THE PRESIDENT: I think this is an appropriate time to take a recess. The Tribunal will be in recess until 10 minutes past three.
(A recess was taken until 3:10)
DR. LUMMERT for defendant Blume: Your Honor, I have an objection, - a belated objection to raise, against the affidavit of the defendant Blume, Document No. NO 51545, Exhibit No. 10. I have just learned of this during the recess, when I had occasion during the recess to discuss the affidavit with the defendant Blumer. The first document book was submitted on Friday when I was no longer in the building. It was technically impossible to speak to the defendant Blume before this morning, and only now, just during the recess I learned that the defendant, Blume, when he gave the affidavit, was in a spirtitual state of mind, which made it impossible for him to give a valid and good affidavit.
JUDGE MUSMANO: Couusel when your Client takes the stand he will have full opportunity to explain the circumstances under which he gave the affidavit.
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, at the moment I would just like to reserve the right to make a formal objection against this affidavit, not against the contents - merely a formal objection, and I would just like to reserve this right at the moment.
JUDGE MUSMANO: The Court will show that you made an objection, and your right to a further objection is reserved to you and to your client.
DR. LUMMERT: I would just like to give this reason. The defendant, Blume,--
JUDGE MUSMANO: It is not necessary to go into the reasons. You will have an adequate opportunity.
DR. LUMMERT: Thank you, you Honor.
Court No. II-A, Case No. 9.
DR. HEIM: Dr. Heim for the Defendant Blobel. If Your Honors please, permit me to make the following statement belatedly. On the 11th of August I was allowed to present the Witness Hennige for the Defendant Blobel. Hennige, about two weeks later, was delivered to the Court prison. Repeated requests to the Prosecution to let me examine Hennige as my witness were refused, giving the reason that Hennige, since May, 1947--that is long before the charges were made-was named as a Prosecution witness. The Prosecution informed me that I can speak to the witness Hennige from the 17th of September on. I ask the Court to make a ruling to the effect that the Witness Hennige, who has been granted to me, can be examined by me without the presence of a commissioner, since Hennige is both a Prosecution and a Defense witness. Up to this time I have had only the opportunity to speak to this witness in the presence of a commissioner.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: These motions of defense by Dr. Heim were before the Tribunal, as far as I can remember, about ten days or seven days ago, I have answered these motions on behalf of the Prosecution. I do not think it is necessary that this question be taken up in open court again. The Tribunal has the motions of the defense counsel before it, and the Tribunal has the answers of the Prosecution before it, and the Tribunal will decide on it.
THE PRESIDENT: We will give you a decision on that tomorrow morning.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The name of the witness is Hennige? I mean the witness in the case.
DR. HEIM: Hennige.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I have a further question to bring up here. On the 17th of August I made a motion to interrogate the witness Court No. II-A, Case No. 9.Kraege who is in prison here, and I made a motion to grant this witness as my witness.
Repeated motions were refused, with the reason that Kraege was being examined by the Prosecution at the time, and that from the first of September on he would be at my disposal. On the 28th of August the Prosecution, without informing the defense, took this witness back to Dachau. My motion to bring this witness back to the Court prison in Nurnberg has not been answered so far. I ask Your Honors to tell the Prosecution to return this witness to the Nurnberg Prison.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, by regretable mistake the witness Kraege was sent out to Dachau as we did not need him any more. But we wrote immediately a letter to the Defense Information Center, giving the information that the witness was sent by mistake out of Dachau and asking Captain Rise, who was in charge of the Defense Information Center, to inform the defense counsel that if he should desire the present of the Witness Kraege we have no objections against that. I do not think that the Prosecution has the duty to get witnesses for the defense here. If the defense counsel makes a normal application for the summons of the witness here, the witness will be brought to Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: We must not make a distinction between Prosecution and defense when it comes to the matter of obtaining a witness. We are seeking to get the truth in this case, and if defense counsel asks the Prosecution for assistance to obtain a witness, the Prosecution must give every aid to the defense. I will make no distinction between witnesses, A witness is supposed to be impartial and neutral and not be for one side or the other. Of course each side has to take the initiative in obtaining the witness. Now, I'm glad that you have made this effort to have this man brought back, and I will appreciate your following it up to see that he does get here so that the defense may have him as their witness.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: I do not know-- Your Honor, I certainly will make every effort. I can recollect just now that the defense Court No. II-A, Case No. 9.counsel, after Kraege was sent out, filed a request, an application, for the summons of the witness Kraege; but if they did so the witness would be brought automatically to Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. GLANCY: If it please the Tribunal, this time I wish, with Your Honors' permission, to offer the documents into evidence which are assembled in Document Books II-A, II-B, II-C, and II-D. These documents are offered in support of the allegations contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Glancy, so that I may be certain about the numbering, do I understand that from No. I you go to II-A? There is no No. II as such?
MR. GLANCY: No sir, there is not.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. GLANCY: These reports contained herein contain the details of the crimes which are particularized in the paragraphs of the Indictment, which I have previously mentioned. I shall not quote from these documents which will be analyzed and discussed by the Prosecution at a later time when we shall treat the responsibility of the individual defendants here in the dock. I wish at this time to offer these documents into evidence with the understanding that the Prosecution will refer to them in detail at the appropriate time. The operational situation reports assembled in Document Books II-A, II-B, II-C, and II-D give a clear picture of the types of crimes with which the defendants are charged. With the permission of the Tribunal I shall proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
MR. GLANCY: I offer Document L-180 as Prosecution Exhibit 34. This is a Stahlecker report of activities of Einsatzgruppe A up to the 15th of October 194l.
I offer Document NO-2940 as Prosecution Exhibit 35. This is a report dated 6 of July 1941.
Court No. II-A, Case No. 9.
I offer Document 2273-PS as Prosecution Exhibit 36. This is a report of Einsatzgruppe A.
I offer NO-2935 as Prosecution Exhibit 37. This is a report dated the 7th of July 1941.
I offer Document NO-3155 as Prosecution Exhibit No. 38. This is a report dated the 12th of October 1941. report dated 1 December 1941.
I offer Document NO-2829--this is No. 2-8-2-9--as Prosecution Exhibit No. 41.
I offer Document NO-3405 as Prosecution Exhibit 42. This is a report dated 16 January 191+2.
I offer Document NO-3257 as Prosecution Exhibit 43. This is a report dated the 5th of January 1941.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Dr. Aschenauer for the Defendant Ohlendorf. Your Honor, may I express my basic misgivings about this type of presentation? I do not know whether in this type of presentation, in which one merely mentions document and exhibit numbers, the basic principle of the proceedings are preserved. It is impossible that during this time the defense has the time to test and examine these documents to see whether any objections should be made against them. It is out of the question to keep up with this type of presentation. It is impossible to raise any objections to the effect, whether this document is admissible or authentic or relevant. It is impossible to examine whether the document is signed correctly, from where it comes, from whom it comes, etc.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know, Dr. Aschenauer, whether you have been counsel in any of the other cases tried in the Palace of Justice here, but we have tried various systems with regard to the introduction of documents, and we have reached the conclusion that this is the most logical and the most expeditious manner of disposing of documents.
Court No. II-A, Case No. 9.
When they are read in open court a great deal of time is taken, and much of the contents is lost anyway, and the Tribunal must read the documents anyway, so that we are merely wasting time in reading in open court what the Tribunal must analyze and study with a great deal of detail later on. Now, what the Tribunal can do and what the defense counsel can do: We have just now terminated a case in which this procedure was followed. An exhibit number is given to the document and then the defense counsel at his leisure, as the Tribunal must also do at Court hours, study the documents. You will have ample opportunity to make every objection that the document suggests as to authenticity, as to relevancy, as to possible errors in translation. Any objection which you may make now can be made later. Otherwise, it would be an interminable procedure, and it wouldn't help the Prosecution nor the defense. And I assure you that it is only because we have tried out the other systems that we have now come to accept this system, and I think later you will be satisfied that all your rights will be protected.
MR. GLANCY: The Prosecution wishes to advise defense counsel at this time, Sir, that the reason we have chosen this method is to avoid constant repetition. At a later time when we go into the individual responsibility of the defendants, we shall refer to these again. The defense's wishes to object will not be prevented in the slightest by this procedure.
THE PRESIDENT: (To DR. KOESSL) Do you wish to present something?
DR. KOESSL (For the defendant Schubert): Your Honor, after what I have just heard, I believe it would be even better to submit the document in such a manner that the Prosecution say those documents in Book III-A, for example, will be Exhibits 40 to 60. In this manner, all document books could be submitted within a quarter of an hour, and we could then take up the three days in which we can read these documents and really study them.
THE PRESIDENT: But you seem to overlook the fact that each document must become an exhibit, and must receive an exhibit number, and that is what we are doing now. And if he gives a merely inclusive number for a document book, then you would not have the exhibit number to each document,
DR. KOESSL: I don't mean it that way, your Honor. I see,-for example, here, 23 documents, and according to those, one merely gives those documents the numbers 34 to 57. That is my proposition-
THE PRESIDENT: Well, your proposition is not well taken because there may be some documents he does not want to introduce.
MR. GLANCY: If it please the Tribunal, I will now proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
MR. GLANCY: I offer Document NO-2933 as Prosecution Exhibit 44. This is a report dated 16 July 1941. This is a report dated 2 February 1942. This is a report dated 19 September 1941. August 1941, as Prosecution Exhibit 47.
COURT II-A CASE IX This is a report dated 17 October 1941. This is a report dated 7 November 1941. This is a report dated 21 November 1941. This is a report dated 12 January 1942. This is a report dated 6 February 1942. This is a report dated 9 March 1942. This is a report dated 23 March 1942. This is a report dated 17 April 1942. Document NO-3277 as Prosecution Exhibit 56. This, again, is a report dated 24 April 1942. Book II-B. Prosecution Exhibit 57. This is a report dated 13 July 1941. a report dated 29 August 1941. It is a report dated 9 October 1941. It is a report dated 9 October 1941. This is a report dated 4 September 1941. a report dated 19 December 1941.
COURT II-A CASE IX a report dated 26 October 1941. a report dated 23 September 1941. a report dated 25 October 1941. a report dated 21 April 1942. Document NO-2993 as Prosecution Exhibit 67.
In Document Book II-C: This is a report dated 3 November 1941. This is a report dated 29 July to 14 August 1941. a report dated 12 July 1941. a report dated 29 July 1941. a report dated 12 November 1941. a report dated 17 September 1941. a report dated 8 December 1941. a report dated 20 October 1941. a report dated 3 October 1941. a report dated 28 September 1941.
COURT II-A CASE IX report dated 11 July 1941. report dated 19 November 1941. report dated 6 March 1942. report dated 25 September 1941. report dated 9 August 1941. Document NO-3153 as Prosecution Exhibit 83, a report dated 12 September 1941.
Court No. 2-A, Case No. 9 Exhibit 84, a report No. 190, dated 8 April 1942.
dated 5 November 1941. 145, dated 12 September 1941. 150, dated 2 January 1942. 157, dated 19 January 1942. 45, dated 7 August 1941.
I offer Document NO-2950 as Prosecution Exhibit 90, Report No. 40, dated 1 August 1941.
I offer Document NO-4135 as Prosecution Exhibit 91, Report No. 22, dated 15 July 1941. Einsatzkommando 10-B to Army Group South. 170, dated 23 August 1941.
I wish to correct the record, your Honor. That is, the report No. 170 dated 18 February 1942, Document NO-3339, Prosecution Exhibit 93. 61, dated 23 August 1941. 89, dated 20 September 1941. 95, dated 26 September 1941.
I offer Document NO*3406-A as Prosecution Exhibit 97, Report No. 117, dated 18 October 1941.
Court No. 2-A, Case No. 9 2-C and 2-D. proceed with the case against those defendants who were members of Einsatzgruppe A. I shall refer first to Document NO-2890 which has been previously introduced as Prosecution Exhibit No. 5 and which may be found in Document Book I on page 20.
This is the affidavit of the defendant Ohlendorf. In paragraph 3 there were four Einsatzgruppen formed at the beginning of the Russian campaign and they were denominated Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D. Further he states in the same paragraph that the area of operations for which Einsatzgruppe A was responsible was from the center of Latvia, Lithuania and Esthonia towards the East. Book I and which has previously been introduced as Prosecution Exhibit No. 7. document which enumerates the Commando which formed Einsatzgruppe A and their various locutions.
COURT II-A CASE 9 III, one of the four commandos of this Einstazgruppe. Here we see the towns there as well as their location at White Ruthenia, In addition to Latvia, Lithuania. Esthonia, White Ruthenia was also a part of the territory for which Einsatzgruppe A was responsible. Reports that we shall introduce at a later time will also substantiate this. From this part of this document we may also see that Einsatzgruppe A was composed of the four commandos previously mentioned. These four commandos were identified as Sonderkommandos 1A and 1b,and Sonderkommandos 2 and 3. The Mission of the Sonderkommandos of the Einsatzgruppen and the reasons for and the purpose of these units has been clearly explained by evidence previously introduced and therefore, I shall at this time concern myself with the case against the defendant JOST. Document Book 3-A. I offer this as Prosecution Exhibit 98. This is the SS personnel record of the defendant Brigadefuehrer General Heinz Jost. On page 7 we see a curriculum vitae of the defendant General Jost in his own words:
"I was born on 9 July 1904 in Holzhausen, district Kirchheim, the son of the pharmacist Heinrich Jost and his wife Clara, nee Dinges. From 1911 till 1914 I attended the grammar school in Lorsch (Hessen), following I attended the Senior High School (Gymnasium) in Densheim until the Final examination in 1923. Following that I Studied Jurisprudence in Giessen and Munich; passed the first examination in May 1927. My time of preparation as legal clerk I spent at the local court in Lorsch, the district court, and labor court in Darmstadt, the district office in Bensheim and with an attorney in Worms. After passing the COURT II-A CASE 9 bar examination in the fall of 1930, I settled down in March 1931 in Lorsch as attorney.
In March 1933 I became Police Director-in Worms, following that in Giessen until April 1934. After rather long assignment at the Reich Leitung of the DAF. After rather long assignment at the Leitung of the DAF, I was taken into the SD on a full-time basis, and today I hold there the office of an Amtschef. membership number 75,946. I worked in the Party as Local Gruppen Leader, District Propagandist, and Organization Leader, as Speaker, and SA Fuehrer until I was taken over Into the SS." Book 3-A. This will be Prosecution Exhibit 99. This is the affidavit of the defendant Jost. Here he admits he took command of Einsatzgruppe A at the end of March 1942 and remained in command until the end of August, 1943. In his own words, he says, "From the end of March until the end of August or the beginning of September 1942 I was assigned with the execution of the official business of the Einsatzgruppe A and all affairs of the commander for the East-land, Ostland, During this time I took over the office of the Einsatzgruppe A." Einsatzgruppe A Just was also know by the title of "BdS Ostland". This denomination, I wish to add, involved no change of function of the defendant Jost.
Jost himself recently explains his position and titles on page two of this document where he states - this is paragraph 6 on page 2 of Document Book 3-A. On page 3 of the German Document Book:
COURT II-A CASE 9 also commander-in-chief of the Security Police and SD in East land (BdS Ostland). Headquarters for the Einsatzgruppe A was located in KRASNOCWARDEISK, whilst headquarters for the commander-in-chief-for the Security Police and SD East land was located in RIGA. On the whole the duties of a commander-in-chief of the Security Police and SD were the same as those of a chief of an Einsatzgruppe, and the duties of a commander of the Security Police and DS (KdS) the same as those of a chief of a Sonderkommando or Einsatzkommando respectively, The difference in these names can be explained by the fact that a commander-in-chief or a commander of the Security Police and SD was subject to civilian administration and received his orders from the higher SS and Police Leader or SS and Police Leader respectively, whilst the Einsatzgruppen and Kommandos received their orders from the Chief of the Security Police and SD on the one hand, or from locally superior Wehrmacht offices on the other hand, After this district had been declared an area of civilian administration all Einsatz units were changed into units of the commander-in-chief or commander of the Security police and SD. There was no basic change of duties." which I introduce as Prosecution Exhibit 100, found on page 66 of Document Book 3-A, page 92 of the German Document Book. Here we see under the heading of rather next to Einsatzgruppe A that Jost was designated as the commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe A and that his subordinate commander had the title of KdS. We see from these documents that the only difference that existed was that from the change of command, in either case directives were funneled through COURT II-A CASE 9 Jost who issued orders to a subordinate.
From Document NO-3256 we also see that the defendant Sandberger was the KdS in Esthonia. Lange, whose present whereabouts is unknown, was the KdS in Latvia, the defendant Strauch was the KdS in white Ruthenia and that Jaeger, who is also presently at large, was the KdS in Lithunania. At this time the area was under the brilliant administration of subordinates of the defendant Jost, as the BdS Ostland and commander of Einsatzgruppe A. which has been previously described and Jost participated in the furtherance of the static plans for the extermination or liquidation of Russian Jews. Reports which I shall introduce, were phoned and dispatched by the defendant Jost, as will be seen later. In support of this I offer Document USSR-41 as Prosecution Exhibit 101. It may be found on page 3 of Document Book 3-A.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Glancy, when you are referring to a document please give us first the document book; then the page. When you give us the page number then we don't know which book is being referred to.
MR. GLANCY: I will follow that, sir, thank you. In the German copy it's page 5. This is the findings of the Russian Extra-ordinary State Commission for the Investigation of War Crimes. Here are reported letters-excerpts of letters-by SS-Sturmbamufuehrer Kirchstein. It emanates from the office of the Chief of the Security Police and SD. It's marked as will be noted "secret." In one of those letters dated 28 May 1942 it is reported that on 14 April 1943, 243 patients of a mental hospital died. The finding of the Commission certifying to the fact that these patients were murdered by the forces of the Security COURT II-A CASE 9 Police and SD.
These forces were under the command of the defendant Jost. Book 2-A on page 133. This was previously introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 56. This is the Operational Situation port of the Einsatzgruppe No. 195 dated 24 April 1942. I wish to call the attention of the Tribunal there's a typographical error in my copy of the document, it's dated here 24 April 1947. I can assure the Tribunal that's merely a typographical error. The original is 1942. Under the heading or "Einsatzgruppe A", location KRASNOVADAI it's reported:
"Within the period of the report a total of 1272 persons were executed, 983 Of them Jews who had infectious diseases or were so old and infirm that they could not be any more used for work, 71 gypsies, 204 communists and 14 more Jews who had been guilty of different offenses and crimes." It's interesting to note that in addition to those murders for no reason other than that they were part of a group of these unfortunates, that it was the basic mission of the Einsatzgruppen that they had to be exterminated. Thats clearly shown by stating that others whom they murdered were guilty of various misdeeds and crimes. 128 of Document Book 2-A also introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 55. This is the Operational Situation Report No. 193, dated 17 April 1942, under the heading "Lithuania" which as has been shown was under the command of the defendant Jost, we see that it is reported:
"In Olita 22 people were shot on 7 April 1912 because or Communist activities and connections with partisan groups. Russian stick grenades and explosives were found COURT II-A CASE 9 on several of the Communists and were secured.
The same day 22 persons, among them 14 Jews, who purportedly had spread communist propaganda very recently, were shot in Kauen." contained in the indictment under Count III I refer again to Document NO-2896, found on page 4 of Document Book 3-A which was introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 98. Here it is seen that the defendant Jost joined the NSDAP on 1 February 1928 and received the party number of 75946. On page 6 it is noted that he joined the SS in July of 1934 with the SS number of 36243. It is noted on page 7 that he was a member of the SD as a Section Chief. Through Periodical promotions he rose to the rank of Brigadier General in the SS. This concludes the prosecution's case in chief against the defendant Heinz Jost.
Noting the time, your Honor, it's ten after four. Does the Tribunal wish that we proceed against the defendant Sandberger or wait until our session tomorrow morning?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have quite a bit of time we can use in some way.
MR. GLANCY: In the case against the defendant Sandberger I offer Document NO-2891, found on page 73 of Document Book 3-A as Prosecution Exhibit 102. This is the affidavit of the defendant Sandberger. In this document he states that he joined Einsatzgruppe A in June of 1941 at which time the area fell under the control of the civilian administration and Sandberger assumed the duties of KdS in and Pretzsch Elbe. He retained this position until late in 1943. *---* *---* This is offered to (mintelligible) of the COURT II-A CASE 9 Regeierungsrat Dr. Sandburger at present in Riga.
"I herewith appoint you, effective innediately, commander of the Security Police and the SD for the Generalbezirk Estonia of the Reich, Commissariat Ostland, office in Reval." 31 of Document L-180 which may be found on page 11 of Document Book 2-A and which has been previously introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 34.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Glancy, may I make another suggestion?
MR. GLANCY: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You give us the references in diametrically reverse order. You give us the smallest order and then higher and higher until we got to the top. We don't know where you are. Give us the Document Book, the page number, then the document number and then the paragraph number.
MR. GLANCY: Thank you, your Honor. I will rectify that.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it will be simpler that way.