before the Main Testing Commissioner, in Berlin. They became assessors and started their careers in the Executive Service. Throughout this training they were called Candidates in the Executive Service.
Q.- They studied law like any other students at a German university?
A.- They had to matriculate and graduate from the university; they had to satisfactorily complete all the terms; they had to take part in lectures; they had to participate in seminars, and do every bit of it.
Q.- During that time, did they cease to work in their official capacity?
A.- During the time of the course, they were excused from their offices which they held, because they had been taken from all departments and during this time they belonged to Office I, and Office I looked after them.
Q.- When Fendler was a candidate for the Executive Staff just like the other candidates, in the summer of 1941, was he sent to Pretsch, on the Elbe River, and from there ordered to go to an Einsatzkommando, or did he volunteer to do this?
A.- The candidates for training for this Executive Staff, at the order of the Chief of the Security Police, in May 1941, owing to the lack of leaders at the time, were all given jobs and ordered to go to Pretsch. This was a military order and therefore nobody could volunteer, of course.
Q.- Were these candidates informed in Berlin as to the purpose of their job?
A.- No, they were not informed about this, and nobody could have done this because there was nobody who knew it himself.
Q.- Did the candidates have the opportunity to object to going to Pretsch?
A.- First of all, one could not object because that would have been military disobedience; and, secondly, there was no reason for it.
Q.- Were the candidates informed about all this in Pretsch, what tasks the Einsatzkommandos had and what their job were to be in the East?
A.- I cannot state in detail about this because I don't know about any such order, but I don't think so because if these candidates of the Executive Staff were given more detailed information this information would have reached the leaders in my command as well and they would have told me about it.
Q.- Did you meet Fendler in Russia during the assignment?
A.- No.
Q.- Do you know who was the Commander of Einsatzkommando IV-B?
A.- The Commander of Einsatzkommando IV-B was Oberregierungsrat Hermann. I know him very well personally because he was in charge of this training course and had also been at the officers' candidate school.
Q.- Can you tell me any more details about the attitude of Hermann in his office?
A.- Hermann was the typical German civil servant; very conscientious correct down to the last detail, sometimes even correct to such an extent that one could consider him pedantic.
Q.- Defendant Fendler states that Hermann, from the beginning of the assignment until September 1941, never was on leave and never left the Kommando for any other reason either. Do you know anything about this?
A.- I know this for the same reasons as I have said before. Hermann was in charge of the training course, this training course for the candidates of the Executive Staff, and I expected him to return to Berlin. When I returned to Berlin Hermann had not yet arrived, but he arrived a few days later so that I know that during the Russian Campaign he was not in Berlin.
Q.- How long did Fendler belong to the Executive Staff, and when did he complete his training?
A.- He belonged to one of the first selective training courses? If I remember correctly, it must have been in 1940. And he also was one of the first to pass the final examination. That was in the fall of 1943.
Q.- That should have been in August. Is that possible?
A.- Yes, that is quite possible.
Q.- Where was Fendler transferred to after that?
A.- When they finished their studies and when they had passed their assessor's examination, the candidates for the Executive Staff were sent back to the different departments of the Security Police, and according to the request and their ability they were trained in several branches. At the time, Fendler, was sent to Office VI.
Q.- What did they deal with there?
A.- Foreign Defense.
Q.- could a member of the SD or a candidate for the Executive Staff during the war leave the SD?
A.- Of course that was not possible because, according to orders, it had been prohibited. Heydrich considered any such request, tantamount to desertion.
Q.- Are you able to give your private opinion and your official opinion of the defendant Fendler?
A.- So many people passed through the Officers' Training School that I do not remember every one in detail, of course, and cannot judge them. But I think I can state briefly that Herr Fendler if he had not been perfect, officially; if his character had not been good, he would hat have been able to remain in the training course. I think that is the general judgment I can give.
DR. FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fendler): I have no further questions, Your Honor. During the examination of Schulz it was pointed out to me that the Interpreter once interpreted Executive Service rather than Leading Service. Might the word not be translated as Leading Service -- rather than Executive Service? The Prosecution pointed it out to me that that is the correct translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, do you agree that this correction is in order?
MR. HORLICH-HOCHWALD: I do think that the translation "Executive Service" for Leitender Dienst is much better an explanation than Leading Executive.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session. BY DR. Aschenauer (Attorney for the Defendant Ohlendorf):
Q: Witness, do I take it from the answer to one of the counsel's questions about the channel of the Fuehrer order and about the execution of certain people in Russia that you claim that in all cases it first went to the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe and then later to the Einsatzkommando leaders and not as it has been stated previously in Pretsch, to all Einsatzgruppen chiefs and to all Einsatzkommando chiefs?
A: I answered the question of Dr. Hoffmann the way I understood it. He asked me what thenormal channel was. I didn't know the say it was presented in Pretsch because I wasn't there. If the Deputy of the Chief of the Security Police presented this order before the Einsatzgruppe Chiefs and the Einsatzkommando chiefs, in such a case a repeated order to the Einsatzkommando leaders would be unnecessary.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Thank you. I have no further question.
DR. MAYER (Attorney for the Defendant Steimle): Your Honor, I ask that the Defendant Steimle be excused from court tomorrow, Tuesday and the next day, Wednesday, so that we can prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Steimle will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow, which is Tuesday, and Friday so that he may prepare his defense.
DR. MAYER: Wednesday, Your Honor, not Friday.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry. Tuesday and Wednesday.
DR. MAYER: Thank you.
DR. HOFFMANN (Attorney for the Defendant Nosske): Your Honor, would you permit me another question to the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: We always permit you another question, Dr. Hoffmann.
BY DR. HOFFMANN (For Defendant Nosske):
Q: Witness, may I ask you, you were the leader of an Einsatzkommando?
A: Yes.
Q: To whom did you feel responsible about the order which you received, to the Fuehrer himself or to your Einsatzgruppe Chief?
A: First of all to my Einsatzgruppe Chief.
Q: And why?
A: That was my next superior to whom I had to report.
Q: Only to report?
A: Yes, I also got my directives from him and I have also said that I received my orders from my Einsatzgruppe Chief personally. The first one received in Lemberg, and the second one in Shitomir.
DR. HOFFMANN: Thank you. BY DR. KLINERT (Attorney for the Defendant Seibert):
Q: Witness, I have a few questions. In Document Book III-D, German text. page 83, Document No-2969, Exhibit 162 -- do you have this document? On the promotion sheet of Seibert among the experts of Amt I SS Brigadier General Schulz is mentioned. Are you SSBrigadier General Schulz?
A: Yes. Then I was Group Chief I-A.
Q: Do you make any claims about the correctness and completeness of these orders, or are there mistakes possible?
A: Yes, mistakes are possible.
Q: How are these mistakes to be explained?
A: Unfortunately, and I have regretted this several times, there are mistakes in filing. That is first of all because the various agencies did not keep their records up to date. Often it was the fault of the person himself, when he forgot to inform us about any changes which were important, but which did not seem important to him.
Sometimes some mistaken statements might appear so that the files were not in every way correct. Certainly they could not guarantee not to make mistakes.
Q: Did mistakes occur frequently?
A: Yes, very frequently. Since you ask me that, I remember one case when a man was refused promotion by Himmler because after having been married for a long time lie had only one child. I tried to clarify this matter and I found out that this man had four children already, but he himself had forgotten to list those four children on his files so that there was a mistake.
A: That is enough for this point. What ran: did members of the Police get when they were taken into the Security Police and SD?
A: May I have the question again?
Q: What rank did members of the Police and Army get when they were transferred into the Security Police or SD?
A: The later service decree was basic. They were taken over in the same rank which they held in the police.
DR. KLINERT: Thank you. I have no further questions. BY DR. FICHT (FOR THE DEFENDANT HAENSCH, not for Defendant Biberstein -- in the absence of Haensch's counsel):
Q: Witness, I have a few questions which refer to your activity as a representative of Office I in the RSHA. While in your activity as Office Chief later on, what did you know about the Defendant Haensch? Do you know that in June 1942 Haensch was already back in Berlin with the RSHA?
A: Yes, I can remember this, because it belongs to the general activity of the Group Chief I-A, because in June I took this group over, after my predecessor had assumed his new duties.
Q: Is it correct that Haensch down to the time he left the RSHA in August 1943 stayed with this Office I?
A: Yes, Haensch was Chief of Group I-D, which was dissolved after he left there and Haensch then went to Denmark.
Q: I would like to ask you about this later. Did the Defendant Haensch in July 1942 ask you in a written form to give him a furlough? Do you know anything about this?
A: Yes, this correspondence is in my recollection, because I asked Streckenbach whether there were any objections to this and because I personally answered his letter and I granted him his furlough.
Q: Can you say anything about Haensch's earning the Merit Cross Second Class and that he told you that he had already been awarded this by the Army, and when was this?
A: I also remember that case, for Haensch belonged to Office I and I was glad to be able to give him a decoration and I was very much disappointed when he told me that he already had the Order of Merit, Second Class, because he had gotten it from the Army.
Q: Is it correct that. this happened about August or September, 1942?
A: Yes, that might be possible.
Q: Was Haensch's activity only in Office I of the RSHA?
A: I don't know any other activity of his.
Q: What activity did he perform in what field?
A: He was in charge of Group I-D, Disciplinary and Legal matters.
Q: Were welfare matters concerned with that?
A: Partly, yes.
Q: What about the cooperation that Haensch carried on with the other detriments of the RSHA? Did he have anything else to do with other offices? Did he have any insight in other offices?
A: He had actually nothing to do with the activity of the other offices, since he only took care of disciplinary matters.
Q: AS personnel expert, you probably could say something about the manner in which the defendant Haensch worked. What was his manner of work? What kind of a man was he?
A: Haensch was very correct, sometimes exaggeratedly conscientious and as his job demanded of him, he was not open to bribes and he had the best will to be just, as far as he could.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ficht, when you use the phrase which you did, namely, "How was the Defendant Haensch in his work" or words to that effect, we are speaking very vaguely and guardedly. We are not talking about a streetcar conducor or a police man. We are talking about someone who is charged with the execution of an order which involved the killing of human beings. Now, if you ask him if he was conscientious in the discharge of his duty, if he did his work well, and this witness replied, "Yes, he did it well, and sometimes even did better than was expected of him", and if we are thinking of that order, we must assume that he killed more people than the order required him to kill, so I merely want to call to your attention that when you use generic language of that kind that it is capable of an interpretation not so favorable to your client. I would therefore suggest, to be very specific and not to use general terns what sort of a man was he and did he do his work well, because if in the eyes of his superiors, if we accept this order as it has been given to us, here in court, the more women and children who we re killed, the better the work was done.
DR. FICHT: I beg the Tribunal's pardon. This was merely to be an introductory question to my next question. Therefore, the special purpose was not evident. May I perhaps ask my next question so that you can sec what I am driving at?
THE PRESIDENT: By all means, but just let me suggest to you and to other defense counsel that this is a very unusual type of a case and we can't use general terms in appraising a man's character. You say, "What is his character?" "His character was a good character"! "How did he do is work" "He did it well". Keep in mind what his work was, andin the eyes of his superior what was regarded as good character.
Q: (By Dr. Ficht): Witness, is it correct that the Defendant Haensch made many enemies in the office, because he refused to whitewash mistakes!
A: Yes, I know of such cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, there is another question which is absolutely meaningless and if one would want to take an interpretation unfavorable to the defendant, he easily could. "Did he whitewash mistakes?" Now what kind of mistakes? A mistake in the eyes of his superior might be the killing of only 500 instead of 1,000 that would be a mistake in the eyes of the superior, would it not? Your questions have to be very specific. Otherwise they either mean nothing or they mean something that you don't intend they should mean.
BY DR. FICHT: Haensch. Is it correct that he tried to get out of the RSHA, and by his own initiative got a position with the Reich Commissar in Denmark?
Q Do you know... were any offers made to you by Kaltenbruenner in order to keep you in your former position. When by order of Kaltenbrunner Gruppe 1-D was dissolved, Kaltenbrunner had the intention to have the disciplinary expert under his immediate supervision, and he had already selected a person for this position.
Q Make it brief, witness. The whole story is rot necessary.
A But this is how the offer came to be made. Because Haensch had to get out, Kaltenbrunner offered him a position as commander in the General Government. This position Haensch refused at the time, and according to his wish he was employed by the Reich Commissar in Denmark. Office I, including Haensch's office?
A Do you mean the reports in these document books? known. did they discuss the Jewish executions in any way?
A I cannot remember any case. I don't think see however, for Streckenbach would not have found such conferences to his taste. returned to the RSHA from his Russian assignment, had asked the severe punishment of a Gestapo man because he had mistreated a Jew?
A Yes: I know this case because I passed it on to him. It was an assessor of the State Police, Berlin: the message was given to me by telephone that this assessor had conducted himself in an inacceptable way -- where and how I don't know anymore. the proceedings were immediately started by Haensch, and severe punishment was asked. If I remember correctly this assessor was punished very severely. At any rate he was dismissed immediately from the service. BY THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, now, You say someone was punished because he mistreated a Jew.
Q what did he do; how did he mistreat this Jew? gated -- where it was, I don't know, your Honor....
Q How did this assessor mistreat the Jew? Now, give us a direct answer to that question.
Q He struck a Jew out in the street. That is what he was charged with?
Q Yes. Now, did this assessor participate in the execution of any Jews?
A No, it had nothing to do with that at all. This incident took place in Be lin, your Honor.
Q Oh, this incident took place in Berlin?
Q And when was this, what year? in Berlin to strike a Jew? It can be proven at any time that several such cases did happen.
Q What was a Jew doing in Berlin m 1943? I thought they had been sent away long before 1942, to Treblinka, Lublin and Auschwitz... Jews in Berlin. Not individual Jews, but quite a number. It was evident because just at that time the markings of the Jews with the so-called Star of David has been instituted.
Q Do you know of this incident yourself? Do you have personal knowledge of it?
A I don't know who it was, but somebody called me up. I immediately sent for the Berlin agency chief of the State Police and I gave the order that that assessor was to be interrogated. I immediately sent this correspondence to Mr. Haensch, and then they duly investigated it. May I point out that some time later proceedings were inititated against other State police agencies in Berlin--this was also in 1943-when even death sentences were meted out because such people had committed offenses on Jewish property. It would not be very difficult to bring proof of this by witnesses. Death sentences and large prison sentences and downgrades were given out. of Berlin, yourself?
Q You don't know the name of the Jew, do you?
A Noo I don't, your Honor, but it can be determined who was the assessor.
Q Yes, but it is important that we we know more than that. We want to know why this assessor was punished, if he was. I would suggest, Dr. Ficht, that if you intend to make anything of this episode that you will have to submit evidence a little more specific; not merely that this witness overheard something over the telephone, and then he sent someone out, and finally someone was punished.... It would be very interesting to the Tribunal to get some direct evidence that a Jew was struck on the streets of Berlin in 1943 and that this assessor-- was he a member of the SS, this assessor?
-
WITNESS: The Gestapo.
THE PRESIDENT: (continuing) Gestapo? Yes; that is even more interesting -- that a member of the Gestapo was punished because ho struck a Jew in Berlin in 1943. Very well. Proceed. BY DR. FICHT: My last question. the Security Police and the SD, Haensch was in Prague?
A Yes, I know that. At that time 1 was ordered to see that this conference was taken care of, and that the guests. were housed.
DR. FICHT: No further questions. BY DR. RATZ (for defendant Radetzky):
Q Witness, do you know Radetzky?
Q When, and where, did you get to know him? 4a at that time?
Q You were later Department Head in the RSHA. What time was that? I, and I remained in that capacity until the first of April 1944.
Q Was Radetzky with you in Berlin at that time?
Q What did he want from you? ceased and that he be relieved from the Security Police. He told me especially that the service in the Security Police was not agreeable to him. Radetzky was a Baltic German and knew Russian conditions very well, and in Shitomir already he told me that he considered the war measures in Russia as very wrong.
Q What did you tell Radetzky as an answer to this? old office of the repatriation of Germans, but this refused by the Chief. earlier date? wishing to be recalled, and that the man in charge of personnel came to see me, and brought the police along and from this I could tell that Radetzky made such en attempt before. I don't know exactly how it was done, but he did make an attempt to leave the Security Police.
Q Thus your help for him had no success? teletype.
Q Do you know what activity Radetsky wanted to get into?
A What exactly hewanted to do. I don't know. I merely conversed with him, and I tried to get him into Office-VI, where there was a possibility for him to work in his field. In Office-VI they were locking for a liaison officer for liaison in the Russian Vlassow Army.
Q Do you know whether he was later transferred to Office-VI? elapsed. He actually did get in Office-VI later on. to-wit, that RAdetsky might get a different job. For what reason did you do this? which he assumed to talk about these things frankly. I knew Radetscky as a very profound human being, and I wanted to help him to be able to follow his wishes. you know how he got into the service of the RSHA? furherer Dr. Kroeger, who at that time was ableto leave the Security Police. Dr. Kroeger himself was a Baltic German, and interpreters were needed for the Russian Campahign, and, thus, Dr. Kroeger had commanded a few of his fellow countrymen to be used as fellow interpreters. Among these was Radetsky. to the RSHA? obligated to serve. service means in reference to membership in the RSHA and the SD. Was he a member of the SD, or how is this matter of emergency service to be explained?