A. I testified to everything, the other questions are all hypothetical. I testified as far as I could.
Q. Regardless of what inner motives impelled you to relate these facts, in your interrogation here in Nurnberg and in your affidavit, are not these facts as true today as at the time when you, compelled by the oath, related then first to Mr. Wartenberg?
A. As far as I remember, I described matters as I did here to Mr. Wartenberg.
Q. So what you then told in these two affidavits and in your interrogation of 29 June, I think is the date, that is the whole truth without withholding anything -- the whole truth, is that correct?
A. Not the affidavit. The affidavit is only an excerpt.
Q. I said everything together, the two affidavits, one at Bielheide, the one here, and the interrogation of yours of the 29th of June together are the whole truth about that what you have to say about Einsatzgruppe 6, is that correct?
A. No. I did not have the request to relate everything I have experienced. I answered to questions, and if I am not asked about anything, I did not make any testimony about it.
Q. You have testified here that you were told that the withholding of certain facts would be a breach of your oath in the same way as giving a false testimony, and that compelled by this statement, you told your story in this interrogation, is that so?
A. No. I merely answered the questions of the interrogating officer.
Q. That means you have not told the whole truth?
A. I was not asked for the truth, the complete truth.
Q. Is it not true that you have been told by the interrogator that the withholding of certain statements would be as much a branch of oath as giving a false statement?
A. Only if it is in a question which he put to me.
Q. That is how you understood it, is that right?
A. Yes. That is how it is to be understood.
Q. So it is then correct that you understood it in that way?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you answer now the question which you did not answer? These things which you told Mr. Wartenberg are the truth?
THE PRESIDENT: What is the question now. I don't know that I catch the question?
MR. HOCHWALD: I asked him whether he, giving testimony, or relating his story to Mr. Wartenberg, spoke the truth, nothing else?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Do you mean by "complete" the extent?
MR. HOCHWALD: I do not recall to have said "complete". I said the truth. Did you tell Mr. Wartenberg the truth in answer to his questions?
THE WITNESS: It is a strange question. I must confirm it, of course, for I think - - - BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. I am going back now to 1926 . Mr. Biberstein, you told the Tribunal that under the influence of your mother, and of the "Voelkischer Beobachter" you became a member of the Nazi Party in 1926, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you continue in later years to read the "Voelkischer Beobachter"?
A. Yes, as far as it interested me.
Q. Did you read this newspaper or other German newspapers until the end of the war?
A. No. I was not always in Germany.
Q. You had no newspapers in the East?
A. No.
Q. But when you were in Germany you read German newspapers, did you not?
A. I hardly think so. The various political things did not interest me because they were all somehow stereotyped.
Q. Did you ever read the "Angriff" of Dr. Goebbels?
A. In the earlier years, occasionally.
Q. May I ask you what you call the "earlier years"?
A. When I was in Berlin I sometimes bought am "Angriff".
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal just the times, the years which you read it?
A. I do not know, when I was in Berlin , 1935 to 1940.
Q. Did you listen regularly to the German radio?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever listen to the frequent speeches which were made by Hitler?
A. Yes. I heard Hitler's speeches over the radio.
Q. All of them?
A. I cannot say. I don't think so, I was not always in Germany.
Q. In the spring of 1939 you were in the Reich, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall particularly one speech which Hitler made in the spring of 1939 after the occupation of Czechoslovakia ?
A. After the occupation, I do not remember such a speech. As for its content, I assume that he spoke and that he made a statement, but unfortunately I cannot say anything about its content. If I have to give any information about this, I would have to lie. One would have to submit the speech to me so that I could maybe remember one or the other expression, otherwise, I do not know.
Q. Do you remember that Hitler threatened in this particular speech that if war should break out that the European Jews would be exterminated
A. No, I don't remember. I consider this out of the question, since in 1940-41, I heard about a completely different plan about the Jews.
Q. Was it known to you that a national socialist state and a national socialist party were violently anti-semitic?
A. Yes.
Q. Is the name "Streicher" known to you?
A. Unfortunately.
Q. You yesterday gave the Tribunal a description, or was it Friday, I am sorry, -- a description of national socialists and of Hitlerites. To what type do you consider belongs Streicher?
A. I only know Streicher from his papers, otherwise , I know nothing about Streicher.
Q. You cannot say whether he was a national socialist or Hitlerite, is that right?
A. I don't know him personally, I could only judge on the basis of his paper.
Q. Do you refer to the "Stuermer" when you speak about the "newspaper"?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you read this newspaper?
A. In the early days, Yes, but never again afterwards. It was a dirty sheet.
Q. Is it known to you that in November 1938 when the synagogue in Germany was burned that it was Streicher in Nurnberg who led the destruction of then here?
A. I do not know.
Q. You did not learn that in the Ministry of Church Affairs?
A. No. Officially, I certainly didn't.
Q. You were at that time in the Ministry of Church Affairs, that is correct, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. May I presume that in this Ministry, among your colleagues, these events were widely discussed?
A. Yes. In the Ministry I heard from my officials what had happened during the night.
Q. You disapproved of this burning for religious reasons, is that correct?
A. Basically, I didn't.
PRESIDENT: I didn't catch it. Would you please repeat it?
INTERPRETER: I did not on principle approve of this. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. What principle was this, if it was not religious?
A. That was an action which was completely illegal and we lived in an orderly state, and there can't be suddenly overnight some kind of events which contradict every legal order and order in generals.
Q. Did you approve of the other measures against the Jews just for the simple reason that they were legal?
A. Which measures do you mean, Mr. Prosecutor?
Q. The Nurnberg laws, the depriving of professions, of personal property, of citizenship rights, of living in certain quarters, of hundreds and hundreds of things which were known to every German citizen, whether he was an official or not, as every German citizen could read them every day in the German newspaper, hear them every day on the German radio, and see them every day on the street. So will you tell me now whether you approved of these measures just for the simple reason that they were so-called "legal"?
A. First of all, they were law, and secondly, the laws had a certain justification, in my conviction.
Q. Do I understand you correctly that you approved of them then?
A. Well, I did not have any influence specifically on their extent, but that something, had to happen in order to remove certain irregularities within the German people was clear to me and seemed a matter of course to me.
Q. You did approve then of these measures, Please answer with "Yes" or "No".
A. Nuernberg laws, Yes. What else did you mean?
Q. Everything else which was decreed by the German state between 1933 and 1945 against the Jews? It was common knowledge of the German people?
A. No. This was not known, I do not know what you mean by this. You would have to tell me specifically what measures you mean.
Q. For instance, the wearing of the "David Star", which was completely legal in Germany, as it was a decree to work. Did you approve of this decree, completely legal?
A. It was a matter of taste, but that some kind of an insignia would be worn, I did not consider unjust.
Q. You did approve of it then?
A. Yes.
Q. You only disapproved of the burning of the synagogues?
A. Because it was an act of violence.
Q. Did you voice your disapproval to somebody concerning the burning of the synagogues?
A. At home. Certainly, I told my wife about it. Whether we talked about it in the office, I assume so. Yes. I remember at the time I had a conference with a man from the Gestapo Office and we spoke about it and he told me that, "You can gain some merit here". Yes, we have instructions to determine by whom these measures were taken and at this occasion we spoke about them. Mr. Prosecutor, you are smiling, because by now you probably have found out differently, but I also heard about them, but at the time matters were this way, andyou must believe me if I tell you that this was told to me, and that many circles within the people were firmly convinced of the fact that the Fuehrer not only did not know anything about it, but that he was enraged about it.
Q. So, do I understand you that you say that these measures were not ordered by the Nazi State, is that correct?
A. I cannot imagine.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal by whom these measures were ordered and carried out?
A. It was later claimed that it was Goebbels who was alleged to have given these instructions, otherwise, I know nothing.
Q. What did you think who did do that when you heard of it the first day, the first morning after your employees came and told you that that happened?
A. We were told that it was the So.
Q. So you knew as a matter of fact that it was a party organization who carried out these measures?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you also know that the SS participated in the thing?
A. I know that the SS did not participate, but I heard in Berlin that the SS was partly committed in order to limit these measures.
Q. But you know as a matter of fact that a party organization had carried out these measures?
A. Yes. There were quite a few party organizations which did bad things.
Q. You were a member of the Party then, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you not leave the party when you were so much opposed to those measures?
A. The question of leaving is a question which has much deeper roots than that, it could be solved by one single measure. I explained in my direct examination that I joined the Party at the time because it represented a great and lofty ideal, we clung to this ideal with the first love of a young man. That was the first Party I joined.
Q. I do not want to interrupt you, of course, but I do think the Tribunal knows, and I understood perfectly why you did not leave the Party, you were just too much interested in national Socialism in order to do that for just one incident, is that what you wanted to say?
A. No, No, it was an individual incident.
Q. That is what I wanted to say.
A. As I heard, it was not even approved. If somewhere people do stupid things, and I could mention more such things, then one could have left it a long time ago, then one would leave any party, for stupidities are carried on everywhere and human beings for some reasons are always going beyond the limit somewhere.
Q. Did you learn at that time, too, that at the same time when the synagogues were burned great numbers of Jews were arrested and put in concentration camps?
A. No. I did not hear anything about this at the time. I heard it here in the courtroom for the first time.
Q. You joined the SS in 1936, Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You have told the Tribunal that the SS was known at that time as the most ideal and nest unselfish representative of National Socialism and was highly regarded by the population, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. May I assume that you also were of this opinion?
A. Yes, of course, otherwise I wouldn't have said it.
Q. That was in 1936, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you between 1936 and 1945 changed your opinion about the SS?
A. You mean until '45?
Q. Between 1936 when you joined until 1945 when Germany collapsed --May, 1945 to be perfectly correct?
A. No. If I look at the entire matter, I did not.
Q. Will you explain this statement. If you considered the entire matter, you said--if you consider details, what is it then?
A. The important thing about the SS was the Waffen SS, and as far as I am convinced, it belonged to the best German troops there were, whom I always look up to in admiration and gratitude.
Q. What about the other SS organizations?
A. They hardly appeared during the war.
Q. Do you intend to tell the Tribunal that there Was no Gestapo during, the war in Germany, in the occupied countries, for instance?
A. These were not actually SS men, as far as I saw it for they had a professional activity, that is, not so much a Party mission as SS officers.
Q. Is it then correct that it is your opinion that only a member of the so-called "General" SS or later, the Waffen SS, is an SS member at all, and everybody else, whether the Totenkopf, or SD, I don't knew what all organizations existed, was not a member of the SS just for the simple reason that he had a fulltime job with the SS. Will you tell that to the tribunal?
A. As far as I know, the members of the SD and the Gestapo were more or less taken into the SS on a compulsory basis, as a result of their profession.
Q. Would you consider Himmler a member of the SS?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Thank you, that answers my Question. Was Heydrich a member of the SS--Heydrich?
A. Yes, Yes, he was in it.
Q. Was Kaltenbrunner a member of the SS?
A. I said, all the members of the Security Police and the SD were professionally SS officers and SS members.
Q. when you were an official in the ministry of Church Affairs, did you also have to deal with the affairs of the Catholic Church?
A. I said that I had two departments. First of all, I was liaison man to the Gestapo, and there I had to deal with Catholic matters also.
PRESIDENT: Witness, why don't you answer the question directly. You did tell us all that-You heard the Question of Mr. Hochwald, it was very specific. Now, please answer that directly.
THE WITNESS: Yes. As a liaison man to the Gestapo I had to deal with Catholic matters, too; as expert in church matters, I had to deal only with Protestant matters. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal whether it is true or not that National Socialism was strongly opposed to the Catholic Church for the reason of its internationality and of its position in the racial Question?
A. I didn't suite yet the question.
Q. I asked you whether it is true that National Socialism was strongly opposed to the Catholic Church for the reason of its internationality and of its position in the racial Question?
A. As far as I knew, these were not the reasons, why the National Socialist state was supposed to have had a hostile attitude against the Catholic Church.
Q. Is it true that National Socialism was opposed to the Catholic Church?
A. The National Socialist as such? No. There were innumerable Catholics in the Nazi Party.
Q. Then I do not think that you answered the Question. I asked you, whether National Socialism was opposed to the church, not to certain Catholic members of the church who preferred to join an antichurch party. It has nothing to do with the individual.
A. No.
Q. But I am speaking now is the organization of the Catholic Church in Germany.
A. Against the organization of the Catholic Church as such, National Socialism had no hostile attitude, for I have already said that even the members of the Catholic Church were members of the Party.
Q. All right, now, I just asked you that I did not want to ask you about individuals but about a complete organization--but I do not think it is such an important Question, so I will have the question.
PRESIDENT: He is going to give that to you whether you want it or not, so there is no use your trying to refuse it. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. Did you once learn when you were an official in the Ministry or later that in Germany program for the extermination of insane and feeble-minded existed, the so-called Euthansia program?
A. Yes, I heard about that.
Q. Where did you learn about it?
A. If you ask me where and when, I could not give any exact answer, and I cannot say when this was first mentioned. I could not state it specifically because this was outside of my sphere.
Q. Was it known to you that this program was violently opposed by the Catholic and by the Protestant Church?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you, having been a Protestant minister, approve of this program?
A. This question is very crucial, and I cannot merely answer this with "Yes" or "No". I personally asked myself this question frequently, and I came to the conclusion that if I personally had a child which was incurable, I would have given my approval as a father to have this child freed from his sufferings in this manner. Certainly, I know the philosophy of the church that in every insane person it sees a divine will, namely, that the child would yet special love, but I personally came to the conviction that it would be a greater love of your neighbor to prevent the birth of such poor people, and if these who have legal responsibility for these people give their approval to put an end to the suffering by way of Euthanasia, the suffering of these people who no longer are human beings, that they be eliminated in this fashion, I did not have anything against this from my religious point of view, but this question is so difficult and so important that to judge it one has to be an attorney in order to know what conclusions to draw and what consequences this could lead to.
Q. I did not ask you about the consequences, but I do understand your answer, that in spite of the fact that you knew that there were strong religious objections you approved of the Euthanasia program in principle, is that correct, is that what you just explained to the Tribunal?
A I mean, one cannot act against the will of the relatives, I'm against that, but with the approval of the family would favor it. Moreover, this has been a contraversy among physicians for decades and many points of view have been expressed on the subject.
TEE PRESIDENT: Witness, did you know that in many instances invalids were executed because they could not work?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't know that?
THE WITNESS: Because they did not want to work?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no, because they could, not work. They were invalids, they weren't insane and they weren't completely helpless, but they could not work. Did you know that in many cases they were executed?
THE WITNESS: No, never.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you see that the euthanasia program could lead to very grave abuses and that people could be killed not for medical reasons, but for ideological reasons, could you see that?
THE WITHESS: No, I would never have considered, it possible, because this could only concern a case when the physicians are convinced to the best of their knowledge that this human being cannot be cured.
THE PRESIDENT: And do you know that physicians could, sign a statement indicating that the invalid was to be executed although the physician knew that the invalid did not fall into that category of incurable? Did you know that?
TEE WITNESS: No, I do not consider that possible, because a physician has an obligation towards life and this question always played a big role among physicians and was a matter of conscience, and I am convinced that even though it was forbidden physicians did something like that here or there; I could, tell something from my own time as a priest. Of course, I don't know the details, but I saw the most varied illnesses -
THE PRESIDENT: That is enough. You answered the question. Proceed, Mr. Hochwald. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q Thank you. Did you know that concentration camps existed in Germany?
Q When did you learn for the first time that such camps existed? detail, but I think it happened right after 1933, because thus a bloody revolution in Germany was prevented, as it happened in other countries where it resulted in the deaths of thousands.
Q Which concentration camps did you know about? Dachau, Buchenwald, Oranienburg, Auschwitz, and Lublin?
A That is asking too much. At what time?
Q Let's say 1940. had an official who lived in Oranienburg and thus I got acquainted with an SS officer who was on duty there. Later, of course, I got to know the names of various concentration camps, since they were made generally public.
Q Did you know that Auschwitz was a concentration camp? the Gestapo office in Oppeln that prisoners of war who were Bolshevists were sent to Auschwitz?
Q It was known to you?
A Yes, but not what they were supposed to do there. In Auschwitz there were many buildings being put up and many people were sent there to work there.
not? were sent to concentration camps, isn't that a logical effect of what you said? office in Oppeln that Jews were sent to the Theresienstadt in Czechoslovakia, did you know that?
Q Were they sent from Oppeln at the time when you were there?
A Yes. I have already said during my interrogation that a transport went there on instructions from Berlin. so-called model ghetto, a town which had been when to the Jews completely, in which they were by themselves and in which they had their own municipal institutions without other people being there. liberty or that they were imprisoned there?
A They were not in prison. They lived in houses like any other human being.
Q Were they at liberty to leave the place?
A I don't know the directives, because I wasn't there. the Gestapo in Oppeln? Were you of the opinion that the Jews were resettled in Theresienstadt and when they did not like to stay in Theresienstadt they could take the next railway and go by train back to Berlin or back to Oppeln, or back to I don't know where they came from?
had about Jews and I could understand if they were collected in order to send them to Madagascar. whether these Jews who were sent to Theresienstadt had committed any crimes?
A No, no, not at all, that wasn't the point. This was the solution of that question which had for many years played a role in Germany. that these people were deprived of their personal liberty, is that what you want to tell the Tribunal? A No, that's only a temporary condition. The misfortune of the Jewish people is that they have no homeland on this earth. Q I do not think that you answered the question, but I do think it is unnecessary to answer this question. You have told the Tribunal and just referred to it now that before you were appointed Chief of the Gestapo in Oppeln you went to the RSHA in order to get acquainted with the different departments of this organization, is that correct? you saw the Jewish Department concerning the resettlement of the Jews in Madagascar?
Q When exactly was that? When was that? Jewish Department of the RSHA?
Q Do you know what the task of this Adolf Eichmann was?
A Yes, he was an expert for Jewish questions. That is why he described this plan to me.
the Jews, out to exterminate all of them?Wasn't that the official task he had received?
A No, I hear this for the first time. Then, he wouldn't have been able to tell me this or he would have deceived me. for the first time now?
A What?
Q That Eichmann had the task to exterminate all the Jews?
Q You heard that just now in this courtroom for the first time? on it and what it was I don't know. I only saw this man once and never again. Oppeln, you volunteered to carry out this job, is that correct? refuse this assignment? Didn't you say that in direct examination? been unpleasant for me. One could refuse any order, but one would also have to know what was behind it. Furthermore, I was under military law and I was detailed by the Army to take further orders from the Security Police and SD: As I said in the examination, I had reported to the military administration as a soldier and I personally could, only have wished that I would not have gotten this deferred status. choice between a position with an Einsatzkommando and a position with the Gestapo Office in Oppeln, is that correct?
A No, no. The two things are not opposed to each other. These were two different questions.
First I was asked whether I wanted to go to the Einsatzgruppe and I said no, and mentioned, the reasons
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, may I interrupt, please. Dr. Bergold, would you please come to the podium?
DR. BERGOLD (Attorney for the defendant Biberstein): Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think, Dr. Bergold, you could come here tomorrow morning and still get away in tine for your other appointment. You see, we are in a very peculiar situation here now. We are in the very midst of a cross-examination and we can't let a dry go by.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I know that, but I thought that the witness could be cross-examined this morning and the whole thing dragged out for a pretty long time and because Hartel was brought to court another day was lost and now my own hopes and calculations are all wrong.
THE PRESIDENT: What time must you be at your appointment?
DR. BERGOLD: At 8:30, I must leave with a car; otherwise I would have to leave by train at six, but I am getting a car, Your Honor. I don't went to make any difficulties for the Tribunal. I hope that Dr. Ficht when I sent away for some job will return, as we agreed, and that perhaps we can reserve the right for me to conduct my redirect examination when I get back.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. BERGOLD: I entrust my fate to the Tribunal; so that no questions will be admitted which are inadmissible and I trust in my opponent, that he will be correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will Dr. Ficht be here tomorrow morning? You are sure of that?
DR. BERGOLD: I hope that he will be here. I hope so. I sent him away with a definite order, and one cannot know today whether the communications are such that a plan can be carried out to completion. The communications are not certain. Trains may be late, so that he may not come at the right time, but he is to appear here.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do think that if the Tribunal reserves the right of redirect examination to Dr. Bergold for a later date and Dr. Bergold appoints one of his colleagues as his deputy for tomorrow, objections against questions on the part of the prosecution can naturally only be on just a formal basis. An objection on a formal basis can be raised by any one of the defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, suppose we agree upon this plan. We hope that Dr. Ficht Will be here tomorrow. If he is here, of course he will handle the situation completely, and we will always reserve the right to you, Dr. Bergold, to call your client for any question which you wish to put to him because of what has arisen in the cross-examination. In the event Dr. Ficht cannot be here, we would appreciate your appointing one of your colleagues to stand by for the purpose of controlling objections which might be in order during the crossexamination.
DR. BERGOLD: I ask that my colleague Belser would take over this job.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, and I assure you that you have selected a very able attorney to handle your affairs in your absence, because we know Dr. Belser very well. thirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 25 November 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Otto Ohlendorf, et al., defendants, Sitting at Justice Michael A. Musmanno presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
DR. RIEDIGER: Dr. Riediger for the defendant Haensch. Your Honor, I should like the Defendant Defendant Haensch to be excused all day today, and to be taken to Room 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Haensch will be excused from attendance in court all day today. He will be immediately taken under guard to Room 57 so he may confer with his attorney. Mr. Hochwald, you may resume the cross examination.
MR. HOCHWALD: May it please the Tribunal. BY MR. HOCHWALD: spoke about the question whether you took voluntarily the position as Chief of the Gestapo in Oppeln, and you have already told the Tribunal that you didn't. Now in the meantime I have obtained a copy of the transcript. If Your Honor please, this is not yet the mimeograph copy which I have. I have only a carbon copy, and for identification I can only say it was the afternoon session of 20 November 1947, immediately after the afternoon recess, that is at 1515 hours. Witness, you were asked by your counsel about your discussion with Heydrich on May 5, 1941, and you said there that Heydrich received you in a very friendly manner, and asked you would you not like to be put in an Einsatz assignment.