that time? because I was subordinated to him.
Q That suffices, witness. Witness, do you know where SK 4-a was stationed at that time?
Q Do you know who was the leader of SK 4-a at that time?
A I do not know. I am not acquainted with the figures. I always had a bad memory for figures, and if you tell me now where the SK-4 was stationed I might be able to find it because my memory for locations is better than my memory for figures.
Q Do you know where Blobel was at that time? remember - he was at Charkov.
Q Do you know how long he was there? mately... it was either at the beginning of March - in fact, it is very probable it was in the beginning of March - that Heydrich was in Kiev, and on that occasion Blobel was also in Kiev, and he told me that Heydrich had informed him that he was going to be relieved and that he had a new assignment for him, but that before this would take place he would go on recreation leave.
Q Do you know when Blobel arrived back in Berlin?
A I assume, if he wasn't in Berlin before this transfer, that he must have arrived in Berlin immediately after. That must have been in March or April - presumably, at least, and he must have gone on recreation leave after that. Any way, he was not in Kiev at that time. This visit of Heydrich was a short while before he was shot. According to my memory Heydrich was shot at the end of April 1942. The visit, therefore, was before that. At the same time there is another date which I remember. That is the fact that Heydrich at that time said, "Hartel, your three months in Russia are almost over now.
I shall fetch you back to Berlin very soon. I shall no longer need you here." But this transfer did not come about because Heydrich was shot. According to this, therefore, I can assume that the visit must have been approximately at the beginning of March because he said that three months of my assignment would be over soon.
Q Did you know Dr. Thomas, witness?
A Yes. I knew him. I had known him since the first beginnings of his activities in the SD. It was in Wiesbaden at that time. I think he held the rank of Hauptscharfuhrer, or something of that sort, and I certainly watched his rapid promotion to Gruppenfuehrer.
Q Witness, do you know that Dr. Thomas had an estate in the vicinity of Kiev, by the name of Birkenhof? put at the disposal of Dr. Thomas? not move until Spring 1942. That is my estimate. Of course, I am not quite certain but he wont there quite often in winter already because it was being worked upon; but I believe that he only moved in in Spring. the Prosecution. In this affidavit you maintain, under number 3, that in March or April 1942 you met the defendant Blobel in Kiev and that on that occasion you had a little drive to the estate of Dr. Thomas.
A Yes, yes...along that road, in the direction of the estate... because that was the usual road if one wanted to go into the neighborhood for some fresh air...it was quite beautiful as far as landscape was concerned, and if one did not want to take the other possibility, over the Dneper, one went there because the Dneper road was really not so good, and there was a lot of traffic there, one could not go there so quickly. If one wanted to get some fresh air this was the best road, in the direction of the estate.
the first half of 1942, Blobel had been... that according to your opinion he had been in the vicinity of Charkov. beginning of 1942.
Q Where was Blobel in February or March or April 1942?
Q When did he go on leave? because he said that Heydrich had told him that he would go into a new assignment but before that he would go on leave, because physically Blobel was in a bad condition, and even psychologically he seemed somewhat exhausted and Thomas told me at that time, in his own way of speaking... he said that with Blobel the film constantly tears -- that means that psychologically he was extensively exhausted because he could no longer carry out decent work. in Kiev in the presence of Heydrich... you saw him there.
A Yes, at least during those days. I cannot remember it exactly. It must have been during those days because the conversation revolved around this subject about Heydrich's activities. that, or just once?
A I do not remember. In any case, I don't remember any discussions lasting any length of time. Blobel to Birkenhof? according to my memory, at the beginning of March. Originally I thought that it might have been a little later than that, but now, realizing the connections I believe that according to what Heydrich said at that time it cannot have been later than the beginning of April because Heydrich was no longer living then, and it could not have been in February, in my opinion, because at the latest or the earliest day it could have been the last day of February because Heydrich said to me on that occasion that my three months are almost up and he would take me back to Berlin.
From that I must conclude that it must have been at the beginning of March.
Q Witness, did you go by car?
Q Was that the service car of the Defendant Blobel?
A No, I believe not. I think it must have been an office car.
Q Witness, did you meet Dr. Thomas on his estate at Birkenhof? Thomas or some such person, but it was only our intention to have some fresh air, and I don't think that Thomas on that occasion lived at Birkenhof yet. statement, I mean, to the effect that you took a common drive to get to the estate. I did not say in the affidavit that I went for a discussion with Thomas. We just drove along the road because it was the nicest and the most comfortable road, and that is why we went there. That was the locality where one could go if one wanted to leave the town for a bit and where one could have some fresh air. pointed out a place to you in the vicinity of the cemetery saying that Jews had been buried there who had been executed by him and his commando.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, can you refer us to that document?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I only have the document number. The document number is NO-5384.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, this document was offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 180 during the cross-examination of Defendant Blobel, but the Tribunal ruled that the exhibit should be accepted after the examination of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: So it was only offered for identification then.
THE PRESIDENT: So that we physically do not possess it?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: The copy was handed to the Tribunal, and I do think that also the exhibit is in the archives of the General Secretary, but I am sure that your Honors have received copies of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q (By Dr. Heim) Witness, I repeat my question. In your document, you said, I quote. It is on Page 1 of the original document, Page 2 of the German copy, "On a common drive to the estate of the Commander in Chief in Kiev, Dr. Thomas, in the vicinity of the town near a cemetery, Blobel pointed out a place to me, told me that Jews had been buried there whom he had shot with his commando." That is the end of my quotation. Witness, is this statement exactly - is it correct as it is put in the affidavit?
Q In the affidavit it says, furthermore, I quota, "There was an old tank ditch which was dug Later." That is the end of my quotation.
THE PRESIDENT: Not which was dug later, which was later filled in. There is a great difference.
THE INTERPRETER: Yes, that is a mistake on my part, I think, my mistake. I didn't hear. Which was patched later or filled in, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Q (By Dr. Heim) Witness, if that had been a ditch and had been filled in, how could you see that it had been a tank ditch? a shattering impression on me at the time. It was snowy, and on one particular spot we touched the spot, the earth still exploded. There were some kind of eruptions , a kind of explosion, and I asked Blobel what that was, and he said, "Here my Jews are buried." And it was that in this tank ditch there were so many corpses heaped up that when they disintegrated, the dirt over this ditch, this earth, of course, tore on occasions.
Q Witness, you haven't answered my question. How could you see that on this point former tank ditches had been? buried whom he had executed with his commando?
Q Or did he say to you, as you just said, "Here my Jews are buried"?
A He said, "Here my Jews - here are my Jews." And when I asked him, he told me that this was tank ditch, had been a tank ditch, and that there were two points in the vicinity of Kiev, the one place which we were just touching, and there was another place or another spot which I do not know and I did not know, and I didn't ask for, and he told me that on this spot he had shot Jews with his commando, and thus the explanation, "Here are my Jews," has to be understood.
Q If I understood you correctly, Dr. Hartel, you contend that Blobel, on that occasion, told you that the Jews buried there had been shot by his commando on his order in his presence?
Q Have you not been under a disciplinary punishment once?
Q Was there no disciplinary procedure against you in 1943?
A That wan't a disciplinary procedure. Then there was only a preliminary investigation against me. In 1941 there were two disciplinary procedures. One ended with four days' house arrest. I had to remain in my apartment for four days. The second ended without any result because I was sent into the Einsatz assignment. reproached with being after the female personnel of the German offices? the Sturmbannfuehrer Hilf was asked to carry out a preliminary investigation, and when a number of female witnesses were heard he came to the conclusion that during my whole stay in Russia I had never had intimate sexual relations with any female member of the personnel, but only sometimes, of course, hearty friendly relations, but without any intimate connection.
The reason for my recall to Berlin, as you have just touched upon, since you put this confessor question, was the following. I had expressed a number of misgivings to Thomas by writing concerning his activity and his kind of a administration, his way of administration, and these misgivings, of course, were highly unpleasant to him. Therefore, he looked for a reason, a pretext, in fact, to got rid of me, and when he dismissed me - you, of course, force me through your question to say so - when he dismissed me in fact he said, "You go back to Berlin. I warn you not to mention any word whatsoever about me or against me in Berlin. If you say the slightest detail about me in Berlin I shall, within a few hours, arrive in Berlin, and I shall eliminate you."
Q Witness, that is enough. I now want to confirm and I want to establish the fact that I have nothing to do with confessing. That used to be your concern in former times.
Q Witness, were you interned in Hammelburg in the internment camp?
Q Did you lecture on religious matters on that occasion? the CIC, partly supported by material of the American Protestant priest, and sometimes even in the camp of Westheim and supported by material of the CIC officer, I lectured with the basic tendency of tolerance. The basic tendency of these lectures was the sentence by Nikolaus Kusanus that all religions of humanity are rays of devine light and that the individual religions of humanity, only in, of course, its various degrees and various kinds, display device wisdom and devine completeness, and in every lecture I pointed out this thought of tolerance, and therefore admittedly I was
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment please, Dr. Heim. It seems that we are going far afield.
You have questioned him about his private sex life; you have questioned him about his fresh-air trips. Now you are going to have him repeat to us his lectures. I am afraid we don't have time to listen to all those lectures.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I have a few questions to put which refer merely to the credibility of the witness. I did not intend to have the witness repeat his lecture which he has given, and I would like to ask the witness to give brief answers to the questions I put to him and only answer the question and do not make any other remarks.
Q (By Dr. Heim) Witness, did your lectures not attack Christianity and religion?
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, this question certainly is not admissible. The witness has said that he has lectured with the permission of the CIC, with the permission or support of American authorities. If Dr. Heim wants to challenge him on that he can prove he had not the permission to lecture, but I do think it is absolutely incorrect to ask the witness this question which Dr. Heim just put.
DR. BERGOLD: I subscribe to the opinion of the Prosecutor. I think this is not a part of the subject that the witness should be asked about, and I think the content matter os his lectures is reasonable but has nothing to do with the actual subject, and I should like this question not be be admitted.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, the content matter of these lectures has not been criticized by myself, but I only asked the witness whether his lectures attacked Christianity, as I deem this question concerning credibility very important.
DR. BERGOLD: I may just say that my colleague is wrong. If anybody thinks that this lecture has a damaging effect and the witness thinks that the lecture is not damaging Christianity, the lawyer cannot prove anything at all. He can only prove that another authority or another person can be of a different opinion, but this does not speak against or for the credibility of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, it would seem that the majority is against you. You have the Prosecution and the defense firmly allied against you on this point.
DR. HEIM: I understand.
THE PRESIDENT: That isn't so sad for you as it is that the Tribunal also is against you on this point. You see, Dr. Heim, I know you are attacking the credibility of the witness, and that is entirely proper, but to question him on what he talked about in a religious lecture, and in an attempt to draw from his answer something unfavorable to the witness, you would need to assume that the person deciding that question would have to have a certain religious attitude on that particular point, and naturally we are not here to pass upon religious attitudes. We are here to ascertain the facts in an absolutely impartial manner insofar as those facts appertain to the charges in the indictment. The objection in sustained from both sides. Proceed with your next question, Dr. Heim.
church, is that correct?
A Yes. The church, since 1934, with great care and with motherly love, tried to get me back.
Q That is enough Witness. Witness, did you not, in the Third Reich, did you not denounce Herr Regens in Freysing when he was sentenced to imprisonment for nine months? in detail as it actually was.
THE PRESIDENT: Not in detail. Now, he has asked you a question and you have answered in the affirmative, you did denounce this individual. Now, Dr. Heim, take up your next question.
THE WITNESS: I did not denounce him.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh. Well, I am sorry.
THE WITNESS: Yes. I told the Mayor of Freysing, who was the brother of my best friend and a Catholic theologian, about these things. He reported this matter further on. I had assumed I could tell things like this to the brother of my friend who was a clergyman himself. Therefore the thing happened. The Gestapo found out about it and I had to confess the truth, and he, therefore, was sentenced for nine months in prison. That is the actual fact of the matter.
Q (By Dr. Heim) Was not that the reason why your activity why you liquidated, as it were, your activity as a clergyman? to tell you in answering this question. That would mean the development of a young man, how psychological religious difficulties arise, from what points of view one can doubt the dogma and the church itself, or the tie to the church service, and how one can be irritated by such matters. I should then have to tell you about my journey to Rome, and if you-
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Witness, I don't know whether you went to Rome for fresh air or for some other reason, but we really don't have time for an additional travelogue.
Now, Dr. Heim, let your questions be very specific, and see that he answers specifically, and don't let him get away from you.
Q (By Dr. Heim) Witness, please answer my question, if you can, by yes or no. Did you, in 1933 or 34, did you not ask for protection of the Gestapo?
A I was arrested in protective custody. That was the matter of Rosberger, which was the outside pretext to be connected about my leaving the church, but that was not the psychological reason.
Q Witness, did you adhere to the German movement of believers? but inside I confess to being a free religious man who believes in a divine power without adhering to any dogma.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, unfortunately I only have German copies of this document as the translation of individual documents is not admissible. I shall submit the English translation at a later point.
THE PRESIDENT: Has Dr. Bergold received a copy?
DR. BERGOLD: No.
THE PRESIDENT: He should have one.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honors please, as far as I see from the copy which I have received from the copy which I have recieved from defense counsel, this is a letter to Dr. Heim from a representative of Mr. Buchwese, representative of the ordinary - I do not know how to translate it - "ordinariat" of the Archbishop in Munich. This letter obviously should substitute or is supposed to substitute either for affidavit or testimony. According to the rules of the Tribunal such a letter is inadmissible and I therefore object against this document.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, I subscribe to the views of the Prosecutor, and I point out that in the decisions of the IMT it was constantly refused to accept letters. That was always explained and on various occasions repeated by the IMT.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I do not intend anyway to submit this as a document into evidence, but I only want to show this document to the witness in order to refresh his memory and in order to have him identify it. I don't know whether he can refresh his memory in so short a time.
DR. BERGOLD: My colleague apologized that it wasn't in English and he said he would add it to his document book. That I understand to the effect, as I am quite well aware of the German language, as a statement that this document he intends to submit as an exhibit. I may point out that it is printed here, "Document Blobel No. 5 Exhibit No."
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, dealing with the objection from all sides, I have now decided to submit it only for identification.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: It is obviously a letter to Dr. Heim is at liberty to question the witness to information that he has received in the letter, but I do not understand why he hands this letter to the witness. The witness cannot identify this letter as this letter is neither written by the witness nor sent to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't necessary to argue this point any furthery. It is very clear that the document is not admissible as a document. Dr. Heim may refer to any information contained in the letter and may cross-examine the witness on that information, but not on the letter which the witness does not know, never saw before and has no knowledge of.
Suppose, Dr. Heim, we recess now and you can take that up immediately after the recess? I might say, please, that the Tribunal will reconvene at two o'clock today.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 24 November 1947
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. ULMER: Dr. Ulmer for the defendant Six. Your Honor, I ask permission that I may draw your attention to an incident which prevents the defense, and my colleague Dr. Durchholz seriously from work. Apparently electric bulbs had been stolen from the building, in the wing of the building in which the defense has its offices. Therefore, Captain **is has announced that these bulbs can not be replaced, and that the defense counsel have to replace the bulb themselves. The treatment of the Counsels they are subjected to is such as if they were the thieves. Last Thursday, around five o'clock there was a cordon of guards around the defense offices, and all members, and all users of the offices in the wing of the defense who wanted to leave the building were stopped by these guards and were searched bodily down to the watch pocket, where certainly there would be no electric bulbs hidden, and, then finally they were let out, When after seven or seven-thirty o(clock, the time for conferences with the defendants in Room 57 was over, this search was continued, and so that all the defense counsel could be searched who must work later, and then the light was turned off, and thereby it was accomplished that those people who were still working in the offices had to come out. On Friday afternoon another such cordon of guards was drawn up and the electricity was turned off again in the wing used by the defense counsel, but I can not say, neither do I claim that it was done intentionally. However, it produced the result that when Dr. Durchholz was ready to read a document, he could not do so without having to go out into the corridor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ulmer, what you are leading up to, apparently, is a request that you get more light?
DR. ULMER: No, Your Honor, I have this request, that outside of the Tribunal one is recognized in the position of which one can be so proud as inside of this court. I would like to see to it that it be avoided that I personally as Defense Counsel, would be forced to visit the building only at such time when I appear before you. Your Honors, and have complete protection of my honor and that I would not like to be forced to have to spend any time outside where I am treated in such a manner, and that I can not be treated in such a manner, and I cannot perform my necessary work outside of this court-room under the circumstances, at least not with as much dispatch and joy which you would want me to and in which I would want to do it.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ulmer, the Tribunal, of course, knows nothing of these facts, but we are ready to go immediately upon record as condemning any act which casts any reflection on the honesty of the counsel who have appeared before this Tribunal, and if now you are in need of electric bulbs in order that you may perform your work properly, the Tribunal will be happy to interest itself at once to see to it that the quarters in which you work are adequately illuminated.
DR. ULMER: Thank you very much for this, your Honor, but it is not so much the requisitioning of bulbs. If a bulb is stolen in my room, I didn't steal it, but I certainly will find a way of replacing it, but I would like to avoid that, if any bulbs are stolen anywhere, that I be treated in such a manner as though I might be the thief.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have been placed upon the record and we repeat it, that this Tribunal regrets considerably that there should be even a remotest suggestion here that you could in any way have been responsible for the disappearance of those bulbs, and the Tribunal will go further, and communicate with the official in change of this room in which you work to see to it that not only lights are furnished but that you be treated with the respect and the decorum, which is your due as an attorney at this Bar.
DR. ULMER: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
DR. HEIM: Dr. Heim for the Defendant Blobel.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, just before the recess you put a question which we excluded. My colleague, Judge Speight, has called to my attention a certain feature of that question which we would like to put to you. If you asked this witness what doctrine, what religious doctrine he was teaching and you asked if only for the purpose of ascertaining what the doctrine was, properly, that question is excluded. But if you asked the question for the purpose of contrasting his answer with some previous statement thereby to show an inconsistency and thereby attacking the credibility of the witness, that question would be in order.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, Your Honor. testified further as follows:
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. HEIM: to be identified by you. I would like to submit it once more.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, as far as I remember, the prosecution has objected against this document which is a letter to Dr. Heim from a person different from the witness. There is no possibility for identification for the witness. The witness has neither seen nor is he the writer of the letter and I object against the fact that this document is handed to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Heim, the witness never saw this document so far as we understand, so, therefore, he would have no way of identifying it.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I shall withdraw this document and I will merely ask questions and will make an affidavit about it later on.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. HEIM: possible, with Yes or No in order to abbreviation the proceeding. In your capacity as prefect in the boys seminary of the Archdiocese in Freising did you denounce a certain man by the name of Rossberger?
MR. HOCHWALD: If I am not mistaken, this line of questioning was already taken up by Dr. Heim before he handed the letter to the witness. I do think he has covered the ground. The witness has answered she question. If Dr. Heim wants to add something to his question, it will be perfectly all right, but this question was certainly already asked. DR. HEIM: Witness, I shall do without the answer to the question.
THE WITNESS: I have answered the question. I spoke to the mayor and the Kreisleiter.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have answered the question. You don't have to -
DR. HEIM: I shall do without it. BY DR. HEIM: articles?
A No. I wrote articles for the official party correspondence which was edited by Suentermann. In this paper I wrote articles for the official party bulletin, and all German papers were entitled to copy and reprint articles from this official correspondence. Later these articles were published in book form under the name of Anton Holzner as I have already stated a dozen times.
There the lawyer can see in the preface that these articles were originally written for the party correspondence and, of course, it was free to all newspapers to reprint these.
Q Witness, I have another question to this. In your lectures in Hammelburg didn't you put the Christian religion on the same level as the Buddhist?
MR. HOCHWALD: Just a minute, If I understood the Tribunal correctly the Tribunal admitted this question only in connection with the previous answer of the witness, in order to impeach his credibility. If Dr. Heim asked the question in this form, it is impossible to figure out how he will impeach the witness. It would be necessary to ask the witness first, didn't you say in your previous question that and that, and then ask him the question he wanted to ask.
THE PRESIDENT: It might be clearer, Dr. Heim, if you evidenced the contrast, if you indicated first just what the witness said which you now claim is in contradiction to what he is about to say.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, it was merely my intention to have this question answered merely with "Yes" or "No" because at the proper time I shall introduce affidavits concerning this subject of statements of the witness. I would, therefore, like this question to be answered.
MR. HOCHWALD, If I understood correctly that was just the way the Tribunal ruled the question out before the recess it was just what the Tribunal did not consider admissable.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is Dr. Heim merely to point out what doctrine he taught and then -- because you might not agree with that doctrine -- you will attack his credibility, that would not be proper because everyone has the right to teach what he pleases, everyone has the right to worship as he chooses.
If, however, you claim that on Monday he preached one thing, one Tuesday he preached something else, on Wednesday still another thing, then you can show the contradiction in his own statements and in that way you can argue that his credibility has been impeached.
DR. HEIM: Witness, I want to go over to another subject now.
THE WITNESS: I can answer this question if you attach any value to it.
DR. HEIM: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Thank you. BY DR. HEIM: ditch you saw some explosions which were the cause of the gasses of decomposition coming out of these ditches, and that through these explosions the ground allegedly lifted itself. Did I understand this correctly?
A Generally, yes. Only, of course, you must not regard it as a big explosion but it was a small one, sort of an earth fountain. Not any extensive shakings, but just a small loosening of the frozen earth, and there was a small earth fountain. That was only for a moment. lifted itself -- became loose? So at that time the ground was still frozen?
Q You mean to say that the earth was still frozen?
A How long?
Q Witness, please answer just my question. Was the earth frozen at that time?