That I would remember that now. ment Book II-A. page 128.
A I don't know what number it has. I can only talk about the contents. shot on 7 April 1942, because of Communist activities and connection with partisan groups.
Q You were in command on 7 April 1942, were you not? given a detailed explanation about this at the request of the President, yesterday. persons, among them fourteen Jews who had spread Communist propaganda were also shot in Kauen. That makes 44 people shot during the time you were in command for Communist activities and Communist propaganda. Can you tell the Tribunal what your reaction was when you received such reports? dangerous and therefore mass executions had to be carried out or whether measures had to be taken in individual cases. I personally was under the pressure of mass executions which were threatened. wouldn't cause any reaction on your part, is that what you are trying to say? that there must be a difference whether executions are carried out owing to certain facts as they are reported in this report or whether it means the shooting of tens of thousands of people. There is some difference, isn't there?
Q Of course there is a difference. I would like to know from you what procedure was used to find out that these people were guilty of having spread Communist propaganda. You, as commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe A, must have had a certain responsibility to see that people were not innocently killed.
A That was not the task of the commander. I have already explained that yesterday, but the commander acted independently and on his own responsibility. That is, he neither had to find out the details about each order nor did he have to ask for permission. He was alone responsible, owing to the orders given to him and the position he had been given. to Einsatzgruppe A were independent and could act independently, and you as commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe A, and the highest ranking officer, had no responsibility for what they did and no duty to act?
Q Is that correct? rences in the territory of the command district of Lithuania. Secondly concerning my executive power was limited owing to orders from Heydrich and I would never have assumed more responsibility then Heydrich had given to me.
Q Now, you have made two points. One is that these units were not units of Einsatzgruppe A; they just happened to be somewhere in the area. Please explain to the Court why it is that these reports consistantly list Einsatzgruppe A, first and underneath Einsatzgruppe A certain sub-units, showing on the face of the report that they are part of Einsatzgruppe A. different territories and therefore two districs of competency. First of all we are concerned with Einsatzgruppe A, and secondly with the civilian administration of the Reich Commissariat, Eastland, where the commanders were appointed as regular authorities.
There are two different territories therefore. very misleading because they just show Einsatzgruppe A and the units under Einsatzgruppe A. Can you explain why the reports were written in such a misleading fashion? know. Of course, the reports were compiled in Berlin. I have already explained in a document yesterday how in the list of agencies the commanders of the agencies were mentioned, and that the Einsatzgruppe was a separate agency. The same is shown in the document which was submitted this morning. There it is also revealed that there is a Commandat and there is somebody who has the power, but the document does not say that the local commanders, the SS and Police Leaders, existed. It does not say that the General Commissars were also in this list. Therefore there is no proof at the full organization but only a listing of the actual agencies. and you say you don't know why the reports in Berlin were written in such a misleading fashion, is that correct?
things down were not very exact, but it does not make any difference, the differences and the different forms did in fact exist. of Einsatzgruppe A and second as B.D.S. or commander in chief of the Security Police and the SD for Ostland or the East, is that correct?
Q The answer is yes, is it not?
Q Now, as B.D.S. or commander in chief of the Security Police and SD, were there other units, K.D.S. or commanders of the Security Police and the SD, who were subordinate to you as commander in chief? Administration, din not exist. There were no other units which belonged to this territory. There were other SS units and other police units, but they had nothing to do with me.
Q Your reports seem to be very clear. You say they are oversimplified, but they show, and you were shown this morning the photostat of one document mentioning you as Commander in Chief of the Security Police and the SD for Ostland or the East, and under you in the same section listing the commanders of the Security Police and the SD for Estonia, Latvia, White Ruthenia. It would appear from the face of these reports that these are all subunits of your high command, is that correct? previously that the organization of the SS and Police Leaders and this General Commissar who was my superior were not listed in this list. as in the case of the Einsatzgruppe where they listed kommandos under you falsely, in the case of the B.D.S. they have done the same thing and listed the K.D.S.'s under you falsely, is that correct? were mentioned and to list the whole organizational structure again.
After all it was only a communication, who was in charge of a certain command. This is of no great importance. them, as regards Jost; they are not accurate?
A Because they don't describe the entire impression or picture.
Q Then they are wrong as concerns you, is that what you are saying? because it will not give a correct impression of the organization. ing of the B.D.S. or the Commander in Chief of the Security Police and the SD, the B.D.S.s or the Commanders of the Security Police and the SD for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and White Ruthenia? and the SD.
Q Isn't it true that basically what happened there was that the Senderkommandos and Einsatzkommandos which had been under your command as Einsatzgruppe Leader became K.D.S. or Commanders of the Security Police under you as Commander in Chief of the Security Police? Isn't that basically the change organizationally which took place? it. again?
A I have explained it. I don't know how many more times I have to explain that question.
Q I am afraid it was not quite clear yesterday. Of course, if you refuse to answer the question I will proceed. about it, but I think I was very clear and explicit.
Q Then you refuse to answer it again, is that correct?
Q I asked you, you refuse to answer it again? It is a simple question. Will you please tell me, do you refuse or don't you refuse to answer it again?
THE WITNESS: I ask the President to tell me whether I have to repeat my answer to questions which have already been asked and I have replied to.
Q (By Mr. Ferencz) I didn't ask you before whether you wanted to or didn't want to answer the question. I am asking you that now for the first time, do you or don't you want to answer the question?
THE PRESIDENT: Ordinarily we find that witnesses like to talk and our great trouble is in stopping them. They would like to talk forever. It is quite refreshing to find a witness who not only wants to be brief but who even doesn't want to talk at all. Now, the Prosecution has asked you to clarify a certain point. You have stated that you have already clarified it. Then he put another question to you as to whether you decline to clarify again. If you decline, that is within your privilege. So, if you will, please answer the last question put by Mr. Ferencz, whether you now are declining to once more give the explanation which you gave before.
THE WITNESS: May I ask that the question be addressed to me again?
Q (By Mr. Ferencz) I don't mind repeating the question. As I understand the explanation you offer, I ask you is it not true that what happened organizationally was that the units, the Sonderkommandos and Einsatzkommandos, which were under you as Einsatzgruppe Leader, became K. D.S.'s or kommandos of the Security Police and SD under you as Commander in Chief of the Security Police and SD and basically that was the organizational change which took place? into two regions. This had been done months ago. There was the Army territory and the territory under civil administration, and in the Army territory, out of the old Einsatzkommandos, new kommandos were formed, and in the territory under civilian administration a completely new organization was set up which dealt with civilian administration of this territory, and set themselves up accordingly.
These were the command posts for the general districts. This was done without my assistance. This was already so when I came there. Now this went about in detail I don't know, of course, when and how individual people were a ppointed, I don't know. an Einsatzkommando under you became in charge of a K.D.S. or became the K.D.S. under you when you became the B.D.S.?
A No, that is not correct. I have explained that yesterday as well, that only in Estonia a personal union existed between the local commander there and the Kommando I-A. The reason was that here a territory under civilian administration was still operational territory. Therefore two competencies overlapped.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you pardon me, Mr. Ferencz? BY THE PRESIDENT: have, prepared on June 27th of this year. The answer would seem to be in variance to what you have just stated, and I would like to have your clarification on it. Your statement read, "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 SD (KDS) the same as those of a Chief of a Sonderkommando or Einsatzkommando, respectively."
Q Is this statement correct?
Q Now, please don't tell me about yesterday. I want to know now, this afternoon, is this statement correct.
A The statement is not sufficient. It is not explicit enough.
Q As far as it goes, is it correct? Einsatzgruppen and also for Kommandos were combatting Communists, but that these tasks varied, according to the situation in the Army territory and in the territories under civilian administration they changed and other tasks were, added to these basic tasks which existed from the very beginning and that particularly under civilian administration where the police was a regular authority there was no special unit for a special term of time. These were the tasks of the criminal police and administrative police, the tasks of establishing a district police organization and therefore the organizational picture changed and that that channel of command changed and their responsibility to Berlin changed.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, at least I got further than you do. I got him to talk. BY MR. FERENCZ: picutre. You were Chief of Einsatzgruppe A, and you became commander in chief for the Security Police and SD in the East. Sandberger was head of Sonderkommado Ia and be became commander of the Security Police and SD for Estonia. for Lithuania. became KDS for White Ruthenia, is that a correct organizational picture of people who were under you as Einsatzgruppe A Chief and then weren't there subordinate units with you as the commander in chief of the Security Police?
A No, during my time it was different. During my time, Jager was commander of the Security Police and SD in Lithuania. Whether previously he was in charge of Einsatzkommando III I don't know. I know that he was commander of the Security Police and SD in Lithuania. I also know that Strauch was commander of the Security Police and SD in White Ruthenia, because the kommandos and Einsatzkommandos had disappeared from these territories and had been moved up to the Army territories.
Q Let's take them one at a time. Perhaps you can give us the answer then.
You have already stated that you were the head of Einsatzgruppe A and the BDS, commander of the Security Police. Was it true that Sandberger was at one time commanding officer of Sonderkommando I-A and at some time he was commander of Security Police for Estonia? Einsatzkommando III and he was at one time commander of the Security Police and SD for Lithuania?
A During my time he was commander of Lithuania. Whether he previously was in command of Kommando III, I really don't know. II and he was at one time commander of the Security Police for White Ruthenia? II previously. During my time he was Commander of the Security Police and the SD in White Ruthenia.
Q You don't know whether he was or was not commander of Einsatzkommando II is that correct, or do you want to state that you do know he was not?
yesterday, in Document Book III-A, page 3, Document USSR 41. Here it reports the killing of many people, including children on the 14th of April, 1942, which was during your time, in a letter sent from the Chief of the Security Police and SD in Latvia. You have seen the document listing the Security Police and SD for Latvia under you as commander in chief of the Security Police and SD for the East. Would you please explain again or for the first time, how it is that you deny responsibility for these crimes?
A Shall I give an explanation about the document? I am repeating it. I do not know anything about the action mentioned here; I would have stopped it the same way I did in Krasnogwardeisk, where I stopped them from liquidating insane people. The document itself does not prove who carried out this action. Also it is strange that this document was found in the office of the sender and not in the office of the addressee, because it is addressed to the Registrar Office of the City of Riga and therefore should have been found there.
Q General, on this point you say you can't understand how it is that a letter sent from one office and addressed to another is found in the office from which it is supposedly sent. Isn't it the practice to keep carbon copies? I do not have here, it is supposed to be an original. remained in that office? this is a true document and you are confused by it, and, even if it were true, you don't know anything about those things, is that correct?
in Krasnogwardeisk. Did you know that that was a violation of a Hitler order?
A That I stopped It? In any case I stopped the order given at that time.
Q Tell us exactly how you did that. To whom did you speak? To whom did you give the order not to kill insane persons? fuehrer Dr, Roeder.
Q who was he?
A I beg your pardon?
Q what was his position?
Q What Kommando?
Q Was that an Army Kommando or an Einsatzkommando? What was it?
Q Was it a unit of the Army or a unit of the SS?
A No, it was a unit of the Security Police and SD. That was one of those special units which had been assigned to help the Army. Krasnogwardeisk? that these insane people should be killed because the building was requested as barracks.
Q Who had requested him to do that? Police and SD and tell them to kill people without consulting the highest officer of the Security Police and SD?
A In any case, it occurred as I have described it. Obviously this Army agency thought they had the authority to give an order to that kind of subordinate unit or else they would not have given it. was a unit of the Security Police and the SD and you were Commander in Chief of the Security Police and SD. It must have been a unit subordinated to you, is that correct? was one of these three kommandos which was in the territory of Einsatzkommando A and was active there. Police and SD and override an order of the Army, is that correct? that.
Q I am asking you about your authority. You have explained that the Army gave a unit of the Security Police and SD an order to kill people in Krasnogwardeisk; that you lifted that order and prevented those killings. Does that mean that you had authority over all units of the Security Police and SD, even to the extent of overriding an Army order? to tell this Army agency that I did not want such orders and refused to ask units to carry out such an order. It was up to the Army to tell them, whether they did not like it.
Q You say in any case you took the right. I am asking you, if you had the right by virtue of your position?
A I think it depends on what I said and did in that case; that must be the decisive matter, but in any case, the Army could have insisted on it inspite of me. The Army could have done it on their own as has been done in other cases and I could not have done anything about it and without even informing me about it. All that was possible. That depends on the circumstances.
to kill people without your consent, or over your objection? the Army order,is that correct?
AAm I responsible for that too, that I overrode my authority? I don't understand the question.
THE PRESIDENT: He is not charging you with any responsibility for it. He is merely asking you if you did override the authority of the Army. It is only a question of fact, not a question of responsibility.
THE WITNESS: Yes. complaints about you. Did the Army speak - say that they wanted that building and that you had gone over their order?
A.- I asked that I be told that if this agency insisted on that order, I asked them to inform me in that case. I would complain to the chief of the Army Group; that would have been the next step I would have taken if this Army agency, who was somehow subordinate to the Army had insisted on this. If the Chief of the Army Group had said "My unit was wrong. I revoke this." Everything would have been settled, but that never came about. One can't think of all the possibilities. That was enough for me.
Q.- Well, we'll leave the subject of your overriding the Army in Krasnogwardeisk and turn to something completely different. How many gas vans did the unit under your command have?
A.- I don't know anything about that.
Q.- If it says something in the reports about that, you'd regard it was misleading, wouldn't you?
A.- I don't know what reports are concerned.
Q.- You were the Commandant, the Commanding Officer, Commander in Chief of the Security Police and Security Service in Ostland were you not?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And you held that position on the 15th of June, 1942, is that correct?
A.- Yes.
Q.- You say you do not know anything about gas vans being part of your unit, is that correct? Let me refresh your memory.
A.- Yes.
Q.- I am going to give you a document, which is a photostatic copy of a message concerning gas vans, which state, I read from the English translation found in Document Book I, page 136. The Defense Counsel all have it. It was Prosecution Exhibit 32, Document 501-PS, page 136 of Document Book I. This document , signed by the Commandant of the Se curity Police and Security Service in Ostland by somebody else for him, which was you, states:
"A transport of jews, which has to be treated in a special way, arrives weekly at the office of the commandant of the Security Police and the Security Service of white Ruthenia."
"The three S-vans, which are there, are not sufficient for that purpose. I request assignment of another S-van (5 tons). At the same time I request the shipment of 20 gas hoses for the three S-vans on hand (2 Diamond, 1 Saurer), since the ones on hand are leaky already." Signed, "For the commandant of the Security Police and the Security Service, Ostland," which was you.
A.- That is the office.
Q.- That was your office, isn't that correct?
A.- That is the office.
Q.- Do you know anything about this?
A.- No, I have never seen this letter.
Q.- This is another illustration then of a report sent out of Berlin, or a document which we have, which is completely misleading and you don't know anything about it.
A.- Because the contents were not submitted, nor was the letter submitted to me.
Q.- Let me refresh your recollection perhaps.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we have affirmation that this is his office?
MR. FERENCZ: He has stated, Your Honor, that this is his office, Commander, or "Commandant," as it is here translated, "Of the Security Police and the Security Service, Ostland." That was your office, was it not?
THE WITNESS: Commander of the Security Police and the SD in the Ostland, yes.
Q.- Now, let me see if I can't refresh your recollection with another one of these misleading documents. I refer to page 137, the next page of Document Book I. Turn the page and there you see another top secret letter addressed to your office, Commandant of the Security Police and Security Service, Ostland, Riga, and here you see the reply to the cable which came from your office, or the letter which came from your office, and they say that the delivery of a 5-ton Saurer can be expected in the middle of next month and further on that 100 meters of hose will be supplied.
Does that remind you or does that bring to your mind
THE PRESIDENT: I don't locate that, Mr. Ferencz.
MR. FERENCZ: It is on page 137.
THE PRESIDENT: Of the English?
MR. FERENCZ: Of the English Document Book I. It is possible that the order of pages has been confused. If Your Honors like, I will come up and find it.
JUDGE DIXON: It's on page 136.
MR. FERENCZ: The pages may have been mised up, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see now.
Q. (By Mr. Ferencz): I am referring now to the reply to the top secret communication requesting additional gas vans and gas hoses and the reply which is addressed to your office during the time that you were in command states that they will deliver the gas vans, plus 100 meters of gas hose and I ask you do you now recall anything about gas vans in units under your command.
A.- The reply mentioned here, even if it has been received, was never shown to me personally or the sending out of a letter and the reply would have been treated by me in the proper manner.
Q.- Now, you are saying that you don't know anything about this, is that correct?
A.- No.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't quite understand the answer, the sending of the letter and the receipt of the reply would have been treated by me as always.
That is not clear to me. What do you mean by that?
THE WITNESS: The letter is not signed by me, and therefore was never submitted to me, because if I had seen it, I am sure that accordingding to what I have said already that I would have taken different steps and if I had received the reply and it would have been shown to me on that occasion I would have taken steps which I could not have done two or three weeks before.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know who it was that signed this letter on your behalf?
THE WITNESS: He did not sign it at my request, but is is the usual thing that the department chiefs as part of their tasks signed, "By order of", or, "At the request of"
THE PRESIDENT: I asked you if you know the person who signed in your behalf.
THE WITNESS: I know the person, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And did he have the authority to order equipment and receive equipment without conferring you, or informing you of the action?
THE WITNESS: He did not got the authority from me, nor did he discuss it with me.
THE PRESIDENT: Did he have the general authority to order equipment without your knowledge?
THE WITNESS: Within the Administration of the department of which he was in charge, he could request such things, which he thought he required for his department. This is one of those things which is not really within his normal sphere of tasks, within his department. because administration means that he had to deal with all those things.
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you if he had the authority, did he have the authority to order equipment?
yes. ter? has never been discussed. He just assumed that authority. I could not have known anything about this.
Q Then he did this without the authority of anybody? him this authority; at least, I don't know that anybody else authorized him to do this.
Q Did you learn that the van then did arrive? that an answer was received, I have never seen a gas van. received?
A No. I was not told about this, neither by my adjutant, nor by my drivers, nor anyone. BY MR. FERENCZ: pletely misleading in that it would indicate that you were connected with gas vans - in some way, at least - whereas actually you knew nothing about it. Is that correct? That's true, isn't it? inaccurate reports in that they would indicate that you as the commander of the Security Police and SD were somehow connected with the requisitioning or distribution of gas vans - whereas actually you don't know anything about it?
Q Do you know where Salaspils is?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, would you mind suspending now while we take the afternoon recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the Prosecution has no questions to the defendant Just.
DR. MAYER: ( for the defendant Steimle): Your Honor, I ask that the Tribunal grant that the defendant Steimle be excused from tomorrow morning's session, so that we can prepare his examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Steimle will be excused from attendance in Court tomorrow in accordance with the request of his counsel.
DR. MAYER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Any re-direct examination?
DR. SCHWARZ: ( for the defendant Jost): Yes, Your Honor. Prosecution referred to Document Book III-A, Document USSR-41, Exhibit 101, page 5 of the German text, page 3 in the English text. I must to the authencity of this document. It looks as if the case of this document it is a re-translation of a Russian document, a Russian document collection. I would like to have the Prosecution submit this document in its original.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, is the original available?
MR. FERENCZ: I don't know, your Honor, if the original is available. Grom the number, USSR-41, I judge to be an exhibit which was introduced before the IMT. I don't know whether our document room has the original or a photostatic copy, certified and signed by the finder of the document.
DR. SCHWARZ: Pardonme, Your Honor. I did not not the translation through the microphone. May I please ask Mr. Ferencz to repeat what he has said?
THE PRESIDENT: He is now looking for the document, or the phtostat of it.
MR. FERENZC: Your Honor, I have a photostat of the document bearing an official Russian seal. The document is in Russian and I don't find any German document the Russian photostat I have before me. However, this, as in all other document, is certified to have been captured German documents, and this was admissible before the International Military Tribunal. It has all the officials Russian seals,as well as I gather, and an International Military Tribunal number. This is the only available to us, and it is the best evidence we have on this point.
THE PRESIDENT: What you have is available to defense counsel for study, is it not?
MR. FERENCZ: Yes Your Honor. It is. This is the same exhibit as was introduced in Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Where are the originals of the documents which were presented before the IMT?
MR. FERENCZ: Those are in the archives of the IMT, but I believe that the document introduced is exactly the same as the one we have here. It is an official Russian report, and that was the document introduced before the IMT, and we have a photostat of that exhibit, exactly the same as it was introduced before the IMT.
THE PRESIDENT: But before the IMT the document itself was introduced. Here you have the photostat.
MR. FERENCZ: I believe, Your Honor, that the document itself that is, the official Russian report itself, was introduced before the IMT. And that may be available, If it is, of course, it is open to defense counsel.