A. These increased figures of executions refer, as is proven by th date it bears and regarding the preceding reports, to the period of time from 13 September 1941 until 28 September 1941. As I have already mentioned, the Advance Kommando Moscow was taken over by Koerting in the middle of September 1941. I personally was transferred from the VKM to the group staff in the SD department where in the period of reporting I was only dealing in intelligence matters. Since during my activity in the Advance Kommando Moscow, as far as it comes under this period of reporting, I neither had any executive power in this formation nor had I actively taken part in executions or anti-Jewish operations in any shape or form, it is not possible for me to comment upon these execution figures or to find myself responsible for any of these figures.
Q. On page 3 of the same document it says furthermore that the VKM Advance Kommando Moscow, liquidated 114 Jews in Choslawitschi. Can you comme on that?
A. As a member of the Advance Kommando Moscow, of course, it was known to me as it was generally known that since the taking over of the Advance Kommando Moscow by Nebe until his release and the transfer of Koertin anti-Jewish operations were carried out. The individual places and times and the numbers of people executed were not known to me. According to directives by Nebe the figures were only given to him in the shape of reports. From the circumstances as described, it was not made known to me that an anti-Jewish operation took place in this mentioned locality Choslawitschi. I, however, left the Advance Kommando Moscow in the middle of September, 1941. and I do not know if, and if so, what, actions were carried out under Koerting. It is qui possible that the operation Choslawitschi was carried out by Koerting.
Q. Now will you please look at Document Book 2-B, page 54 in the English and 48 in the German. It is Document 3160, and it is Exhibit No. 65 It is a Report of Events #24 of 25 September 1941. On page 1 of the original an operation of the group staff and Advance Kommando Moscow is mentioned agai the Jews in Tatarsk. Does this refer to the operation which you have just mentioned to the Court in the preceding session?
A. Yes. I described the happening.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer, this report says all male Jews and three women were shot. Now he has specified thirty. Does that constitute the entire Jewish population of Tatarsk?
DR. MAYER: Will you answer the question, witness?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, those were the only thirty male people left in Tatarsk. The others had all joined the partisans, and those were the men who had remained in Tatarsk as I had explained. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. So that you shot all the Jews that there were in Tatarsk?
A. All remaining Jews in Tatarsk -- those were the thirty male members who had been left.
Q. You explain -- and Judge Speight reminds us of this -- that after you made the investigation that some were acquitted of any complicity in the partisan action and were returned to the ghetto. Now you tell us that you shot all the Jews. How do you reconcile those two statements?
A. Your Honor, I do not remember having said that I found some of them innocent and led them back into the ghetto. I only said that of the thirty male Jews which I apprehended in Tatarsk, I found them all guilty and convicted them because they were guilty, -- those were the thirty men whom I had shot. I never spoke of innocent men remaining in Tatrsk. Only woman and children who could be proven innocent, those I led back into the ghetto.
Q. Well, then you did not find any of the men innocent?
A. The entire male population, as I have already said, in some way or other were active participants.
Q. So, therefore, you did not find any of the men innocent?
A. No.
Q. Did you find some of the women and children innocent?
A. From the investigation carried out together with the Jewish Council I established that in the whole mutiny and the taking up of contact with the partisans the women could not have taken part except, of course, t three who had been employed as direct agents with the partisans.
Q. Well, why couldn't they have taken part? Why couldn't the othe women just like the three who were shot have taken part in this?
A. Because I established this fact through the investigations which I carried on. Conditions were such that in fact the women could not ha taken part in this mutiny in any active capacity.
Q. Now, you keep calling this a mutiny. What is a mutiny? A mutiny is a rebellion, is it not?
A. Mutiny is a riot against a directive or an order which has been proclaimed.
Q. Yes. Well, now were these Jews rioting in the streets, tearing down buildings? Was there turmoil and tumult in this little village when you arrived?
A. The Jews using force, had loft the ghetto and had threatened th mayor that they would hang him with the aid of the partisans, hang him and hi police force: that is what they threatened; and I established that all men took active part in it added to the contact they had taken up with the partis
Q. Of course, when you say "taking up contact with the partisans" the Tribunal understands that it was only a mental contact, so that your repeating the contact with the partisans does not add anything to what you said before, namely, that they did not physically soc the partisans or in an way communicate with them directly.
A. I did not understand the question, Your Honor.
Q. Well, I was coming to the question. You keep repeating that those thirty had had contact with the partisans, and we remind you that you said that you found these thirty in their homes, that they had in no way actually spoken with the partisans, that the only contact they had with the partisans was through the three women and that the only contact they had was a mental contact. That is correct, isn't it?
A. No, that is not quite correct, Your Honor. By contact through these two women -- or at least these three women were active partisans and agents -- through the fact that these men spoke to these three women, there was direct contact, not only mental contact, and that had been established,
Q. Very well. We understand what you mean. Now in this report to which you have called our attention, indicate to us one reference to partisans.
A. Your Honor, I was just about to explain that.
Q. Well, explain it now.
A. I don't know it, as Nebe made out this report personally and changed it as he did all other reports. I reported to him verbally on the evening of my return immediately. The explicit report with all documents and records was submitted only two days after that as all the records and under lying documents which were in the Russian language had to be translated first.
Q. Why did Nebe falsify the report which you gave him?
A. I was just about to go on, Your Honor.
Q. All right, go on.
A. I can only assume that in the meantime Nebe in accordance with my original first short report had already made out his own report which he sent to Berlin.
Q. Well, did you make out two conflicting reports? Did your first report differ from your second report?
A. No, Your Honor, but I made a very brief report the first time: it was an oral report, and,.
Q. And what did you say in the brief report?
A. In this brief report I reported that I conducted the investigatio that I confirmed that all Jews had left the Ghettos, that they had taken up contact with the partisans, and that for that reason I had had thirty men and three women shot.
Q. Well, show us that in the report which you have before us.
A. Well, no, Your Honor, it doesn't say anything about it.
Q. Well, then please explain why N ebe made up a report which is absolutely a fabrication insofar as the report which you made to him is concerned? Why did he falsify what you told him?
A. I can't give you any information about this, Your Honor, because I do not know it. I made a verbal report and, based it on this oral report which I made to him, he probably made out some report to Berlin -- probably.
In Berlin this was edited. It was probable that some lines were left out, It was chan ged, and that is how it might have come about. The fact is that I gave a verbalreport first and two days later I made out a very extensive report giving all the necessary underlying documents, and I do not know why he did not make use of my second report. It is probable that he presumed the this first report was probably sufficient for him and that it would not be necessary to -
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, witness, your first report does not coincide with this; if Nebe had filed your first report, he could not have written this, because in your first report, your oral brief report, you told about the investigation, and you told about contact with the Partisans?
Q Yes, and that is not in this report; why would Nebe ignore what you told him in the first report, and in the second report not only ignore it but absolutely construct something out of the whole-cloth entirely different from what you told him. Why would Nebe do that?
A Well, I can not find another reason. I can not find another construction. I only find what it says here that they have left the Ghetto and had gone to the woods, that is what I reported to him.
Q What does it say about the Partisans?
A I don't know why he omitted the Partisans. Perhaps he had mentioned them and perhaps in Berlin, as the conditions in the East were not so well known there, and in order to make it a little briefer, it was just omitted. I don't know that. I neither made out the report myself in Smolensk, nor did I have any influence on happenings in Berlin. I only made my oral report, and based on this short oral report, this report went through three or four hands to Berlin, and these people on these three or four stages had formulated it in a different manner, and therefore, that formulation is quite different than what I made myself.
Q Why did they omit the business about threatening the Mayor?
A I don't know.
Q That certainly would be a very important item. Here were Jews in the Ghetto who rebelled, mutiny with violence, break out, threatened the Mayor, and, yet, not a word of it in the report. Explain that? found his own terminology, and found his own wording, which did not contain this essential thing because these less important matters had already been known before, because of the message of the Mayor, which had arrived, and which said that the Jews had threatened him, and that they wanted to hang him, and, therefore, he had asked for the protection of the Einsatzgruppe Staff.
He had known about these circumstances before.
Q It is not a question of what Nebe knew. It is what Nebe reported; in the making of the report of this very vital operation, why does he omit all these facts which you tell us with such drama, the breaking out of the Ghetto, running into the woods, three women running back and forth, conspiring, threat to kill the Mayor, and not one single word in the report. Why was it all omitted? reported, and what was crossed out in Berlin. I can't know what Nebe reported.
Q Why would they omit it in Berlin? Certainly it would be of great interest to those in Berlin who were conducting the campaign to know just how the population was reacting, and mutiny and rebellion threatening a constituted authority was a menace; and to hang a Mayor is certainly a matter of importance, Why would they omit that in a report?
A I could not tell you, Your Honor. Probably it was just the fault of the office machinery in Berlin. I know conditions there. Perhaps, also, they were overworked, and somebody had to deal with the matter, somebody very much overworked, who didn't know much about the conditions. copy what came in, rather than to change it. Here they changed it?
Q Let me read it: "As punishment for not following the orders of the German Security Police, all male Jews and three women who were in Tatarsk at the time were shot." If these clerks were overburdened, and they wanted to cut down their work, it would be simpler to copy what game in there rather than to pick up something fictitious and put it into the report, wouldn't it.
Explain that? reporting, and therefore, I can give no explanation why this very important and necessary formulation was left out.
Q Not only left out but changed. Keep that in mind, there was a change, an alteration in that report. Can you explain why they would alter it?
Q I'll read for you again, and please listen to it attentively. You told us that the reason that you executed these thirty Jews was that they were in contact with the Partisans; that they had threatened to kill the Mayor; that they had become a menace. Now let me read to you what the report says: "As punishment for not following the orders of the German Security Police, all male Jews and three women who were in Tatarsk at the time were shot." Now, that is different, isn't it? Nebe sent this in the way you told him? for the reason that the Jews had broken out from the Ghetto; as long as I was in Tatarsk -
Q Just a moment, we are talking about the report now. We have gone into the business of how you were notified. I am only asking you why, if Nebe sent in the report correctly, as you gave it to him, why it was changed in Berlin. If you can not explain so, say you don't know. Do you know why they changed that?
A I am unable to explain. I don't know whether it was changed, or whether it was Nebe who made it as it is now.
punishable by death, on whatever it was, I don't know. I don't know according to what principles Nebe made out this report. and Nebe because he wanted to falsify or because he was careless, or because he wanted to convey a different story, did not transmit what you told him, that is one possibility? Berlin for some reason which you can not fathom they falsified the report, is that correct?
Q They changed it, they changed it for reasons you can not tell us?
Q They changed the report, that is your explanation?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed Dr. Mayer. BY DR MAYER: complete, and that the word "Partisans" was missing in this paragraph. It said in that report that Jews were in the woods, What does it mean, that Jews escaped to the woods? were afraid of being arrested.
Q Where were the Partisans, then, generally staying?
THE PRESIDENT: I'll have to give you credit for trying hard there, but let the witness testify.
DR. MAYER: I have no more questions, Your Honor, as to this subject matter. I'll proceed with the witness. BY DR. MAYER:
this action was that the Jews independently, and on their own, started to leave the Ghettos, and went into the surrounding woods, You partly answered this question when asked by the President. But, I would like to take this up again in its proper context? tions was the contact with the Partisans which constitut ed a special danger. your own report?
A That I don't know, as Nebe personally modified or changed the report, as he did with all the other reports. I reported to Nebe immediately after my return in the evening when I gave him a brief oral report. The detailed report in writing was submitted by me giving all the underlying details and documents as the underlying documents, and records, which were in Russian, had to be translated. I can, therefore, only assume that Nebe in accordance with my original oral report had already made his own report, which he sent to Berlin, and, in Berlin these reports were even more abbreviated and expurgated. It is a possibility that in the report of events on the 24th this inconceivable formulation has been brought about. that you didn't have Jews so treated because they were Jews, but because they had made contact with the Partisans, and been guilty of mutiny, and, therefore, had evaded the regulations imposed upon them?
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor Mayer has not he been telling us that now for about thirty-five minutes. Why is it necessary to repeat it. He has said over and over again that the Jews mutinied; they escaped into the woods; they were contacting the Partisans; they were going to kill the Mayor.
He has told us all that.
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, I only wanted to make sure that it was taken in the record, that is the answer. But I withdraw the question.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is adequately in the record, you need not worry about that.
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is not in the record, we will get after these court reporters. BY DR. MAYER:
Q In your two affidavits, which were made by you before Mr. Wartenberg, you mentioned these executions in Tatarsk, but you didn't say that three women were also shot, as the document showed. Can you explain to the Tribunal why you didn't speak of these happenings? memory somewhat, when I gave the first and second affidavits. It was only when I looked at the documents submitted by the Prosecution that I suddenly remembered about the three women. These three women whom I has shot in Tatarsk, I had forgotten, because of my own personal attitude which was against the shooting of innocent people, and, of course, especially against the shooting of women and children. I constantly had in my mind the two-hundred women who were re-installed in the Ghetto in Tatarsk.
Q What was the guilt that was proven against these three women? Jewish Council, and they were found guilty of having established connection with the Partisans, and having taken active part in the mutiny.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you say that when you made up this affidavit, or when you signed it, after you had read it, that you forgot that you had killed three women. Now as difficult as it is to believe that one who had sent to their death three women could forget so horrible an episode in his life, it seems even a little more difficult to understand how you could make reference to women in your statement, and then not mention that you had killed three women, because your statement contains, "Although I had orders to shoot women and children too I did not comply with this part of the order."
It is not a matter of forgetting, it is a matter of distinct negation. Explain that? was so nervous and excited that I had no proper perspective of what had happened at the time, and even later, I can not explain, but I am now stating it quite openly and honestly and frankly that I had not remembered these three women. It was only when I saw this document, it immediately struck me that there were also three women among those people executed at Tatarsk, and , that at the moment I suddenly remembered the further details of the whole affair. evidence of the fact that you saw three women mentioned, that then you suddenly realized that you had shot three women, was that the reason?
Q The interrogator, Mr. Wartenberg, must have asked you, did you shoot any women and children? Did he ask you that question?
A He asked me whether I had shot any women and children; thereupon, I told him at the time that on principle my attitude was against the shooting of women and children; in this connection I said that I led them back into the Ghetto, because I remembered, as I said, this picture of the two-hundred women and children. these ten men out in the woods, ready to go to their Creator, with their graves dug close by; did you remember that picture?
A I didn't take part in the execution, Your Honor. them at ten places, to blindfold them; don't take away their clothing, Do you remember that picture?
A No, I didn't remember it at the time. I didn't remember any of these details.
Q Now this happened in 1942, didn't it? shooting of the three women. Now many years had to go by before your brain finally revolved and came to the point where it could recollect this picture of three women about to be shot. How long did it take you to recall that?
A I can not state that, I don't know.
Q When did you first remember that you shot the three women? me this document to the effect that in Tatarsk, apart from those thirty men were also three women who were shot; at the moment I remembered these three women. Before that it had all disappeared from my memory, I didn't remember it. I cannot explain it.
Q Six Years later you remembered it? you said, " By Joe", that is right, they killed three women? you had killed three women , and how did you acquaint him with the fact that now you remembered that you killed three women. What was your reaction?
Q You were shocked that they had made the report?
to tell the truth, had omitted to tell that originally, that I had forgotten these three women, and, therefore, I was suspected of having made a false affidavit and embezzled these three women, as it were, that was the shock that I had.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that the right word,"embezzled"?
THE WITNESS: That was I didn't name these three women. That this can be regarded as my bad intention, that is what I meant, that was my reaction when these three women cropped up. false statement to Mr. Wartenberg?
AAn incomplete statement. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you. Shall we recess, Dr.Mayer, or is there something you want to say?
DR. MAYER: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 12 December '47) Court No. II, Case No. IX.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
DR. SCHWARZ: (Attorney for the defendant stein) I would like the defendant Sandberger be excused from attendance in court this afternoon. I ask this for Defense Counsel Stein, who is not here. He wants to prepare his document books.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Sandberger will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
DR. KRAUSE: Deputizing for Ridieger for the Defendant Haensch. Your Honor, I have the same request concerning the Defendant Haensch. He needs him also in order to prepare document books and ask him to be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Haensch will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
DR. MAYER: For Klingelhoefer.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you mind awaiting just a moment or two, Dr. Mayer, until a member of the prosecution arrives?
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
You may proceed, Dr. Mayer. BY DR. MAYER (Attorney for the defendant Klingelhoefer): page 41 of the English, page 39 of the German, Document NO-3403, Exhibit No. 63. It is the Report of Events No. 125 of 26 October 1941 and on Court No. II, Case No. IX.
page 4 of the original for Staff and VKM, a figure of shootings of 2457 is mentioned, an increase of 428 shootings, as compared with the Report of Events No, 108, discussed before. What can you tell us about this. Staff and the VKM I have to say the same as I have said before. At that time I was not a member of the VKM any more but belonged to the Group Staff. In the Group Staff I belonged to Department SD where I had nothing to do wit other tasks, except the three missions which I have already mentioned in detail which I carried out on orders from Nebe or from Naumann because of this special situation and the special circumstances. The figures of shootings I can merely explain this way: That I assume that the persons executed in Tatarsk, these 30 Jewish men and the 3 Jewish women are contained in this total report. participated or which you witnessed? other executions, nor did I have them carried out, nor did I witness them. Naumann was questioned on the witness stand. You know that the Defendant Naumann, after he arrived here in prison, gave you a sheet of paper. What did you do with this note? Mr. Wartenberg, without reading it and enclosed it in an envelope, with a letter.
Q What way was the accompanying letter worded? the following, approximately: "Enclosed, I forward to you a note given to me on 3 July, after the evening walk, handed to me by Erich Naumann." I refuse to do such things. I did not open it and did not know its contents.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Q Why did you act in that manner?
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the witness has been purporting to give us the contents of a note he sent to Mr. Wartenberg. He said he has given it to us to the best of his memory. I have the original of that note here and request that the witness, if he intends to give the contents, he give the complete contents and not that part of it he recalls and that is a very small part, be admitted into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Ferencz, you will have the opportunity to cross-examine him on that very statement, on that letter. Proceed, Dr. Mayer.
Q (By Dr. Mayer) What was your motive in acting that way? I tried to say the pure truth and describe everything as it actually happened. It is my opinion that when Naumann gave me such a note this was in order to induce me to make certain statements which did not conform with the truth. I could not answer for such action which are in conflict with my conscience. BY THE PRESIDENT: jure yourself without seeing the note? has sent you a note that he was going to try to induce you to say something which was not the truth. Why should you come to that conclusion without reading the note?
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, may I interrupt here. I think there was a mistake in the translation. Perhaps the reply could be repeated and retranslated.
Q (By the President) Yes, Witness, you started that when you received this note from Naumann , you refused to read it because you Court No. II, Case No. IX.
assumed that Naumann wanted you to tell an untruth. How could you determine that Naumann was endeavoring to persuade you to perjure yourself without seeing the note? note is given to me secretly, I must assume that somebody is trying to induce me to do something.
Q Well, had Naumann ever lied to you before? to lie in this note.
A Well, because of the general situation, I thought so. I had never met Naumann in such a situation. any sign or any indication that he was going to transmit a message to you? which I had to read.
Q And what more did he say?
A He said nothing else. He merely said he had written a note for me and I absolutely had to read it.
Q Did he tell you what he was going to put in the note? Did he indicate the subject matter of the note?
A No, he did not tell me that. There was no possibility to talk during that time. and you received a note from someone, who had never been unfriendly to you, you concluded that he was going to ask you to do something wrong? order to induce me to make false statements. That was my personal assumption.
Q Is that the only reason a note is written?
A I thought so, Your Honors. In the state I was in at the moment -I was very nervous at the time --, of course, I reacted to this in that manner, that I objected to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Dr. Mayer. BY DR. MAYER: were ordered back from Russia on 20 December, 1943. When did you start to work in Office VI? after my leave from the Russian assignment had expired.
Q What did you do Office VI?
A In Office VI, I was assigned to Group VIC. This Group Detachment dealt with the subject of Eastern Europe; the so-called "Operation Zeppelin" was part of it, which included Department VI-C, 1 to 3. I worked in the Department VI-2. In this department we worked on evaluation of the information material, namely, concerning Russia. After starting to work there for the "Operation Zeppelin" at first, I remained there in Berlin for a few days for general information and after that, as far as information work was concerned, I was ordered to Special Department VI-C2, in a special camp. This special camp had to cope with the first systematic work on the incoming Russian material which was received at Berlin, sent to the camp and then it returned to Berlin where work was continued. This utilization work was done by Russian specialists of all departments who were under the charge of a German expert who spoke Russian. These Russian specialists mostly were formerly POW's who on account of the "Operation Zepplin" had been selected from POW camps. Recruiting of Russian POW's was done on a voluntary basis. The Russians thus selected were released by the Army for the Operation Zeppelin and were released from captivity as POW's. There were not considered POW's any more in working for the "Operation Zeppelin" but they were considered foreign co-workers of the RSHA. They were paid according to a special day order. They had free housing, free clothing, and free food. They were allowed to move about freely and apart from the neutral uniform for work, they received civilian clothes for their spare time and they could move about freely without supervision. Roll calls or any measures of a military nature were not held, as there was nothing similar to a military manner at all, because that work was purely scientific so that these Russian xco-workers would not feel they were forced to work. of this special department, being instructed that questions of war economics and armament were going to be dealt with by this special de partment and that it was to be extended to all other domestic spheres in Russia.