THE PRESIDENT: Let me get this picture straight. Now, he was on his way from Czernowitz to Mogilew-Podolsk and he enountered a transport. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Now, how many were in this transport?
A That is very difficult to estimate, Your Honor. They were actually walking. They had little vehicles, but it would be a very rough estimate which I could not take any guarantee on.
Q Were they mostly on foot?
A Yes. The larger part was.
Q Were they of all ages, men and women as well as children? it were. If I could give an estimate, I should say there must have been about a thousand, but that may have been over-estimated because the line did not actually march in a military formation, so that an estimate would have been easy.
Q And how many were in the accompanying Rumanian troops? column by car. I saw soldiers with their rifles who escorted this column in certain distances.
Q Were they on foot also, or were they riding?
Q I see. What is the distance between Czernowitz and this other town, Mogilew-Podolsk?
AAgain I would like to establish this on a map. I don't remember, Your Honor. It is quite a distance. you to estimate the distance?
Q Was this a matter of a day's journey or several hours? We just want an approximation.
Q Then when this group of refugees were joined to the others, who were already in German territory, the total number was around 12 to 15 thousand people, is that the picture? figure, 12 to 15 thousand persons. and I seemed to remember that this was the approximate number of those who actually came over, who were actually in this vicinity of Mogilew as foreign Jews whose actual home was in Rumania.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that makes it very clear to us. You may proceed. BY DR. LINCK: in Mogilew-Podolsk when the commander explained to you the situation. Will you again tell the Tribunal whether you did anything or not?
A No. There was no cause for me to interest myself in this matter. Competent in this case was until up to the arrival of the commander in this sector the leader, the officer who had been appointed, who was not subordinated to me in any way but who received his orders from the commander immediately. He had informed, as he told me, the commander so that there was neither the cause nor the possibility for me to do anything. 77, "I tried to get these people together at Mogilew-Podolsk in order to take them back in a group transport", but there is an inconsistency, or is it not an inconsistency with what you have said just now. If you tried something, then you must have been active in some way or another or is the present formulation inaccurate? point out again that this was not worded by myself but it was worded by Mr. Wartenberg, and that it is just as misleading as a number of other wordings which I shall come to later on.
Q Herr Ruehl, we do not want to go into details about this. I would like to interpolate here and made a small remark. It is probably remembered by the Tribunal that there was a short crossexamination when Mr. Wartenberg was at the disposal of the defense, and at this occasion it was established that a second affidavit was made out after the first had been made out and that apparently in the first affidavit the wording was not so that the witness wanted to sign it, therefore, I did not pursue this matter then, after the Tribunal had stated that each defendant is permitted to correct any false or misleading passages during the presentation of his case, but I must ask you, Herr Ruehl, whether you did not draw Mr. Wartenberg's attention to the fact at the time that such wording could lead to contradictions and to misunderstandings sooner or later?
A I should like to say the following, I told Mr. Wartenberg even when I saw the first draft of the affidavit which he gave me on the 24th of June that this draft did not only contain sentences which were the cause for mistakes - for misunderstandings, but all remarks which would not at all correspond to the facts. I asked him that these passages should be changed. Mr. Wartenberg thereupon said that the sentences which I found fault with meant what I actually had meant to say. In spite of this, I requested so many corrections, and I finally dictated a whole paragraph myself as Mr. Wartenberg constantly tried to dictated something else which was different from what I had said. And so Mr. Wartenberg finally stated the whole affidavit had to be reissued. This new affidavit was shown to me two days later. Unfortunately, I had to establish that this affidavit again contained passages and wordings which gave cause to errors and misunderstandings, and again I told him that. But the reply I received was that I would have enough opportunity to clarify mistakes even during the trial in case such errors would actually crop up.
I trusted this affirmation and as I was tired of the constant quarrels we had, I signed the affidavit especially as these misunderstandings concerned myself exclusively or at least the part that I took in these incidents.
Q What do you want to express with what you said last by "especially as it only concerned myself" and your part? interpreted from this affidavit could only concern myself, in which case I would have the opportunity to express myself accordingly and make corrections, and that is what Mr. Wartenberg affirmed me.
Q Would you like to go on? this affidavit - would be used against you as evidence without any further interrogation taking place?
A No. If I had known this, I would have made the necessary corrections and I would have insisted on them.
Q We don't have to deal with details at this point, Herr Ruehl, but I want to know the further cause of matters in Mogilew-Podolsk. What happened to these Jews?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Linck, you are now just about to begin an episode in some detail. Suppose that we have our recess at this time.
DR. LINCK: Yes, Your Honor.
DR. DICK: Dr. Dick for my colleague, Dr. Fritz. Your Honor, I was asked by Dr. Fritz to ask whether the defendant, Fendler, could be excused this afternoon from the proceedings. He has the opportunity to speak to his wife apparently. I would, therefore, like the defendant, Fendler, to be taken to Room 57 in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: We will gladly excuse Fendler for that purpose, and we will announce, so that the marshal will be informed, that all arrangements will be made so that there will be no difficulty about Mrs. Fendler seeing her husband this afternoon in Room 57. The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 18 December 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. LINCK (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT RUEHL): Thank you, Your Honor. BY DR. LINCK (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT RUEHL: briefly about this large number of Jews who had been driven across into the German-occupied territory by the Rumanians. You have already told us about the stories which you heard when you arrived in Mogilew and you have told us that the kommando leader there had reported to your commander, Pesterer, about it. How did this matter develop further and what was your part in it? taken place there previously, had been destroyed, and the Russians had taken with them most of the supplies, especially the majority of the cattle. Thus, of course, the situation of the alien homeless Jews got so bad that Pesterer decided to go to see the group chief and to get his decision on the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one word we didn't catch, it sounded, which of course, can't possibly be true, like "Aryan homeless Jews." Oh, "alien".
Q (By Dr. Linck) Please continue. because of this situation he would go to see the group chief and to see what he decided on this. He wanted to tell him that these Jews who came from the Rumanian territory should be brought back into that area.
Since he himself, meaning Persterer, did not want to return immediately to Mogilew, because he had other business; he ordered me to accompany him in order to take care of my economic and administrative matters at the group headquarters and also to hear what the decision of the group chief was in this matter and to bring this decision back to Mogilew. When Persterer reported to the group chief, the latter decided that the Rumanian Jews should be brought back to their home area. I then brought this decision back to Mogilew on the order of Persterer and I gave this message to the officer who was in charge of bringing these Jews back. Then in his own competence this officer carried out this retransport. you mention in your affidavit. to correct something. I made a mistake about the name and I would like to correct this. The name of the man is not "Lippert," but "Lipps." As far as -
Q Litz?
A Lipps, as far as I remember, L-i-p -- possibly "p"-s.
Q And this retransport took place as ordered? because of the resistance of the Rumanians, who even threatened that on the other side of the river where they had artillery they would open fire, if despite their objection any attempt would be made to bring these Jews back. without success, the competent officer, whose order it was to take care of this matter took the Jews back again and for the time being he housed them in a barracks at the edge of the city, but this was only a very brief emergency measure, because there were no facilities there and it was hardly possible to supply thousands of people for any length of time.
Therefore it was necessary as quickly as possible to get another decision. Of course, only the group chief himself could decide what to do next. Since the commander had, however, not yet returned and 1st Lt. Lipps was tied to this place with his local assignments there, I felt obligated as the man who had passed on this order, which could not be carried out, to inform the group chief of this new situation immediately and to ask him to make a new decision. The group chief then ordered that the Jews be transported back by way of a bridge near Jampol, that is, they were to be marched there and the Kommando 12 was to take care of taking them across this bridge.
Q Did you again inform Lt. Lipps of this new decision and did you give him the order to carry out the retransport via this new bridge? chief; to use the word "order" would be misleading, because this is not an order which I gave him, but I brought him the order of the group chief and that finished the matter, as far as I was concerned.
Q Didn't you concern yourself any more about the retransport of the Jews after Lipps knew what he had to do?
A No, that was not my job. That was not necessary.
Q You did not accompany this transport?
A No, I didn't even see it, much less accompany it.
were supposed to have been shot?
Q Why? the Group Chief only said to send the Jews back into their homeland. Of executions nothing was said. estimate, of the number of Jews who were then sent back? sent back, because I said I did not see the transport. I only remember that they frequently spoke of 12,000 to a maximum of 15,000 Jews. Thus, generally, I had assumed that all these Jews were actually sent back and I mentioned these figures to Mr. Wartenberg accordingly. I told him that as far as I can judge, there were 12,000 to 15,000 human beings who were concerned in this retransport.
Q Well, now I must show you the following. In the prosecution documents there are two reports which mentioned these Jewish transports. Please look at Document Book III-D. This is page 24 of the English, page 46 in the German, and it is a report of the 26th of August,1941, NO-2840, Exhibit 154. Here something is mentioned of bringing back 6,000 Jews which was carried out despite protests of the Rumanian officer in command of the bridge. That is one thing. The other one is the report in Volume II-B, English page 11, page 8 in the German. This is the report of the 29th of August, 1941, NO-2837, Exhibit 58. Here something is mentioned about bringing back 27,500 people, with the remark that 1,200, partly younger Jews, were shot. Can you say, Witness, which of these reports, in your opinion, is concerned with this particular retransport which you have mentioned here?
A I really can hardly clarify this. As I have already said, I did not see the convoy and I did not make out any report about this retransport nor did I see any. Therefore, I can say nothing about how many were actually brought back. I can only say with certainty that neither in Mogilew nor during the discussion with the Group Chief was anything over said about a figure of 27,500. Therefore, this figure seems to me to be incorrect under all circumstances. More probable, it seems to me, is the figure 12,000 to 15,000 which I still remember and which represents the total number of homeless Jews in Mogilew and vicinity. The report of the 26th refers to about 13,000. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q May I ask a question here, please. Witness, since you correct this figure in Document 2837, indicating that 27,500 is a much larger number than you remember the number to have been, do you also correct the number referring to those executed? 27,500 Jews were driven back to Rumanian territory. You say this number is incorrect and that there were only about 12,000 to 15,000. Is that correct? Is that what you told us? know. May I say, there are two reports here about a retransport; one time 6,000 were supposed to have been brought back and once 27,500.
I recall it, that you thought 27,500 was incorrect.
Q And that in your estimate it couldn't have been more than 12,000 to 15,000. made to 1,265 Jews shot. say was probably only 12,000 to 15,000. Now I ask, do you make any observation on the 1,265? Do you think that number is correct? my opinion, the retrans port which I experienced, and which took place in Mogilew and about which I had passed on the order -- that this retransport has nothing to do with this figure, 27,500. I rather believe that it refers to the report of the 26th.
Q Well, why did you comment on this document at all? trying to get it straight from you. As I recall it, you looked at this document and your attention was called to the figure of 27,500 and, still as I recollect, you said this number was incorrect; it was probably from 12,000 to 15,000. Now, the question which I put to you is this, witness: Since you looked at this document and made a correction in the number of Jews who were driven back to Rumanian territory, do you want to make any reference to the figure of 1,265 to have been shot? myself clearly. I did not want to say anything about this document and say that this figure is incorrect, because I merely remember that figure.
I merely tried to reconcile my memory with what I found here in the documents. Jews, some of them young ones, shot? Do you know anything about that at all?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is all I am asking, proceed, Dr. Linck.
Q I will show you the following, witness. You had knowledge of one Jewish re-transport only in Mogilew-Podolsk? Can you solve this riddle, and say whether you know whether there were several Jewish transports that took place during your time and according to your knowledge? Mogilew only one such transport took place. Therefore only one report can refer to that and the report of the 26th seems to me the more probable one. On the one hand for the reason I have already mentioned, because they speak here of a number of 13,000 homeless Jews who had been driven out, and also the date of this report seems to be in favor of my contention because the transport of which I knew took place, as far as I can reconstruct and sofar as Mogilew is concerned, during the days from the 18th to 20th of August, and about on the 23rd we had already left Mogilew-Podolsk.
Q I think I don't have to ask you anything further about this. But before you leave Mogilew-Podolsk I want to submit one more thing to you. In the report of the 26th of August just mentioned, that is Volume III-D, the English page 24, the German page 46, there is another sentence and I quote: "It is intended to collect the Jewish population in one area of the city". End of quote. Furthermore, I quote: "Jews fit for work were detailed to clear away the rubble in the town, as well as to bring in the harvest." Do you know anything about that? Did you execute these measures, or did you order them, or did you receive the order to carry them out? measures, or carried them out. Moreoever, I would like to point out that it says in the report: "It is intended to assemble Jews there in one quarter of the city". Sofar as I know anything about Mogilew, this never happened. In any case I can say that I neither saw a ghetto or labor camp in Mogilew, nor did I ever hear of any such camps there.
Whether a similar order existed I can not say. That able-bodied Jews were used for labor I consider possible, since the entire population was used in clearing the rubble, and in bringing in the harvest.
Q Now, Herr Ruehl, I don't want to offend you but it is my intention to clarify everything which could have any connection with you during this time in this area, and, therefore, I want to confront you with another sentence from this report of 26 August. That is the report from which I quote: "In Czernovitz and by combing through the area east of the Dnjestr River, 31,006 Jews and 34 Communists were liquidated - correction, 3,106 Jews and 34 Communists were liquidated.
THE PRESIDENT: What page is that?
DR. LINCK: I do not have the English page, Your Honor. It is the report of 26 August.
THE PRESIDENT: There is only page here of the report in our book.
DR. LINCK: Page 24.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you find it, Mr. Walton?
MR. WALTON: No, Your Honor.
DR. LINCK: Can you help me, Herr Ruehl?
THE WITNESS: I don't have the English text, either. It would have to be the English page 24?
THE PRESIDENT: Are you referring to the report of August 29, Document 2837.
DR. LINCK: It is my mistake. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that was more than a mistake, that was an error.
DR. LINCK: Thank you for your patience, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not even in the right house. It is Book II-B.
BY DR. LINCK:
Q Can you comment on this report? questioned by several people. I can not say anything about how this report came to be made out. So far as Czernowitz is concerned, I would like to point out once more the fact that according to the order of the group chief, no such measures could be carried out in Rumanian sovereign territory. Therefore, I hardly believe that such a report was ever made out by Persterer to the group, because without a doubt this would have brought inquiries from the group chief as to what caused Persterer to act against this specific order. There, too, I would assure that Berlin laid down the final regulations about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you say that it would have been impossible to kill Jews in Rumania. Didn't you tell us this morning that you took orders from the Rumanian authorities?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, I consider that as an exceptional case in which at the express order of the Rumanians the commando in this one case became active in their own sovereign territory, because an independent activity of the commando would not have been possible in this area according to the order of the group chiefs.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed. BY DR. LINCK: knew anything about the 3106 Jews and 34 Communists. Did you answer all of that, or do you want to add anything to it? concerned, it does not only refer to Czernowitz but this is a report from the entire area, which at that time already extended to the Bug River, sofar as I know. I , therefore, ask also to be able to correct an error which evidently the Prosecution made, when in the order of presentation, which is contained in Volume III_D, it is said that these 3,000 and odd Jews and so many Communists were executed in Czernowitz.
To come back to Czernowitz once more, I would like to refer to the report of 7 August, which is in Volume II-D.
Q Page 35 in the English, I believe, Your Honor. That is document 10-2948 Exhibit No. 89. What is this document supposed to show? commando was in Mogilew-Podolsk. That is, it was no longer Czernowitz at that time. From my own knowledge I could add that the major part of the commando was in Camonitz-Podolsk or Mogilew-Podolsk since the beginning of August. I myself left Mogilew the 7th or 8th of August.
Q Mogilew, you mean? and I can only say that during this time I didn't hear about any other executions. May I also point out the following: Apart from the report of 7 August, namely that the garrison of the commando was already in Mogilew, there exists a situation report of 9 August, in which Einsatzgruppe C reports that in agreement with the Chief of Group-D.
Q This is Volume II-C, English page 67 on the top, Document 2947? gruppe Chief D, a small squad was transferred to Czernowitz in order to take over the assignments there.
Q I don't think that I have overlooked any document, Herr Ruehl, in which the Prosecution has implicated you in any sense so far as time and area are concerned. I merely would like to ask you a few concluding questions about the tine of your assignment, before I come to Count C, membership in criminal organizations.
You said that you left Mogilew on 23 August, is that correct?
Q Did your missions remain those of an administrative officer; did they remain as such, until you were recalled, or was there an essential change in your assignment and in your position? function of an administrative officer, and afterwards I was neither given the deputy ship of the commando nor was I given the leadership of a Teilkommando.
Q Were you a staff officer with executive powers?
Q And when did your assignment end?
A The beginning of October. I don't remember the exact date.
Q What year?
Q And what happened then? Did you get sick or what? service, were recalled to Berlin, and I took up my studies once more.
Q Then you went back to the University of Berlin?
Q And later you passed the State examination?
DR. LINCK: Your Honors, I now come to the third main subject, that is, Count-C of the Indictment, as I have already said, membership in organizations which the IMT has declared criminal.
THE PRESIDENT: A question I would like to ask just out of curiosity. Was the University of Berlin functioning in all departments in 1943?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It has nothing to do with the case. I was just curious. Thank you.
DR. LINCK: The witness is charged with membership in two such organizations, first the SS, secondly, the Office IV of the RSHA. First of all, I shall deal with membership in the SS. BY DR. LINCK: 1932 you transferred from the SA to the SS, and you said that on 1 October 1933, you left the SS in order to go into the Prussian Secret Police. Did anything change in this later on? That is, until the collapse? other unit. SS ranks? police official. The Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police originally had the intention to make a so-called State Protection Corps out of the SS and Police. For this purpose all police officials were supposed to be transferred to the SS, and thereupon they would be given the ranks which were equivalent to their ratings as officials. According to the so-called Decree for the assimilation of ranks, which was the Decree of 1938, and which I think has already been submitted as a document here, the corresponding ranks for the various official ratings were established, and every promotion in the SS was the automatic results of a promotion as an official. the defendant Blume?
A Yes, I think it is Blume's Document No. 10.
Q It is in Blume's Document Book, therefore, I don't want to ask you anything further about it, but I would like to know, Herr Ruehl, whether the circumstance that before you joined the police you were an active member in the SS, is not significant?
A Well, one could hardly say that. To explain this, I would like to give the example, which shows to what strange results this assimilation of ranks led. When I came to the police in the fall of 1933, I was an SS-Scharfuehrer, that is a sergeant, but since my first position in the police only corresponded to an SS Unterscharfuehrer, I was downgraded. so to speak, to an Unterscharfuehrer, and only when I became a candidate for assistant in criminal matters, I was once more promoted to SS-Scharfuehrer, because this SS rank corresponded to that position as an official. I think this shows the relationship between the police rank end the SS rank most clearly.
Q Well, you don't have to go into such detail, because only the time after the 1st of September 1939 would play any part in this. But I would like you to describe to the Tribunal the relationship between your official ranks and the SS ranks during the later years. Please take up Document Book III-D. This is the personnel file, Your Honor, page 90 in the English text, and page 136 in the German text. This is NO-4808, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 171. Is it correct when I conclude from this that according to page 1 of the original, you received the rank of Unterscharfuehrer, 2nd It., on 2 July, 1938?
Q What did that have to do with your position as an official?
A. As I have already mentioned when describing my professional training I took a training course as a candidate for Police Inspector from 1 October 1937 until 30 June 1938. After I completed this course of study, on 2 July, we were appointed Police Inspectors on probation. On the same date and on the same occasion, corresponding to this newly achieved rank, we were promoted to the equivalent SS rank which is Untersturmfuehrer which is 2nd Lieutenant.
Q. Does this correspond to your biography as stated in the personnel file?
A. Yes.
Q. German page 144, page 96 in the English, your Honors.
A. May I point to the end of the first paragraph where it says "and after I attended a nine months course at the Leader school of the Security Police, I passed on 2 July 1938 the Kommissar examination."
THE PRESIDENT: August. The says says August.
A. 2nd of July, your Honor, in the German text.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a question mark after August in the English, so the record will show that it should be July. It is not very important, Dr. Linck, July or August.
DR. LINCK: Yes, your Honor, and the photostat shows it correctly. I don't want to go through this dry matter any further even concerning the higher ranks, 1st It and Captain. It will suffice if I ask you the following question. Is this description which you have given here valid for the higher ranks, that is, 1st Lieutenant and Captain, that is 1939 and 1942?
A. Yes. They were the automatic result of my promotion as and official.
Q. Well, if I want to concede to you that these SS ranks had nothing to do with an active membership in the SS then I must know one more thing. Wouldn't you have had the possibility to get out of this SS membership if it was only a formal one?
A. Theoretically this would have been imaginable but it would have presupposed my Leaving the Security Police and that such an action was not possible, at least after the beginning of the war, I may say that that is well known.