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?
A Yes. Snow was still lying and, therefore, the earth was still frozen.
Q Thank you, Witness. Is it known to you that a decomposition of corpses cannot take place if the corpses are frozen?
A That I don't know because -- but sometimes, of course, the sun is very hot. The sun was shining, and if you know the climate of southern Russia and especially this territory, you would know that sometimes in January the sun shines very hotly, and there were hot days in January and February, and then, of course, it became cooler then. It therefore, caused a change, it is possible that on one day it was so hot that one became quite sunburnt in the midst of winter. and a few days after that the grounds frozen again. in January actually thaws the frozen earth there?
A I don't think so. Certainly not in January, but it wasn't January, it was later.
Q You have just said that it was the sun in January? sometimes, but did not say at that time it was January. In order to give you an example of the climate in southern Russia, I gave you that particular example stating that in January it was even very hot in January. On the other hand there were very cool nights in summer, sometimes. Russia. Please answer the following question. Do you think it possible that in spite of the frozen earth corpses underneath could be in decomposition?
they must have bean under the earth for quite some time. The actual chemical process I do not understand, I can only say what I saw at that time, about the chemical details. you have to ask somebody else.
Q Witness, did you know Erlinger? ditch for a mass grave for executed Jews?
A I can't imagine that at that time in 1942 there were any mass executions. I don't know for certain, but I heard nothing about it -- as far as minor executions are concerned, about a hundred people, that has actually taken place. which you mentioned this morning. Is it known to you that at the time Heydrich visited Einsatzgruppe A as well as Einsatzgruppe B?
A I do not know. I only know that he visited Einsatzgruppe C.
Q You know that he visited Einsatzgruppe C? examination that during the second half of 1942 you had been the chief of 1 and 2? I mean I could be called the chief of both these offices. Sturmbannfuehrer Heinz was the leader I with Dr. Thomas?
A Yes. He had this office shortly before, until September approximately and the remainder of the year I was the chief.
quarter? A number of things happened before, but at that time Heydrich was Chief of 1, and 2, and when I came back to Berlin I took over both departments 1 and 2. I believe it must have been September. I did not say that only during the whole second part of the year I was in charge, I only said that during the second part I was the chief of 1 and 2.
Q Were you not in SK 4A for sight week's when this was under the leadership of Dr. Weinmann?
A I can't remember the exact time but approximately two months I stayed at Gharkow, and I visited all the scientific institutes and old museums and scientific institutions. I took part in examination etc, and I started with the institute of atom splitting up to agricultural institutes. All institutes existing in Gharkov were visited by me. I spoke to a number of scientists, professors, artists, and I also met von Radetzky, who introduced me to a number of people, and I lived in the head quarters of the Commander of the Einsatzgruppe. BY THE PRESIDENT: up to agriculture. Did you consider atom splitting very simple?
A No. I said I visited these institutions for the atom splitting up to the smallest agricultural institutions. I saw these. I visited them. I am not a specialist in this field myself, therefore, I could only be informed of What others performed there. I was more interested in other institutes of a more spiritual kind.
BY DR. HEIM: Document No. 5384, you say in the third sentence or Number 2, which in the first page. I quote, "In spring of 1941 I arrived at the office IV". That is the end of my quotation. Can you tell us what office IV of the RSHA meant? Office IV Was that the Criminal Police?
A No, It was Gestapo. I was detailed for this particular office.
Q What did you do there? information service which I had to deal with before. For executive questions, government councillor. Roth was active and another government councillor. Office III the SD was competent for information questions. Can you not give us any more details concerning your activity in Office IV? one office to another. First, it was in the office E. It was in the main department of that, then it came to the information department, then it came to office 2, then to office 3, then for a short while to office 7, then for a short time it came to office 4, and then it left. The task I had to deal with, that is information service for this subject dealing with church matters in the field of the various religions which existed together with these church liaison men whom I have just mentioned, and this task generally was always the same but then, of course, it was detailed a little, one part of it, for instance was given over to office 3, that is religious life as a domestic sphere.
That was given over to office 3, but the actual information service of the various churches was an assignment of office 4, for a short while and as I have already mentioned, I was in the office 6, my task I only had to deal with matters of office 6. Therefore, it changed all the time.
Q I have only another three or four questions. When you made out your affidavits concerning the charges of the defendant Blobel, did you not make a mistake as to the personality concerned? I remembered with great intensity. However, it is thus Dr. Thomas said at the time, as I have already mentioned, that Blobel's film was tearing all the time, i.e, that Blobel physically and psychologically was exhausted and was a broken man so that it is possible that Blobel said something at the time which he did not know any mere afterwards and even that, if I may use that phrase, his film had been torn, but I can only say what Blobel told me at the time himself. voluntarily, or were you asked by the prosecution to make the statement?
MR. HOCHWALD: I do think it is necessary that Dr. Heim specifies a little bit as requested by the prosecution, whether he was questioned by the prosecution or whether the prosecution asked him to make this statement or whatever it is, but I do think this important question should be a little bit more specific.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but Mr. Hochwald, this is cross examination and he can put it in the best possible way that he can for his own client. He can put any question at all practically.
BY DR. HEIM: put to you. shootings of Jews and whether I knew the order. Thereupon, in criminating myself, I declared that I did not know the order, but that I had to assume that such an order was existing, so these were the two points I made. Then I was asked what made me conclude that this order was existing, practically that meant my incriminating myself. I knew of the eastern reports, that means the resorts of the UDSSR which I got until 1944. I also knew it from conversations, for since I was in the East it could not be avoided to be told about it, and then I was questioned for details. There was a second element. I had to answer this question in order to exonerate the defendant Radetzky, who also was charged with it. I had to free him from any charges that may be made against him, but the prosecution had nothing to do with it. last fortnight, to the effect that when you made out the affidavit you only had the choice between incriminating either the defendant, Radetzky or the defendant, Blobel. and that you would rather incriminate the defendant Blobel than the defendant Radetzky?
MR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, I object to this question; it is a result of a discussion that I had with my colleague, Heim, in the course of which he misunderstood me. In this form, as my colleague is putting it here, I, myself, did not tell him.
THE WITNESS: But I want to answer the question. I have stated:
In the case in which it is the question whether two people are guilty or whether one man whom I personally deem innocent, while I knew for certain that the other called himself guilty, that in this case I would, of course, certainly have to speak the truth, that if a psychological incriminate one and declare the other one innocent, I had to say what I considered necessary from my own conscience. By DR. HEIM: the moral quality of a man who being a priest denounces another clergyman.
DR. BERGOLD: Witness, you need not answer the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel desire to cross examine the witness? BY THE PRESIDENT: question that at a particular place there was only a small execution of 100. Do you consider the killing of 100 people as a small matter?
A Not at all. Not at all. I think it is a grays offense, but I only used it in relation to the rather larger mass executions about which the reports speak. I want to object to the opinion that I might regard the execution of 100 people as a negligent matter. with the large figures which had been stated in describing mass murders?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. All right. Proceed please. By DR. RATZ (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT VON RADETZKY). in Charkov and that on that occasion you visited scientific institutions beginning with the Institution for Atom Splitting and going on to Agricultural Institutions and that on that occasion you also met the Defendant Radetzky. I now want to ask you do you know what functions Radetzky had to deal with in Charkov at the time? also by Chief Radetzky himself, as well as other personalities. Radetzky owing to this linguistic capabilities was merely employed as an interpreter. It was late that he was assigned to other tasks, being employed first as a liaison officer between the Einsatz Commander and General Paulus, the then Supreme Commander of the 6th Army. At the same time he was liaison officer with the authorities of the Ukrainian Service Government, mainly the Ukrainian municipalities. This I only know from statements of the SD itself and also from Ukrainian people especially those living in Charkov, a professor of chemistry with whom I had a number of interesting discussions, told me on various occasions -about Radetzky whom he liked very much and to told me that Radetzky was taking care that the town Charkov was supplied with food and that in this manner he was well acquainted with municipal matters in the Ukraine and he was in close touch with himself -- with Professor Katicuitz. when you saw him in Charkov and you spoke to him that he was participating in any executions whatsoever.
A No. I cannot imagine that very well. First of all, I did not hear anything at all myself, of executions at the time, but I think it impossible because Radetzky was fully occupied with his two special tasks. He had to travel between the offices of the SD commanders and the offices of General Paulus and then again he was with the Ukraine administrative offices.
I cannot imagine, therefore, that in addition to this he could have been employed for other matters. about the personality of the Defendant von Radetzky, especially whether you are of the opinion that Radetzky might have placed himself at disposal for execution on his own initiative?
A I don't think so, because Radetzky was one of those people whom one designated as being soft at that time. Of course I don't know him too well, but the impression that I got of him at the time according to this impression, I think it impossible that he in addition to his other tasks, would have pieced himself at disposal for executions. I think it is impossible. Radetzky took part in executions in any way whatsoever?
A I don't think that is possible, for the reason that he was mainly employed as an interpreter previously, as many people told me, and interpreters were at the time a very rare group of people. There were so few people who really knew any languages at the time so that in my opinion one could not take the liberty of sending these interpreters to an executive job.
DR. RATZ: Thank you. Your Honor, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel ready to cross-examine?
Mr. Hochwald, you may cross-examine this witness BY DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: are you a personal enemy of the Defendant Blobel?
DR. HEIM (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT BLOBEL): Your Honor, I object to the adminissibility of this question. The prosecution is asking the witness for a judgment, that is, an opinion, but we are just trying to find out facts.
MR. HOCHLICK-HOCHWALD: Your Honor, the reason why I asked this question was, I just wanted to ascertain whether this question ---
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, the pure truth can come only when the speaker is uninfluenced by emotion or by incorrect observations. You have attempted in your cross-examination to show that the witness could not have spoken the pure truth, because he did not observe carefully. In other words, there was some defect in his observation, physical observation. Now Mr. Hochwald wants to inquire if there was any defect in his intellectual appraisement of the Defendant Blobel, because of any emotional interference which would come from one who is an enemy. The question is entirely in order, Dr. Heim. completely exhausted by all the events in the East and by his activity. This impression became even stronger later on when in 1945 -- it was about Spring -- the first months. or, it might be the last months of 1944, I met the Deputy of Blobel in Yugoslavia, where I -
THE PRESIDENT: Don't make these answers too long. You have answered the question. on this journey by car and he told you the story about the mass grave where the Jews killed by him and his Sonderkommando were burried, did you have the impression then that Blobel was not in possession of his mental faculties? seemed most exhausted but according to what I heard from Thomas I had to come to the conclusion that he was psychologically exhausted as well or at least to a large extent and this condition, according to the judgment of other people, became even stronger towards the end of the war. not deranged mentally, is that correct?
A I don't want to say that I had the impression that he was mentally deranged in any way, but he seemed very nervous and psychologically somewhat weak.