He had a report with him about shootings of -- I don't know how many -- it might have been nineteen looters. I don't quite remember, and information existed, which had been given by Wehrmacht office with which we were connected, of another location Wosjnesensk on the other bank of the river in German territory, and outside my field of activity where shootings had been carried out by the Secret Field Police, and this made up this difference between nineteen and ninety-one. When Hausmann arrived at this office where I was not present at the moment, the chiefs made up a figure from these two reports, and Hausmann assumed that I had changed his figure nineteen around and made it into ninety-one. Events about which I heard - no matter whether they concerned my unit or other units, - I had to report about; that is what I did. executions at Kanakuchinka when in truth and in fact these executions happened at a place called Wossnesensk?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, Dr. Hoffman wishes to object.
MR. WALTON: Yes, Sir.
DR. HOFFMAN: Your honor, I have the impression that the Prosecuter submits documents to the witness which have not been introduced yet. I therefore ask that these documents be shown to him because the Prosecutor is talking about what the witness says about some location, the name of which I did not catch. He has to know the document or else he cannot comment on it. Apart from that I think the document was not Introduced.
MR. WALTON: He was there with Haussmann, Your Honor, I am asking him about events which were in his personal knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Hoffman. He is not now questioning him on a document. He is questioning him on facts. He asked him whether a certain thing did or did not happen, and the witness, of course, is privileged to answer any way he sees fit. It is likely that later on the cross-examiner may confront him with a document in order to show some contradiction, if there is any contradiction, and then at that time you have the right to demand that the identity of the document is given to the witness and to his Counsel.
DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, may I discuss one question on these cases which will crop up. It is my opinion that the Prosecution has an affidavit of Hausmann. Hausmann was here and committed suicide. In my opinion it is not admissible that such an affidavit should be introduced at this time because I cannot cross-examine that man anymore. A similar decision was reached by President Shake in Court No. VI a few days ago. Added to this is the fact that Hausmann committed suicide so that his character also is doubtful. This affidavit has not been submitted yet, but doubtlessly the Prosecution is asking question out of this affidavit. The position of my client is therefore unfavorable, and I ask you to rule whether questions can be asked from this affidavit or not.
THE PRESIDENT: The cross-examiner can put any question at all which is relevant. He can take it from an affidavit; he can take it from the thin air, so that it doesn't matter that he happens to be looking at an affidavit, if he is. He hasn't yet offered that document in evidence. He can certainly question the witness on any subject whatsoever which is relevant to the case, and it is up to the witness to reply as he sees fit, but we have nothing before us now to rule upon at all. He is conducting a cross examination entirely in accordance with the rules.
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, that question is a little premature now. In just a few minutes the Tribunal will be asked to rule on it. However, I should like for them to hear from the Prosecution, too, at that particular time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, surely BY MR. WALTON:
Q If I heard your last answer, I certainly don't remember it now.
Can you tell the Tribunal your reasons for reporting 150 to 200 executions at Kanakuchinka when in truth and in fact these executions happened at a place called Wossnesensk?
A I do not remember that. I cannot imagine that this was thought to have been changed to another location. In my opinion Hausmann should have known under all circumstances and did know that a shooting -- I don't know how many -- by an outside unit took place in Wossnesensk. Under no circumstances could Hausmann have testified anything else. I simply cannot imagine that. Why he wants to make me responsible for transferring the shooting to another place I simply cannot understand. The only explanation I can find is conditioned by his own personality. weren't they?
A Wossnesensk was not occupied by me. Wossnesensk was on the other side of the Bug River in the German Rear Army territory in an area which was not under my competency and where we were never active, and took place while you were in the hospital, after you came back to take active command again?
A I didn't get the words, what did you say? Reporting on the time when Hausmann was in charge of the commando was that no reports were made to me at that time. The file of the commando I received, of course, from which I saw the activity of the commando in general. For other reasons I also believe that not all reports were contained in this record, but to talk to Hausmann himself, I was hardly over able to, at least, not to conduct an official transfer because Hausmann was the last man who had to remain in his garrison in Speyer. He was chief of the Executive Service and had to be relieved in October, and he also returned to Berlin. The transfer, sofar as I remember, was never transacted personally with me for lack of time; in any case, I was never able to conduct any detailed discussion about his activity. under your command, you were not friendly towards each other, is that correct?
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, please, at this time the Prosecution offers into evidence Document MI-4147, which, if accepted, will be Prosecution's Exhibit No. 188. This is the affidavit of one Emil Hausmann.
DR. HOFFMANN: I knew it was coming. Your Honor, if I mentioned Tribunal No. 6, before, where that same question arose, it was only because I believed that I wanted to introduce such a case, as it already had been dealt with before. I know, of course, that this Tribunal is not controlled by the rulings of the other Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Was it also a co-defendant in this case, Dr. Hoffmann? Did the affidavit come from a potential co-defendant?
DR. HOFFMANN: No. There it was the question whether the affidavit of a dead person could be introduced. The affiant in this case has died and I cannot cross-examine him, therefore.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Hoffmann, we have many affidavits in these trials from people who have since died. The mere fact of death does not vitiate a document. There must be something move than mere death.
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes, that is a fact, but this Hausmann committed suicide, and I think that the fact that he committed suicide after giving an affidavit has thrown doubt upon his character and his credibility.
THE PRESIDENT: Well.
DR. HOFFMANN: So that his testimony because of this suicide seems par ticularly incredible; the fact that somebody commits suicide must have special reasons.
THE PRESIDENT: Well. we have many documents in this case, and other cases, in the War Crimes trials program, which came from individuals who have committed suicide. We have documents signed by Himmler, documents signed by Goebbels, documents signed by Ley, documents by any number of suicides which are in evidence.
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes, Your Honor, but these documents were all introduced while the affiant was still alive, these persons could be crossexamined.
THE PRESIDENT: Himmler?
DR. HOFFMANN: Not Himmler.
THE PRESIDENT: Goebbels?
DR. HOFFMANN: Not Goebbels.
THE PRESIDENT: Ley?
DR. HOFFMANN: No, Your Honor. We have not any affidavit of Himmler. He was already dead when the trial started.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but in the IMT there were any number of documents introduced.
DR. HOFFMANN: No, Your Honor. Today we have affidavits of twentyone defendants in the INT who have been executed, but they all could have been cross-examined while they were alive, and these documents because they, too, became official documents, can be introduced, But to introduce new ones now of people who are already dead, Tribunal Six ruled not admissible.
It is not that all statements and documents become void but these people were all cross-examined at some time, like Hoess, who was also cross-examined by the IMT; these documents can be used, if necessary, but we never had the opportunity to cross-examine Hausmann.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton.
MR. Walton: Your Honot, please, in the deciding of this question, I concur with the defense counsel, Dr. Hoffmann, that this man in a matter of hours after he gave this affidavit did commit suicide. A strong presumption arises that this affidavit, therefore, is a true statement of a true fact, since he was in his own mind in the presence of death. While I know it is not a dying declaration, it definitely, in view of the circumstances surrounding it, is an affidavit of probative value , and should come under the probative value rule. I might add one thing more, sir, without giving any circumstances in the same document is the conviction on the decision of a murder of an Ethnic German, and in the same document it contains the facts on which I have cross-examined the witness.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, the fact just mentioned by the Prosecutor here, that Hausmann committed suicide soon after giving the affidavit does not prove that it is the truth. I deny this, the fact that Hausmann committed suicide, because he know he had said an untruth. I think one reason can be considered as well as the other, and to point this out to you again, Your Honor, you mentioned documents concerning Himmler, Ley and so forth. In this sense, as these were documents which were signed by those persons, they were only being discussed because this was only an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Hoffmann, I can put even a better argument in your favor in this respect; that these papers, or most of them, with the Himmler signatures, that is, Himmler's and Goebbels' signatures, were all perhaps part of official business, and would be introducible in that ground, so you have an argument there that the documents can be distinguished.
The Tribunal will reserve decision on this point. You may continue with the cross examination and we will render our decision tomorrow morning, as to whether this document should or should not be accepted as an exhibit.
MR. WALTON: In that case, until the Tribunal's decision, I should like to reserve the Exhibit No. 188 for that document.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that number will be reserved.
MR. WALTON: And in this connection I assume that the Tribunal through deference of its decision, does not went to see the document at the present.
THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not necessary. We understand the contentions of both sides now.
BY MR. WALTON: page 52 of the English text, and page 58 of the German text, Document No. 3147, Prosecution Exhibit No. 96. This is a report of the activities of Einsatzgruppe-D from 19 August to 15 September 1941.
A 19 August until 15 September, did you say? where it is continued in the first line, saying, "from 19 August until 15 September, 8,890 Jews and Communists were executed." Document you see that sentence? that group can be chargeable to Einsatzcommando XII? Einsatzcommando XII is neither mentioned nor does what happened here have any geographical connection with Einsatzcommando XII, because Einsatzcommando XII was in a different area.
during this period? have indicated, was at some distance, which I have mentioned before, from the district of Ananjew and also distant from Nikolajew.
Q Had your commando left Tschanamin at this time?
left Tscharnomin. had not yet left Tscharnomin. All this indicates that there is not connection with my Kommando and cannot be. by Einsatzkommando XII? BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q When did you leave Tscharnomin? took place?
Q How long would it take you to drive 100 to 200 kilometers?
A Well, it all depends on the road conditions in Russia. In this connection I would like to emphasize again that in this territory first Kommando X-A and later Kommando X-3 were stationed.
THE PRESIDENT; Proceed, Mr. Walton.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q All right. I will ask you the same question. It says that the total number which is the total to this particular date of the report, is 12,315 executions. During this time, did Einsatzkommando XII perform any executions from 21 June up until 15 September 1141? time from 10 to 25 or 23, the shooting in Babtshinzy took place and then later on several shootings took place. For example, the one by Hausmann at the time when he was in charge of the Kommando. Whether these figures are contained here I cannot judge. In any case these figures and the places named in this report are not at all connected with my Einsatzkommado and it is not named but certificates and affidavits have already proved that Einsatzkommado X-A and B were stationed there.
were performed in the Babtschinzy area and the executions which were performed at the time when Hausmann was in temporary command were the only executions performed by Einsatzkommado XII? I cannot remember exactly because from 15, to, 25 August onwards the Kommando was on route and small units were dispersed throughout all localities. This territory where the Kommando XII moved was declared Rumanian sovereign territory; certain shootings occurred but didn't quite know. Our own and other people's reports mentioned this. I already said, after looking at the final records of the Kommando I read it. Of course, shootings were carried out, in particular in this whole territory and shootings were reported about on the principle that not only our own shootings but also shootings by the others were reported later on including events which had been in other territories. awarded to Rumania and go into Russian territory which constituted the rear Away area? October.
Q 1941? distributing your whole Kommando in different localities, 4, 5, 8 or 10 men in different villages or towns?
A No. My explanation just showed the opposite. The following occurred. The Kommando was halved and with the half which I retained I want to the territory around Mikailowka. From that time onwards until Federowka I was in charge of the entire Kommando, that is the half under my command.
The other part which had been separated, those who had horses, went via Nikopol to meet me again, in Mikailowka.
Q I remember that explanation. Let's come to this point. Now the half of the Kommando with you, how long from the time that the Kommando split until the entire Kommando was more or less under your command again, how much time elapsed from the time it split in half until it came back together again?
A It was combined again a few days before I was released. Weather conditions improved, therefore, the Kommando, that is the other half with Dr. Bolte could come up from Dnjepr and come back to me, five hundred kilometers back. forces under your command, is that correct? you did they round up any Jews? German territory?
A I said already I was given an order to meet the 17th Army. That was the first time that I, similarly to the other Kommandos, was going to be attached to an Army unit. This immediate march was interrupted by a special task, because Partisans had been reported in the Dnjepr area and we had to fight them as they endangered the supply line. Incidents occurred of which I could not speak in detail yesterday or Thursday, namely that the other half who had the horses in Nikopol were stopped by the local Wehrmacht officers and had to fight together with other Wehrmacht units against Partisans in their hide-outs in the Dnjepr area. The other half with whom I was, about 6 or 8 November, arrived in Mirailowka with me. I myself at the other side made reconnaissance and combat operations; this was the only time I interrupted the march before I finally reached the 17th Army at last.
Kommando never had to carry out the Fuehrer order at all?
A Mr. Prosecutor, This is my personal opinion. There are several bases, the most important of them....
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, now please see that you get direct answers. We don't want a long discussion on philosophy. Now, put a specific question and see that you get a specific answer. days of October until some time in March your Kommando never had to carry out the Fuehrer order for the execution of Jews at all? same period of time when it was split off from the main body?
A I don't know. I did not hear what this Kommando did. It reported immediately to the group and before Bolte joined my in Fedorowka a wireless message was in hand already for a few days in which Bolte had been instructed to go to Simferopol Immediately to the group. But I believe that because of the situation in the territory which was similar to mine he would hardly have had the opportunity to apply the Fuehrer order.
Q All right, witness. Let's travel on to the crossing of the Jewish transport which is Document Book II-B, page 7 of the English, page 5 of the German, Document no-2837, Prosecution Exhibit 58. is found on page 11 of the English text and page 29 of the original. German? that what you mean?
Several pages later on, it says "Einsatzgruppe D - location Ananjew." incident which is referred to in the affidavit of your co-defendant Felix Ruehl which is in Document Book III-B page 76 of the English, page 121 of the German, and is Document No-4149, Prosecution Exhibit 169. Your Honors, I especially refer in that document to paragraph 3. Now the question I would like to ask you after you have read paragraph 3 of Ruehl's affidavit is this one and the same incident?
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
A. I would like to comment on this fact. It is not quite the same event. The affidavit of the co-defendant, Ruehl, refers, and can only refer to a small excerpt of what is mentioned in the entire report of the Document 2837.
Q. Well, what I mean is, it is the same transport of Jews, is it not?
A. I wouldn't like to assume that; it could not be the same transport. In Ruehl's affidavit there is an inconsistency it does not agree with this report, and my opinion, and also the opinion of Herr Ohlendorf.
Q. Let me ask you this, did you receive another transport of Jews from the Co-defendant Ruehl; were there two transports of Jews that you handled there near the Dnjestr River?
A. What we brought back, that is where Ruehl was the messenger was an order to the subkommando leader Mogilev, which he had to hand over, which said that the Jews were to be moved fro Mogilev, and on the other side, the part which I received as an order, that the Jews which had arrived and collected in Jampol should be brought across the bridge, that is, to make it possible for the Rumanians, that they be brought back to the other territory again. That is the same event. But these two reports contained in document , No. 2837, I cannot identify as the same.
Q. All right, Now answer the question, did you ever receive any Jewish transport of Rumanian Jews from the Co-defendant Ruehl?
A. I assume, and I cannot assume anything else, that they were those Jews who had come from Mogilev and were to be moved to Jampol, and were not taken over by Reuhl personally at all. As far as I know he had nothing to do with it, but the subkommando of the Commando 10-B in Mogilev moved them and crossed over quite alone without any guards.
Q. Crossed over into your territory, the EinsatzKommando 12 territory?
A. Well, to Jampol, where I found them.
Q. Well, this is part of the same Rumanian Jewish transport?
A. Ruehl's order referred to the same as my order. Ruehl's part was the first part and mine was the last one.
Q. Yes, it was the same Rumanian Jews that had been expelled into German territory?
A. I assume so. I cannot imagine anything else, but I cannot say, of course. What happened in Mogilev and what -
Q. I am not asking you what happened in Mogilev. I am asking you if you got from Herr Ruehl or Lippert a part of the Jews which you took over to Rumanian territory?
A. I neither talked to Lippert nor Ruehl about this, nor did I take anything over from them, but the Jews were moved, and I found them at Jampol. Probably they are the same ones. I did not ask them because there were no guards, no soldiers nor any Security Police with them. I did ask them where they came from. They said from Jampol, I mean from Mogilev.
Q. All right, what is your estimate of the number of Jews in this transport?
A. I estimated this figure, but I am not quite sure how many there were. I must say that, under the circumstances as they were at the tiie, I never tried to find out or to estimate how many there were, but I hope that the witness who has been found at the commando of the bridge will make a statement concerning this. As far as I know there were about 6,000 to 7,000. I don't want to tie myself down. That is not possible.
Q. About how many of this number were women and children that you saw there?
A. There were -- I can't estimate this either.
Q. There were some?
A. In any case there were women and children among them.
Q. Now, do you know why these Jews were expelled from their homeland by the Rumanians?
A. I have no idea. I assume that the Rumanians wanted to get rid of them and send them into the German Territory so that we would have to shoot them, and we would have the trouble of shooting them. We didn't want to do that. We didn't want to do the work for Rumanians, and we never did, nor at all other places where something similar happened. We refused it, and, therefore, we sent them back.
Q. You testified here that the Rumanians attempted to damaged the bridge across the Dnjestr River in order to prevent the return of these Jews, did you not?
A.. I said that I remember vaguely that the events in Jampol were such that because a few boards had been taken out it was quite impossible to take them across the bridge in Mogilev. I did not see this myself. I only remember it as as possible memory.
Q. Did you assume when you found out about the damage to this bridge that the Rumanians wanted to prevent the return of these Jews to Rumanian territory?
A. Of course, certainly.
Q. All right.
A. But the following played a part here. I could be expected, or it had already been determined, in view of the attitude of the Rumanians, that between the German and the Rumanian sovereign territory transfer of persons, of civilian persons, should not take place. I believe that hose measures which the Rumanians took, namely to sent the Jews across to German territory, were used as causes by the German Wehrmacht to tell the Rumanians not to do this in the future, but I assume -- although I am not certain -- that the Rumanians received instructions and they were told at last that conditions were to be the same as they had been before.
Q. All right. You said that you talked to the Jews that were camped around Jampol through interpreters and you could make yourself understood through similiarity of the language to German?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the Jews generally know that they were not wanted by the Rumanians?
A. No, I don't think so. They had to assume that the whole matter had been settled. They were very pleased that they were able to return to Rumania, and I tried to express this.
Q. Did they know any reason why they had been brought over into German territory; did the Jews themselves give you any reason?
A. That they wanted to return; they wanted to go home.
Q. No. When you went into the Jewish encampment and spoke to them, did you ask them why they were there in the first place?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you further ask them for a reason for their being expelled from Bukovina or wherever they came from?
A. I did not ask them about that. I only asked where they came from, that is, that they came from Mogilev, that they were the ones whom I had to accept and to lead across the bridge.
Q. Well, weren't they fully aware that the Rumanian authorities wanted to get rid of them, were they not, the Jews that you talked to?
A. Yes, I knew that before, but I also knew -
Q. No, not you, the Jews were fully aware that the Rumanian authorities wanted to get rid of the, were they not?
A. They knew, of course they had heard it, that they had been expelled.
Q. That is right. Now -
A. May I add this? I heard from German authorities that I had to bring them back to Rumanian territory....
THE PRESIDENT: Witness-
Q. (By Mr. Walton) Witness, I didn't ask you about that. I just wanted an answer to my question.
A. I believe it is incomplete....
Q. These Jews knew; these Jews knew that they were expelled or were unwanted in Rumanian territory, and you answered that yes. Now, will you explain to the Tribunal why, since these Jews knew they were not wanted in Rumanian Territory, why they were so anxious to go back into Rumanian Territory under your leadership?
A. They were not anxious. On the contrary they were glad that they were able to return home, and there I want to add that they were able to believe, in spite of being expelled before, because of the fact that we took care of them, that the matter had been settled with the Rumanian authorities and they were able to return home.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you suppose that those Jews were eager to get back into Rumania because they had learned of the Fuehrer Order?
THE WITNESS: I don't know, but they wanted to return home.
MR. WALTON: Your Honor--
THE WITNESS: I don't think that they knew anything about the Fuehrer Order and that they had an opportunity to hear about the Fuerher Order. I think that is quite impossible.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Witness, I have here in my notes 8 Dec 47_A_BJ_24_6_Hoxsie_(Juelich) that you said the Jews didn't know that the Rumanians didn't want them.
Now, did you say that?
THE WITNESS: May I have that again, please?
THE PRESIDENT: That the Jews did not know that the Rumanians did not want them.
THE WITNESS: of course, that is right. Certainly, that is right, but they still had the hope and the expectation, since German offices took care of them, that their stay in their home had been settled.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. I don't know whether you understood the question or not. You follow up with something that doesn't agree with you previous answer.
DR. HOFFMANN: The translation was incorrect, your Honor. You asked that the Jews did not know that the Rumanians did not want them, Is that what you said? Did they know that they had not wanted them?
THE PRESIDENT: That is right, that the Jews did not know that the Rumanians disliked them?
THE WITNESS: Did not like them? At what time? It depends. In connection-
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. You said that in your conversation with the Jews you learned that they were ignorant of the fact that the Rumanians did not want them.
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is right.
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct?
THE WITNESS: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then Mr. Walton has asked you, and we would like to put it to you again, how could the Jews not know that the Rumanians didn't want them when the Rumanians had expelled them? If someone kicks you out of his house, you have reason to assume that they don't want you.
THE WITNESS: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. How do you explain that?
THE WITNESS: I thought I had already explained in my previous reply that the Rumanian Jews knew that they had been expelled. At that time the Rumanians did not like them, out in the meantime we had taken care of them. They believed, therefore, that an agreement had been made between German and Rumanian offices, Wehrmacht agencies and others, and not the matter had been settled so that they could go back, that the reasons for expelling them had been eliminated.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, in view of the lateness of the hour, I would like to go into this question in the morning from another angle. I think it would be a good place to stop.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will adjourn until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 9 December 1947, at 0930 hours.)