Rumanian citizenship were immune from the Fuehrer Order? Was there that exclusion in the Fuehrer's Order? Why were they excluded? in the instruction which we received from the Einsatzgrupee chief, and it was confirmed that the Fuehrer Order should only apply to those living in Germany proper, and for persons who were lot of foreign citizenship, or allied to Germany. shot?
A I can nor judge this. If we could not recognize them as Rumanian Jews, it could have been possible, but it was quite obvious here, that the greatest number of these had come from the Rumanian territory, and this condition the Einsatzgruppe chief did not want. Rumanian Jews were shot don't you?
A I didn't quite understand the question. reports that Rumanian Jews were shot? doubt the truth in this. the reference. It was the document which was being discussed just ten or fifteen minutes ago. I have in my notes, Document II-D, page 11, but I must have made a mistake. Can any one assist me in finding that document? In it very specific reference is made to the fact that Jews who had been driven over from Rumania were shot, and, it also indicated that the younger Jews were shot?
Herr Ohlendorf testified on the witness stand that he doubted its possibility and its credibility to a large extent.
Q Yes. I have it now. It is II-B, not II-D. I'll read to you from this document, No 2837, under designation "Einsatzgruppe-D" which reads as follows: "In the vicinity of Swaniza-Mogilew-Poiolaski and Jampol, a total of approximately 27,500 Jews were driven back to the Rumanian territory, and 1,265, in part younger ones, were shot." Now these were Rumanian Jews who were shot by Einsatzgruppe-D. How do you explain that?
A Your Honor, I said already: how this report was made up, I don't know. Neither did I report anything like that, nor did anyone with that group ever make any such report, and, since I myself was in Jampol, I would have heard something later about such a report being made.
Q Then you claim that this report is in error?
Q The report goes on and says: "3,105 more Jews and 34 Communists were liquidated in Czernowitz", is that also incorrect? in those territories, and at the time I only had one mission to report, about the bridge in Jampol. I can not give my opinion on such a report. of comment on your statement that "Rumanian Jews were not executed." Now do we understand you to say that the Jews of Germany's allies were not subjected to the usual order "Jewish program as outlined by the German Reich."
Is that what we are to understand ? arises, every time the Einsatzgruppe chief decided that Rumanian Jews, or Jews in Rumania territory should not be shot, and I remember - -
Q Well, just a moment, now wait. I will ask you if you understand that it was the policy of the RSHA not to subject Jews of a nationality allied to Germany to the usual program of Jewish persecution?
A I can not judge this, Your Honor. It was certain that the RSHA didn't, because the RSHA knew the local conditions which pertained here, and particularly concerning these southern territories ..... German allied Nations from the Jewish policy of the Reich? of thousands of Hungarian Jews that were transported to the concentration camps, and to the extermination camps, and, therefore, certainly they were part of the anti-Jewish program. You know that, didn't you? and I also heard that this happened at a time after the time mentioned here. As I heard now it was carried on at a time when Heydrich had the mission to deal with the final solution of the Jewish question in Europe. In 1941 this mission of Heydrich by Hitler didn't as yet exist. At that time I can not imagine that in Hungary Jews were deported and executed at another place.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 1345 hours.
(Recess until 1345 hours, 8 December 1947.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 8 December 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session. DR. FRITZ FOR THE DEFENDANT FENDLER:
Q Your Honor, may I just put one question to the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: By all means do so. week, you said that before the Einsatzgruppen marched off Heydrich inspected them in Schmiedeberg, and in this connection you also mentioned that you regarded what Heydrich said on this occasion before these men as confirmation of what Streckenbach had said in the Fuehrer meeting at Pretsch to the higher raking leaders. Can this be understood to the effect that the men and the non-coms found out through Heydrich about this Fuehrer order? That is how I understood you. Is that correct? either. When Heydrich inspected these units and addressed a few words to these men he did not at all mention the Hitler order. The men could not have known at that time of the Hitler order. As far as I personally am concerned, it seemed to me that it was confirmation. I, after all, had order of the Hitler order in Pretsch and as Heydrich did not modify this order this order was still in effect.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Mr. Walton will you now proceed with the cross-examination. BY MR. WALTON:
Q Mr. Nosske, you become a member of the Nazi Party on 1 May 1933, did you not?
Q This was a voluntary act on your part, wasn't it?
in this organization until July 1936, is this correct?
Q Did not you leave the SA in order to join the SS? Department, Legal Information Department that is, which I carried out for my lawyer. When I left this post I had no reason to stay and even though I left Halle before I actually left the SA, or earlier than has been noted, then the reason is that the confirmation of my having left was not made until later. part, were you not?
A I joined the SS through the special formation SD. That was an automatic procedure connected with my activity in the Security Police and it left no free decision for myself. not? the State Police then and later on I was assigned to the special formation SD automatically. of the SD, the approximate date?
Q Now how was it according to your service record that in 3 1/2 months after having attained the rank SS-Untersturmfuehrer of the comparable rank of 2nd Lieutenant you were promoted to the rank of Sturmbannfuehrer or Major in the equivalent rank? That is found in your service record which is contained in Document Book III-D on page 80 of the English text, page 120 of the German text, and is Document NO-3505 which is Prosecution Exhibit 170.
the document?
A That is not necessary. I only want to see the Document Book. That is the typical case of the assimilation of ranks because at that point I was promoted to Regierungsrat (Government Councillor). And, first of all, as I had not been an officer yet, I became Untersturmfuehrer (2nd Lieutenant) and after a short while - - - No - -
Q Now, then approximately 3 months later, or 31/2 months later, according to this record you were promoted to Sturmbannfuehrer or Major. been promoted to Regierungsrat (Government Councillor) and a short while after that the assimilated rank took effect. professionally, is that correct? the Beginning of the Russian campaign, did you not?
A That is not correct. You can't speak of reporting at all. On the contrary I have just tried to explain that at the last moment I was detailed because the Regierungsrat (Government Councillor) Kreutzer who was destined for the Einsatz, had become ill. I found out about that so late that unlike many others assigned to the Einsatzgruppen I was not able to be in Pretzsch or Dueben beforehand as many other who were. toward the Russian border?
campaign, did you not? go from Berlin to Pretsch. That was a few days before the Russian campaign.
Q Well, that is what I asked you. Now, prior to the time you reported for duty with the Einsatgruppen did you have any knowledge whatsoever of their purpose and their missions?
Q When did you first learn of the Fuehrer order? Was it, as you tesfitied on direct examination, in Berlin?
A No. I learned of the existence of the Fuehrer order for the first time in Pretsch from the Chief of Office I, Streckenbach.
Q Did he personally tell you of the Fuehrer order? order demanded the killing of people on racial or religious grounds?
A The Fuehrer order was not given for that reason. Its purpose was the securing of the fighting sector but at the same time I was horrified by it.
Q Well, the Fuehrer order speaks for itself. I won't quibble over what the Fuehrer order demanded but that is what happened in obedience to the Fuehrer order, isn't it? Streckenbach. to obey this Fuehrer order? present on that occasion were so spontaneous and so quick that I myself never had a chance, apart from the fact I hold a lower rank.
Q Then you made no protest? That is your answer, is it not?
A The higher raking officers' protests were mine as well.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Q. Witness, I am not interested in what others did. I ask you for a direct answer. Your answer to my previous question was that you personally did not make a protest to having to carry out the Fuehrer order. Did you or did you not?
A. I did not have to do so because others did so for me.
Q. Then your answer is no, you made no protest.
A. I did not protest - out the conclusions which you want to draw are not the same.
Q. Did you ever ask to be relieved or service in the Einsatzgruppe when you learned what the mission of this organization was?
A. That was not possible because if I had refused to march or to carry out any orders whatsoever I would had to face the consequences which were made known to us according to martial law.
Q. Well, before the lunch hour - -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please, Mr. Hildesheimer I think the phrase is military law. There is a distinction between military law and material law. BY MR. WALTON:
Q. Before the lunch hour, you gave a detailed explanation how in the last days as the front moved closer towards Germany you deliberately sabotaged the carrying out of the killing of Jews while you were in Duesseldorf. Now that was the difference in the opportunity here and the opportunity in Duesseldorf to fail to carry out the order for the killing of Jews?
A. The reason for my protest in Duesseldorf was that nobody else could protest for me. Apart from this in Pretsch the order came through as an order of the Chief of State. Here, of course, I had to find out for certain whether this order was actually final for me. A further state of affairs was that the word security which, of course, had cropped up before in 1941 and had conflicted with my conscience in Duesseldorf seemed to me a pretext because for me there was no ranking officer responsible for security.
I could see and I could realize what would endanger the security and what would not endanger the security and for these reasons I protested.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, I would be grateful if you could develop this point because, up to this moment, it isn't clear to me just what he did in Russia. He has explained that he was considerably horrified with the Fuehrer order, that it shocked him no end, that he marched into Russia, that on one occasion he shepherded some Jews across the river, and according to the reports Jews were being killed right and left of him, but never once has there been any statement as to whether he killed any Jews. I think if you make that clear immediately or reasonably soon we can follow your cross-examination a little more intelligently.
MR. WALTON: I am discussing with him his career in Dueben and Pretsch just before the Einsatzgruppen marched off. As I understood it this morning he testified he got a similar order that said even half-Jews together with the Aryan spouses would be killed and he sabotaged that order.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Your question is entirely in order but we can follow the cross-examination perhaps with more interest and with more keenness of observation if we find out whether he killed any Jews in Russia. Personally I don't know how he was able to get through this long examination in direct examination without telling us that very essential thing.
MR. WALTON: That will develop, Sir, according to plan. However, I might call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that on direct examination this morning concerning the Babtschinzy incident or the Hogus incident he stated that those 94 Jews were killed by a Jeil-Kommando Fuehrer belonging to his Kommando.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but Dr. Hoffmann never asked him so far as I remember the very specific question, did you kill any Jews in Russia?
MR. WALTON: That will be the crux of my examination. BY MR. WALTON:
Q. Then, from what you said in answer to the comparison between Duesseldorf and Pretsch and Dueben you had more opportunity to sabotage the order in Duesseldorf than you did in Dueben. Is that what we are to assume from your answer?
A. Not to sabotage but I could achieve a modification of this order and I would not do that in Russia or before.
Q. That's what I wanted to find out. Now, when and where were you given command of Einsatz Kommando XII?
A. I was put in chage of Einsatz-Kommando XII after the units had been set up and that was one or two days after the proclamation of the Fuehrer order in Pretsch by Streckenbach.
Q. And the approximate date, was it June of 1941?
A. Yes.
Q. And was it a few days before the beginning of the campaign against Russia, before the 21st of June?
A. Yes.
Q. Then roughly you would estimate it between the middle of the month of June and the beginning of the Russian campaign, some date?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever make a speech to your Kommando in Schaesburg? It is spelled S-c-h-a-e-s-b-u-r-g. Before your Kommando in which you are alleged to have said and I quote: "The Fuehrer has ordered that all elements who endanger or undermine the fighting troops in the rear must be destroyed."
Or words to that effect?
A. That is correct. Yes, I spoke to the men with words to this effect. I can give you a further explanation concerning this. The days before we left in Dueben were so short and were so filled up with necessary tasks of a technical and organizational manner that I could not talk to the men immediately and could not get to know them properly because these were a lot of people entirely new to me. The first place where we remained for one or a few days, was in Schaesburg in Siebenbuergen. I lined up the men in order to introduce myself, as it were. The essential words which I spoke at the time were that I appealed to their sense of duty and to their comradeship. Apart from that, of course, I pointed out their tasks and said that we had to do everything in order to safeguard the troops.
Q. Did you further state in this same speech the thought that your Kommando would carry out this order in such a way that no criticism would ever be directed toward the Kommando by anyone?
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
A I don't remember having put it that way. I certainly said, and what I meant was, that there must be cleanliness and order, and especially that nobody should act for selfish motives. That means that as far as his character and his own person is concerned, he should remain clean. the essential Fuehrer Order certainly in your own words. Isn't it natural that you should next take up the question of how the men under your command would carry out this order, and were you not anxious that it should be carried out in a military manner, in a complete manner, so that no criticism would attach to your command; isn't that the natural sequence in a speech of this kind? the purpose were certainly different. Obviously, I don't know whether it was at this time or later, I acquainted my unit with the Fuehrer order.
Q Well, as a matter of fact, since you think back on it, weren't you anxious that your command actually carry out all its orders so that no criticism could attach to your command?
A No, no, not in this sense. My own attitude was different from this. What I wanted to achieve was that these men should follow my leadership, that they should not act on their own initiative and break out, but they should only do what I had ordered them to do or carry out special orders which I had given them. only act under your orders and carry out your special tasks as you ordered them during the time that you were in command; did they follow your ideas in your speech generally? the discipline was in accordance with this.
Q We will return to this at a future time. How many Gestapo officials did you have of officer rank in your commando?
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Police, who held officers' ranks, I think there was only one, as far as I remember, at the most, two. self? commando?
Q Did you have a Leiter 3, or Department 3? to the offices 3 and 4. In view of the special tasks which the commando had, this was not necessary. When special tasks had to be dealt with I detailed those leaders who seemed to be best acquainted with the task ahead of them. an inspection tour? on inspections, with conferring with Leiter 3 of each commando. To whom did you refer him when he came on an inspection to your commando?
A He only came on an inspection tour once. That was in November, 1941. That was in Mikailowka where he was in the staff of the Einsatzgruppe Chief. They arrived at night, and they left the next morning. He spoke about special matters with myself and other people who were competent in this particular activity. At that time, I had asked the officer Klaus to deal with these matters. I don't know what his rank was at the time. In Nikolaev I had ordered another officer to deal with special jobs. Seibert only made one inspection in your commando, and that was when he was with the staff of Ohlendorf?
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Q Now, who was your chief of Leiter 4?
Q Weren't you, from your previous experience and your work in the Gestapo, competent for being the chief of the Leiter 4, to write that type of report? were you not? the latter half of August, 1941? approximately.
Q How far is that from the group headquarters in Ananjev?
A Mr. Prosecutor, may I first say that in the garrison Tscharnomin the Einsatzkommando 12 was stationed in one garrison, with the group staff. The group staff left Tscharnomin a few days before I left, in the direction of Ananjev, while I myself, on order, went into the Ethnic German area, in another direction. headquarters staff of your commando left for Ananjev, and you went off on an inspection tour. Am I correct in that statement?
A No, I think I misunderstood the question. Perhaps it wasn't quite clear, but it wasn't that I had a staff; it was only a matter of the staff of the group. I, myself, did not have a staff. If, of course, the staff of the group is meant, then it is clear that I was not on an inspection trip, but I was stationed in the garrison Tscharnomin, and the group staff left on its own, went to Ananjev, and I made all the preparations in order to march into the other area.
Q How far from Tscharnomin was Ananjev?
A I couldn't tell you exactly, but it may have been about eighty Court No. II, Case No. IX.
or one hundred, even more, kilometers, perhaps even one hundred to two hundred. I cannot make any statement concerning this. It would be incorrect. It can be established from the map.
Q You don't know?
A It is at least this distance, but I don't want to state a definite figure.
Q Were any elements of your Commando 12 ever in Ananjev?
A No, but I don't know, of course, whether when I reported to the Einsatz group chief personally and went to Ananjev whether there wasn't an officer or some person accompanying me, but apart from this, that is,nobody of my Kommando ever went to Ananjev.
Q Well, I will ask you this question. Did your Commando 12 make reports to the Einsatzgruppe? made regular reports, every two weeks, or every week, to Einsatzgruppe D, is that correct? There was no deadline so that on the 1st or the 15th I would have to issue a report, but it was whenever there was anything to report.
Q Who wrote these reports to the group?
A Most reports were made out by myself. When I was not in charge of my own commando because of illness, I presume the deputy must have made out the report. That was Hausmann. But it is, of course, possible that during that time the subkommandos sent their independent reports to the group because they were nearer. activities also? I should like to say that I didn't have subkommandos at any time everywhere. If I may make that clear very briefly again, when the commando was at rest during sometime it only carried out a few activities. Then Court No. II, Case No. IX.
it was distributed in the form of subkommandos and small units in the Ethnic German area. Then again it was assembled. Parts were separated which were not under my leadership from then on, and the part that was to join the 17th Army under my command remained under my command as a unit.
Q let's consider an example. Let's say, for instance, that you sent an officer and ten men on a special mission, regardless of what this mission is, and this mission consumed about five days, and your orders to him, as soon as he had completed his mission, he was to return to where your headquarters of the commando was stationed at that time, where you were with the rest of the kommando. At the end of the five days, or the ten days, the officer and the ten men reported back. Would you have him make out a report of his activities during the time he was away from you? me, he, of course, would have had to report on his return. report which went to the group headquarters, would you not?
A Yes. I wouldn't have done so only with this report, but all reports, all situation reports which I received from other places concerning events which happened in my sector, and even outside.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
village or a particular area, they were gone sometime. Whenever you would receive a report from them about any particular happening, would you include that in your report to Einsatzgrupee D?
Q Now, let's consider Document Book II-D, page 49 of the English, page 54 of the German, which is Document NO-2841, Prosecution Exhibit 94. This is a harvesting action document about which you spoke this morning. There are a few questions which I would like to ask concerning the document. The report in this situation report originated from your commando, did it not? report which I sent to the group staff concerning this particular event was twice or three times as extensive. It has been condensed here, that is evident to me here. Who, however, condensed it, whether that was the Einsatzgruppe or the office at Berlin, and what changes were made, I do not know. even though they are not all the facts, but these facts in connection with the others, came from your commando originally? Jews in this area were guilty of keeping people from the fields to gather the harvest, and in addition to that somebody was guilty of destroying farm machinery. Is that the type of resistance which is mentioned here? machinery when it was not in use; couldn't you stop this sabotage of machinery? in other villages and localities. If we should have put a guard at every bit of machinery, then we wouldn't have got very much further. But re Court No. II, Case No. IX.
garding this particular thing, that even in these territories where there wasn't always a German soldier, the basic German measures were not sabotaged, it was proclaimed by the Wehrmacht that any one who would resist the regulations as proclaimed by the Wehrmacht, would be severely punished. where your commando was? at least not in that form, because the harvest was over, and I did not experience another one. to the harvesting? tachment found out through investigations and reports from the populations and by interrogating the perpetrators, as he reported to me.
Q All right. What directions did you give him when he reported to you that Jews were sabotaging the harvest in the Babtschinzy area: what directions did you give the commando leader?
A I did not tell him anything at all. He carried out the measures. He carried out investigations, found out about the perpetrators, and he had them executed, and he came to me reporting these facts. ing out these executions he was under your command, was he not?
Q All right. Now, from the same or similar sources, couldn't this unnamed Commando Fuehrer have determined exactly who it was that fomented this resistance? was decided upon for execution.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
that they had violated an order which had been issued and proclaimed by the Wehrmacht. It was a deed which had been carried out contrary to the Wehrmacht orders and it was punishable by death according to Wehrmacht regulations. satisfied that every single one of these 94 Jews had actually formented resistance to the orderly harvest of the crops? sume that it was right.
Q You presumed; you never tool steps to satisfy yourself that it was correct?
AAfter it had been carried out, I couldn't convince myselfafter all it had happened. I couldn't again start investigations. your orders to take care of the security were followed 100 percent, could you not? Jews and had turned them all loose or sent the others out and had just executed 94, or did he report to you that he had arrested 94 and executed 94 Jews? those arrested was larger than the figure mentioned here; the figure of those who were actually punished, shot.
Q Were there any women and children included in these 94 Jews? possibly have been the perpetrators. In any case, a report to that effect was not made, and according to what he reported to me, women and children were not included. up there in the Babtschinzy army?
A I don't now for certain, but I think it must have been Court No. II, Case No. IX.