any decisions of basic importance without first asking me. I could always be reached by telephone so that I should be informed about important events. your transfer. After you were transferred from Riga, what job were you given? and I was promised to become liaison officer with the Army group Caucasus Mountains, but I never took up this assignment, because negotiations between the Ministry East and the High Command of the Army took so long that by that time the Caucasus Mountains had been lost.
Q Did you get an assignment in the Ministry East? concerning the execution of Jews or to undertake anything in this respect? Rosenberg. After that I had a long personal discussion, not within his office, because he wanted to meet me personally. During a very long and general discussion affairs in the East were also discussed. He talked about his relationship with Himmler, which was very bad at the time. He also talked about the SS and here also he had all kinds of objection. In this connection I used the opportunity to mention the execution in the East and to explain to him, how very hard and difficult this order was, to individual SS men in the East that it would not be fair to make him responsible for these events. Responsibility is in the hands of him or those who gave the orders, and now I tried to explain to him that there must be some way to discuss this with the Fuehrer.
Downcast he replied: "It is a Fuehrer Order. I can't do anything about it." "I have tried it," or something to the effect. In any case, he was very downcast. I then told him that carrying out such measures would have an effect for decades and would thus cause difficulties throughout the world; that the difficulties already in existence would be increased, and it would not really help at all. I briefly told him about my own attitude during my stay in the East, regarding this subject. That was definitely the last time I spoke on the Jewish question and discussed it with anyone who had some political importance. Of course, I did not state my personal opinion, but this discussion was the last one of all, because after that day, practically until the end of the war, I had no opportunity to discuss such things with anyone of any importance.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, are we to unterstand from what you have just stated, that Rosenberg was sympathetic to the Jews and their plight?
THE WITNESS: Sympathized is far too much. He certainly did not do that, but I think I could understand him to the effect, that these measures were not quite to his liking.
THE PRESIDENT: Did he criticize the Fuehrer Order with regard to the execution of the Jews?
THE WITNESS: By "criticizing", I mean decided objecting. No, he did not do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, in effect, he had not opposed the order?
THE WITNESS: I understood it to that effect that he did not consider the shootings right and that he had already mentioned this, but he couldn't do anything about it.
THE PRESIDENT: He did not than criticize the order?
THE WITNESS: By criticize I consider a stronger attitude.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he spoke very unfavorably about the order.
THE WITNESS: Not about the order perhaps, but about the measures; that perhaps recognized it us a Fuerer Order, but he did not like the Actual measures.
THE PRESIDENT: But the order demanded the shooting, the execution, the killing of Jews. Did he speak unfavorably of that order?
THE WITNESS: He said "But it has been ordered; though I don't quite like it, either" or so something to that effect. That is, somehow he did not quite like it personally, but it just had been ordered.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it was more a shrug of the shoulders than it was a criticism?
THE WITNESS: That is what I was trying to say when I stated by "criticism" I mean something rather to the effect of a stronger objection, a determinate, obvious attitude.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q. (By Dr. Schwarz) Witness, you explained to the Tribunal that your assignment in the Caucasus did not actually take place. Did you get Another assignment, and where?
A. The assignment in the Caucasus, as I already mentioned, never come into effect. They tried to give me another assignment, not within the SS, but Himmler also objected to this. As a surprise, instead of an assignment, in the Spring of 1943, I was asked to report as Unterscharfuehrer to the (SS Body Guards) the Leibstandarte at Charkow in Russia, and so without any training, or any medical examination, I was sent to the front at once. Himmler had give this order and I had not been given any reasons for my being drafted into the Army.
Q. What did you understand by this measure?
A. I presumed that this was the result of my discussion with Himmler, or that it happened owing to some other complaints thus giving the reason why this measure had been taken so all of a sudden.
Q. Were you actually drafted then?
A. No, this never actually took place, because at that time the Ministry East had just decided to send me to an Army Group after all, so that I managed to postpone this drafting for some time. In the summer of 1943, I became liaison officer with an Army Group definitely and started to work with Army Group A in Nikolajew at the end of October, 1943. From the day I left my office in Riga until that time I thus had not been doing anything for 13 months.
Q. How long were you active in the Army Group?
A. In the Army Group itself, I acted as a liaison officer between the Ministry East and this Army Group. But there was practically no work for me to do on neither side. The only assignment I was given was that the Field Marshall von Kleist sent me to Berlin in order to speak to Rosenberg about the military situation and to cause him to talk to the Fuehrer and to ask him in the west. Rosenberg said he was not competent to deal with such a question. At the end of February, 1944, the Deputy Higher SS and Police Leader in Nikolajew, Obergruppenfuehrer Hildebrandt, offered me to propose me as commander of the Security Police and the SD, although he was not competent to do so, because it was his opinion that my assignment in the Army Group was unsuitable and would not last, because there were no work at all for me there. Hildebrandt really wanted to help me in getting me into a reasonable position again. This suggestion, which was very favorable for me I rejected, because under no COURT II-A CASE IX circumstances did I want to go to the police and I did not went to be once more under Himmler's authority.
And above all I by no means wanted to go back to an office, where I would risk to meet orders which I simply could not carry out. I gave reasons for my attitude, and I continued to reject this job. About this rejection and most likely about the reasons, a few days later, Hildebrandt made a report to Himmler. I was suddenly ordered to go back to Berlin and there at the end of March or the beginning of April, 1944, I suddenly received a Fuehrer Order that I was to join the Waffen-SS as Unterscharfuehrer.
Q. Witness, did you actually serve in the Waffen-SS.
A. Yes, I served as Underscharfuehrer until about the end of July 1944, but I was not able to carry out this duty. Owing to bad health I was sent to a mursing house. After that I remained at home until the end of the war.
Q. What significance did this assignment as Unterscharfuehrer have for you?
A. This drafting as Unterscharfuehrer, of course, took away my prestige, which I had according to my last position. It actually was a degradation, although it had not been formally stated as such, because I remained a Brigadefuehrer, a Major General. Through a circular to various high authorities of the SS and the Ministry of the Interior, the drafting which was to be valid until the end of the war was made known and had the denouncing effect which was wanted. On the 24th of April, 1945, I was taken prisoner by the Americans.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the equivalent Army rank to Unterscharfuehrer?
THE WITNESS: Corporal.
DR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, I now come to the last set of questions which is the membership in criminal organizations.
THE PRESIDENT: This might be a good point at which to suspend. The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 22 October 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HOFFMAN (For the Defendant Nosske): Your Honor, I Would like to ask your permission to go back to a remark that was made yesterday on the occasion of the examination of the defendant Schulz. The execution of Poles was mentioned, and I was of the conviction that the translation mentioned hundreds of thousands of Poles. I do know the correctness and the consciousness of the Court, and I am quite sure that the Tribunal will clarify the matter. It was the document which had been submitted that was being discussed. I now took the liberty of referring to its literal text, as it had been submitted to the IMT. I have the document here. Literally of course, Himmler only talks about thousands of Poles, whereas the figure hundred thousand refers to people who were deported.
THE PRESIDENT: The decision of the International Military Tribunal speaks of the execution of Poles in a language which could allow the interpretation of hundreds of thousands. Hitler here is merely speaking of the thousand that had to be shot, He says thousands, then thousands, a hundred thousand. He does not include here those who were killed in the gas chambers. Do I understand, Dr. Hoffman, that it is your impression that the phrase "hundreds of thousands" is exaggerated, that there were not that many killed? Is that what I take your observation to be?
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I assumed that in consulting a document you will come back to this particular speech at Metz, which I have mentioned, and in this speech "hundred thousands" are being talked about who were deported and about thousands which were actually shot. If you have your knowledge, Your Honor, from other documents,where another picture comes into existence, in that case I do not want to express my attitude to you now, and that, of course, is not my task either; but I only thought that the contents of the speech in Metz, the impression created by this speech might prove to different, and this is why I come to speak of it once more Himmler's speech at Metz does not show that it was hundreds of thousands, but Himmler in.
Metz speaks only of thousands who were shot.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr, Hoffman, the equivocation results from your assumption that I was quoting from Himmler's speech. I was not. I was referring generally to the fact that from all the documents one can very easily conclude that hundreds of thousands of Poles were killed in Poland by the German forces and the decision of the IMT, I am rather confident, will bear out the correctness of that interpretation.
DR. HOFFMANN: I meant only from the point of view that your knowledge might be based on that particular speech in Metz, otherwise -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I thank you for your interest.
DR. ULMER (for the Defendant Six): Your Honor, yesterday the Defendant Six was excused for today. Defendant Six is not in the room at the moment. There is the possibility that the Jost's defense will be finished in the afternoon, and I do not want to prolong by not having, the Defendant Six really at the disposal of the Court. Would you, therefore, take care that perhaps during the interval the defendant Six will come up.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will take care of that.
DR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor may I now proceed with the direct examination of the defendant? BY DR. SCHWARZ:
Q.- Witness, you are charged by the Prosecution to have been a member of organizations declared criminal. I have a few questions to put to you in this connection Was the SD, and therewith Office VI, a Counter Intelligence Service of the Gestapo?
A.- Office VI in its organization, and especially in its field of tasks, as I have already explained yesterday when I talked about Office VI, was, as I said, independent; and therefore it was not a counter intelligence organization of the Secret State police.
Q.- Was your activity in Office VI any connection with the executive power?
A.- My task was mainly the supply of information from foreign countries.
Q.- How did it come about that you joined the SS?
A.- In Summer 1934 I entered the SD. Therefore, I became a member of the SD and it was thus I became an SS leader for the subsidiary organization of the SD.
Q.- Were you a member of the General SS?
A.- No, only a member of the SD.
Q.- Were you an honorary SS leader?
A.- No, I was a major general, I got the salary of an official.
Q.- Did you carry out any activity in the SS, apart from that?
A.- Not in the SD, not in the armed SS, the Waffen-SS.
DR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, I have now concluded my direct examination of the defendant, and I would now like to begin to submit, and to discuss the documents which concern the Defendant Jost as charged by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: You will refer to the documents introduced by the Prosecution?
DR, SCHWARZ: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. NY DR. SCHWARZ:
Q.- Witness, I shall now show you Document Book I, page 23; it is Exhibit 5, Document 2890. It is the affidavit of Ohlendorf, of the 24th of April 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the Witness answers that question, I would like to clarify a little matter that was brought up by Dr. Hoffmann. Dr. Hoffman, I want to call to your attention the text which I had in ind when I used the phrase "hundreds of thousands", and I think you will agree that I was justified in the use of that phrase when you hear what the IMT said in connection with the program of the German forces in Poland. The IMT describes the wholesale liquidations of poles, and then ends up this way: "So successfully did the Germans carry out this polity in Poland that by the end of the war one-third of the population had been killed and the whole of the country devastated." Will you agree with me that one-third of the entire population of Poland would far exceed the phrase of "hundreds of thousands"?
DR. HOFFMANN: Unfortunately, I have to agree with this. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; thank you. BY DR. SCHWARZ:
Q.- Witness, I ask you, in accordance with this document, were you ever personally used for assignments of the kind mentioned in this document? in this particular document. During the time of my activity there were no major operations in the war theater, and as a consequence there were no large numbers of prisoners of war; there was, therefore, no reason to act according to this order. I was not, in any case, ever asked for a decision in this matter.
Q. Witness, in Document Book I which is before you, will you please go to page 31, - I do not know the English page number I am afraid - it is page 20, it is Exhibit 7, English page 21, No. 4134. This is Operation Report 126 of the 29th of October 1941-
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, I must ask you to excuse my being here without a robe*on. I just come from Room 51. My defendant is at the disposal of another Court, and by mistake, he has been led to this room, I am afraid. I would, therefore, like your Honor to repeat you order that the defendant Biberstein should be put at my disposal in room 57.
THE PRESIDENT: Have we not excused him?
DR. BERGOLD: No, my colleague Dr. Ficht has informed your Honor that the defendant Biberstein should also be in Room 57 this afternoon, and your Honor was kind enough to pass the order that that could be done. But apparently the prison was not informed of this.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. We Seem to be having some difficulty with the identification of defendants. Did they by chance send some other defendant to room 57, instead of Biberstein?
DR. BERGOLDL: Yes.
DR. RIEDIGER (for defendant Haensch): The same is true in the case of Haensch. Your Honor was kind enough to have the defendant excused this afternoon, and the same happened to this defendant. He is not in room 57, in fact, but is here. But nobody else was Sent down either. But the order which was issued by Your Honor this morning has not been received by the prison.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, at least we have made this progress - that we didn't send the wrong person there. You remember a week ago they sent the Defendant Blobel, who COURT II-A CASE IX should be very easy to distinguish because of his board, instead of somebody else.
At any rate, The Marshal is instructed to have the Defendants Biberstein and Haensch conducted to room 57.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you.
DR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, I refer to Document 1, German page 1, Exhibit 7, Document No-4134. BY DR. SCHWARZ:
Q. Witness, what have you got to say about this document? It is English page 27.
A. This document is meant to prove that the territory of assignment of the Einsatzgruppe 3, which was subordinated to Einsatzgruppe A, around the towns Baranowice and Minsk, that this Einsatzgruppe in fact was stationed in this territory of white Ruthenia. This report is of the 29th of October 1941, is no longer competent, during the time which was only half a year later, of course, Einsatzgruppe A, after a civil administration had been created was no longer responsible for this territory. Therefore, I gave this detailed description this morning concerning the difference between the Army sector and the civilian administrative Sector.
Q. Witness, I shall show you now Document Book III-A, German page 1, English page 1, and it is Exhibit 99, Document 4151. It is your affidavit of 27 June 1947. Would you tell the Tribunal any corrections you might have to make in this affidavit?
A. Concerning number 3 of this affidavit I have already given my opinion, this morning I stated the incorrectness which is that in the countries of Latvia and Lithuania there was no Einsatzkommando of that time. I also expressed myself to this effect in forming interrogations, and I said that only for Estonia with The Special Commando I-A, this COURT II-A CASE IX was still the case.
In spite of this it was taken into the affidavit according to the old drafting, and it was signed by me, as evidently I was in a state of lack of concentration and, therefore, unable, to contradict and to correct the statement. It is obvious that the detachment Loknia although it was mentioned priviously on various occasions, was not mentioned here, and was not taken into the affidavit.
Q: Will you also comment upon number four of the affidavit?
A: I have done so this this morning by speaking about the individual offices in Lithuania, and Latvia, and also in Estonia, I said that I took measures for the territory of the Einsatzgruppe-A, but no special decrees and of requests of this kind were necessary because in this territory there were no Jews, and, therefore, this particular order was not applied in those territories. My worry was mainly those territories where there were Jews. Heydrich had announced his visit in White Ruthenia, and by the beginning or the end of May he had actually come there, without notifying me of this visit of his, without having me accompany him, and without giving me any detail and any information about his visit afterwards.
Q: Will you please go to page No. 74 in the Document Book III-A, which is the front of you; it is the English page 53. It is Exhibit No. 100, Document NO-3256. This document concerns the operational report in USSR, and, is No. 191 of 10 August 1942 -- 10 April 1942. You are named here as the leader if Einsatzgruppe-A, and the commander-in-chief of the group, Eastern Territories. What have you got to say about these?
A: This document quite obviously reports that as independent agencies next to each other there are on the one hand the police commissioner, and the SD Service for Eastern Territories, and on the other hand there are commanders of the Security Police and SD, Eastern Territories, in the individual general district, and apart from this there is Einsatzgruppe-A as a special unit, which has nothing to do with the individual offices, and agencies which I just mentioned.
Q: Witness, do you want to conclude anything from this state of affairs, something concerning your own activities?
A: I clarified the point this morning by saying that the working of these two channels of command were different with these two agencies. In the general district the man who was locally responsible for SS and Police matters was the SS and Police Leader, and his chief was the commissar-general, the holder of the actual executive power for this territory. By this method the executive power of a commander is basically curtailed, and in my case there was a special curtailment due to Heydrich's special modification.
Q: Witness, please go to page 6 in the German text, III-A, English page 3, Exhibit No, 101, Document NO-USSR-41. This document shows that allegedly on 14 April 1944 -- 43 -42, it mentioned insane people were murdered. What do you have to say about that?
A: As this document concerns an event which happened in Riga, it is outside my field of command or the field of command of my Einsatzgruppe, and these units could not have taken part in this event. The document itself is a letter of the commander of the Security Police of Latvia, and it is addressed to the inhabitants Registration Office, in Riga, and, although it is addressed to this authority, this document was not found at that place, but it was found in the office of the sender. If it is to be regarded as an original document, it should have arrived at the adressee and not only the sender should have held it. So far as the content matter of the letter is concerned, I must say that it has not been known to me before, and was not known to me afterwards, if it had. I would have prevented the carrying out of those measures. If I had known of this measure, I also would have prevented the carrying out of it in Krasnogwardoisk. The document, however, is no proof of any kind that the shooting was actually carriedout by the authority concerned.
That was an order of which it is absolutely possible that it was issued by another agency, or that the carrying out was done by another agency. or, it was carried out by whoever gave the commander the order to make out this document.
Q: Witness, I shall now show you Document Book II-A, German page 147, English page, so far as I know. 133. It is Exhibit No. 56, Document NO-3277, of 24 April 1942. This document has been submitted only in excerpts by the Prosecution, therefore, I am showing you the photostat of this document, the contents of which I am referring to here. On page 19 of the document it says, amongst other things, "In the period of reporting 1272 people were executed." Will you please comment upon this?
A: The operation period of reporting only becomes understandable when reading the entire report. The time of report does not refer to the date given by the RSHA. 24/4/42 because as far as the Reich Security Main Office is concerned there was no period of reporting, but the period of reporting can only refer to the report of the offices of the agency who has drafted this report. This can be recognized if you only look at pages 2 to 18 of this report. From these pages 2 to 18 it becomes evident that it is not a report of Einsatzgruppe A, but it is a monthly situational reports of the commander of the commander of the Security Police and SD in Latvia. On page 2 of the report, the general security in Latvia is being dealt with, and it speaks about newspaper publications of 9 March 1942; on page 14 there is a date, 26 April 1942. on page 13 there are agricultural matters, there is another mention of '42; on page 14, that is the order of 1 March 1942, containing slaughtering restrictions. In the report about the position of the work of the security Service, on page 15, the events of 19 march, and of 21 March 1942 are being discussed.
Page 21, mentions the arrest of a prison supervisor, on 26 March. On the same page there is another report, this time of 24 March 1942, and page 17, finally contains the date, 10 March 1942; here a hand grenade attack is being described. The report was not received and not compiled by the general sector of the Einsatzgruppe; it is evidently an independent report by the commander to Berlin, the commander had the authority to write such reports. These reports had to be filed by the end of each month. It is evident that this is a monthly report for the month of March. After the date, 23 March, there is no other mentioning of any date, so that this report can be regarded as concluded. The events are therefore of a time before I took over the office.
Q: When did you take over this office?
A: On 29 March 1942 -- yes, '42.
Q: Were the figures mentioned on page 8 of this document new to you?
A: They concerned the establishment of the Latvia office of information.
Q: That is page 67. Public information.
A: You mean , page 68?
Q: Yes, it is page 68, the Question itself is found on the preceding page.
A: Yes, it is II- A, 162 -- page 182.
Q: I shall repeat this question later on. In the Document Book in front of you, II-A that is, will you please turn to page 142, it is English page 128, Exhibit No. 55, Document No. 3281 of 17 April 1942. It is operational report USSR-193, 17 April 1942, what have you to say to this?
A: Basically, I have to say that this report was on *ithuania riots, dealing therefore, with a territory which was not within the command of the Einsatzgruppe. Events are being described therein which are proved to have taken place in the former Polish territories. Perwons were arrested and shot because of communist activities, and on account of maintaining relation to partisans. It has been established that ** was not just a mass execution, but executions carried out *ter the guilt of the people of Olita had been established. They were persons who were executed on account of endangering public security, and therefore the local commander was authorized to take these measures. They, the commander, can act independently, and they need no special order or authority to carry out such a mission.
Court No. II-A, Case No. IX.
Q. Did you hear about these events immediately after they took place?
A. I cannot remember.
Q. I now show you -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schwarz, before you go to the next document, please, I would like to ask a question.
Q. Witness, if you had received this report, as you have read it, you would have approved it, and concluded that the officials who conducted the executions had acted properly?
A. That I cannot say just from reading and looking at a report of this kind, but the independent duties transferred to the individual offices, and the restrictions issued to me not to carry out and not bother about executive measures would not have made possible as investigation of the individual cases.
Q. I gather from what you said, that since these executions were conducted only because of security reasons, that, therefore, they were justified?
A. If a report of the reasons of an arrest and justification thereof has been received, and, even if not only just a group of persons are being punished, but a group of these individuals are proved to be guilty of relations with partisans, and to be in active contact with such, if such matters are revealed, then - -
Q. Then the execution is justified?
A. According to the orders by the OKW and as given by the OKW people in contact with partisans, or partisans themselves, Whether volunteers or a forced partisans had to be shot if such guilt had been proved.
Q. Very well, you have justified this shooting by reading one sentence in this report, but you did not read the following sentence which contains, "The same day 22 persons among them 14 Jews who purportedly had spread Communist propaganda very recently were shot in Kauen."