Steimle was the successor of the defendant Blume, as the leader of Sonderkommando 7-a, and in this affidavit he states that the defendant Blume, in White Ruthenia, apart from combatting partisans also had Jews executed, and that from June until September 1941 he -was in charge of Sonderkommando 7a.
Q. (By Dr. Lummbert) Witness, what do you have to say to this?
A. As far as the shooting of Jews is concerned, the affidavit is true because on the order of Nebe I carried out a Jewish operation in Witebsk. I have already given testimony as far as this is concerned. It is incorrect, however, insofar as concerns the time, the period September, because I gave up the command of Sonderkommando 7-a on the 16th or 17th of August. I turned it over to Foltes. Steimle chose September as indicating the exact date, evidently because he himself was entrusted with the command of Sonderkommando 7-a in September 1941. I myself would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to two other points in the affidavit of the defendant Steimle. First of all, in Document III-B, page 41, in the center. There Steimle says, concerning Blume, I quote:
"Character soft and bureaucratic." Furthermore, I would like to note in the following affidavit, NO-4458 , the same Document Book, III-B, page 44, at the bottom of the page, -I would like, as I say, the Tribunal to note this sentence in which Steimle reports that Nebe told him in October 1941 that the Special Kommando 7a until then had not shot any women and children, but the soft and bureaucractic character" of the defendant Blume means that the defendant Blume tried to avoid, actually avoided, these executions, and that he basically refused to shoot women or children, I shall examine the defendant Steimle in addition to this when he is in the witness stand. page 44, at the bottom.
I now come to the defendant Blume's own affidavit, which is in Document Book I of the Prosecution, in the English it is page 37, in the German page 43, Document No. NO-4145, Exhibit No. 7. This is Document Book I, page 37.
The Prosecution has this affidavit in the English transcript, pages 151 to 152, and in the German pages 157 to 158. The Prosecution says there that this affidavit concerning the executions contains those points which the defendant Blume could not deny. The affidavit is dated 29 June 1947.
Q. (By Dr. Lummert) Witness, may I ask you first... When were you examined? when did Mr. Wartenberg take down the affidavit... Was it on the 28th or 29th of June?
A. On the 28th of June. That was the day before I signed the document.
Q. Witness, Mr. Wartenberg answered my questions explicitly, during the cross examination, that the interrogation was on the 29th of June. Which is the correct date? Perhaps you can give us some details, how your interrogation took place, and how it came about?
A. On the 15th May 1946 I was released from an interment camp as a prisoner of war. Under my right name, I stayed in Bielefeld or in the vicinity approximately one year, and worked on a farm with a farmer. On the 24th of June 1947 I was arrested and I was taken to a prisoner camp, Eselheide, and from there two days later I came to Nuernberg.
Q. Witness, may I interrupt you, and may I ask you... Is it correct that after your arrest in Detmold, and upon your interrogation there you were, as one says, ill-treated and brutally beaten?
A. Yes, that is quite correct. I was beaten by the interrogator in the region of my kidneys, and on the back of my head, and my face, so that I bled, and the traces of it were visible for days.
Q. Is it correct that you tried to commit suicide on two occasions at Eselheide? Did you do that because you felt guilty, or for what other reason?
A. I did not try to commit suicide because I felt guilty, but because my pride had been hurt during the interrogation. If I could have beaten back while I was interrogated probably I would have been shot, because while the interrogator boat me two others held two pistols pointed in my direction.
I did not dare to hit back, because I have five children. But in thinking about this, and the fact that I did not resist when I was ill-treated, and that ill-treatment would probably continue when I was interrogated again-- these thoughts, as I say, I found so unbearable when I was in Eselheide that I decided I would commit suicide. For that purpose I used my bandages, but the bandages tore and therefore the attempts failed.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Where was this? Where did this interrogation take place? Where?
Q When did it occur?
Q What year?
Q And who was it that beat you?
A The interrogator. I was under the impression that it was the authoritative interrogator because he was the man who signed the records.
Q What nationality was he?
Q Was he an officer?
Q Do you know his name? because his name appears in the record of the interrogation.
Q You say he beat you over the kidneys?
Q With what did he strike you?
Q And is that the only place he hit you, in the kidneys? face. He stopped when I began to bleed.
Q Were these very severe cuts on your face?
A My lip opened, it broke open, and I had a wound. It was not severe.
Q Where were you bandaged? What part of your body was bandaged?
A No bandages were necessary. It was only my lip that had burst.
with your bandages.
A No, that is a mistake your Honor. They were bandages for my legs. Leggings.
Q Oh, leggings! I understand. You say two men stood by with a pistol at your head?
A Yes, your Honor; one was in uniform and one was wearing a civilian suit. One was sitting, and the other was standing. while the third struck you with his fists?
Q What were they trying to have you say? during this interrogation I had told the truth, and I said that I had been an officer in the Security Police. That, apparently they had not known until then. In any case, this report caused the perpetrator to beat me and to maltreat me. The interrogation then was over. The man who maltreated me only arrived after the interrogation was over. told your story, then this person who was not even there when the interrogation took place struck you with his fists?
A Yes. This ill treatment had no influence on my statements in my statements in my testimony at this time. against you?
A In any case it happened, I don't know in detail what the reasons for it were. But it must have been -
Q You weren't beaten very badly, were you?
head. I felt it. as the blows landed?
Q Well, you didn't feel any pain after the pummeling had ceased? not been so badly beaten that I could not actually walk, or that I could not answer questions. isn't that about what it was?
A Yes; there was no reason for the wrath
Q I am not trying to justify it, witness ... I am only trying to get at the facts. The reason you tell us this man gave you a punch or two was because he was angry at you. Isn't that what it was? or hatred?
Q You really didn't feel any ill effects of it after the actual striking? You didn't feel any ill affects after it was over, did you?
A Not of a special kind. The general pain one feels... so far as the results were concerned, to permanently disable you?
Q You didn't have to have any medical treatment, did you?
A No. In the camp at Eselheide I immediately reported to the doctor in order to inform him about it, and to show him the burst lip.
Q And did he treat you? happened to you, and made that the basis for a suicide attempt, didn't you? that the psychological pain of the situation moved me very much. and you having been a soldier all those years -- that because of this temporary humiliation in the hands of an enemy that you wanted to commit suicide?
A Your Honor, it was not only one or two blows; it took quite some time.
Q Well, whatever they were, they weren't bad enough to cause you to be hospitalized, or to receive any medical treatment. Now, do you want to tell us that you, a bigstrapping follow who had been through a war, had fought, and encountered all kinds of difficulties, would want to commit suicide just because someone struck you with his fists this ill-treatment, after the interrogation; I was, of course overwhelmed by the fact that when questions were asked as to names of comrades, and I thought that I would be thus put into a forced situation, and I was, afraid of all this. some information which might implicate your comrades. Is that what I understand?
A Yes; I thought I would not be hard enough, perhaps, to bear it in the long run .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
( A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session. BY DR. LUMMERT: attempt to commit suicide and I now ask you were the marks of this attempted suicide still obvious when Mr. Wartenberg interrogated you here in Nuernberg on 28 June? neck which the prison physician saw too. Mr. Wartenberg. Is it correct, in particular, that you would have had to agree to the executions mentioned by you?
A No, that is not correct. At the time I explained to Mr. Wartenberg voluntarily in reply to his questions and without any duress, approximately the same about the executions as I have testified here on the witness stand. He did not make any remonstrations to me which would have caused me to make a confession. The two executions of Minsk and Vitebsk I mentioned on my own accord and have testified this was carried out because of the direct orders and the insistence of Nebe. Herr Wartenberg took this into the record in shorthand. That was on the 28th of June and the following day he came to me with a prepared affidavit and asked me to sign it. When reading through it I found that the affidavit contained mistakes and most of all that they had left out all of that which I had mentioned upon my discharge, in particular, Nebe's orders. When I objected to this Herr Wartenberg told me he had no time to make these additions, I could make a written statement and give to him and state in that written statement everything I wanted to add. For that reason I only confirmed or corrected those things in the prepared, affidavit that was absolutely necessary in order to avoid gross mistakes and the same day, on 29 June, I wrote a letter to Herr Wartenberg and gave it to the guard with the request to put it into the prison box.
DR. LUMMERT: In this connection I ask to be allowed to offer Document Blume VIII. It is Document Book I, page 91, It is a draft of the letter which the witness just mentioned, and which he wrote to Mr. Wartenburg at the time. It is page 91.
Q. Witness, I submit to you the original draft of this letter. Is this the draft of the letter which you wrote to Herr Wartenberg?
A. Yes, at the time I just made a draft of this letter, and tins is the draft, I then wrote the proper letter and gave it to the guard with the request to forward the letter. On the draft which, retained I mentioned at the bottom, "Have had it mailed today by the guard in the prison."
Q. Did you hear anything further about it as a result?
A. No, I didn't hear anything from Mr. Wartenberg.
Q. Why did you not remind him?
A. At the time as a result of my attempted suicide which had not succeeded I was in a state of not caring.
THE PRESIDENT: You quoted Document I, Did you mean your own Document Book I.
DR. LUMMERT: Yes, page 91. BY DR. LUMMERT:
Q. Witness, please repeat the reply?
A. At this time as a result of my suicide attempt which had not succeeded, I was in a state of not caring. A few days later I received the first indictment, dated 3 July, and soon after that I had my first discussion with you, as my defense counsel. At the time until 10 July I told you about it all, and handed you a draft of my letter to Mr. Wartenberg.
Q. Yes, that is right.
DR. LUMMERT: May I mention that I want to introduce this COURT II CASE IX draft of the letter as evidence, because in it the defendant Blume already made the exact statements which he has testified to here on the witness stand.
It will not be necessary for me to read the letter into the record -- But I ask the Tribunal -- he wanted me to translate not "asked" but he wants "Request the Tribunal" in that the translation was not correct. I request the Tribunal to consider the letter in the case of the defendant Blume, and may I mention the following: When I asked Mr. Wartenberg during his cross examination at my request the Tribunal asked him to find out whether the original of the letter of the defendant Blume of 29 June perhaps might not be with the Prosecution after all, and I was to be informed about it. This is in the English Transcript, page 352, in the German page 354, and the reply has apparently been omitted by mistake. I would, therefore, like to ask the Prosecution to reply to this within the next few days if it is possible for them to do so. I now come to the last part of this second main section, other section.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lummert, I see no reason why the Prosecution should have a couple days to reply. Let them reply immediately, they should be able to, whether they ever received the original of that letter.
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, may I add that at the time Mr. Wartenberg had then a folder before him on the witness stand in which the shorthand minutes of 28th or 29th of June was contained, and, also minutes which were probably taken in Detmolt. He said at the time that he had no other documents, and for that reason I requested at the time to look in the other documents of the Prosecution to see whether this letter might be among them.
DR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, I do have a typewritten copy of the letter under discussion. I have not found anywhere the COURT II CASE IX original of it.
I don't know whether it was in Mr. Wartenberg's file, or whether it is in the document room here in the building. It may be In the original document room. However, I do have a typewritten copy of it, but I have no objection at all to defense counsel introducing it in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. LUMMERT: Therefore, it leaves no doubt that the letter of the defendant -- with this the statement of Mr. Ferencz it leaves no doubt that this letter of the defendant Blume of 29 June was received by the Prosecution, because this copy can only have been made iron the original. Mr. Wartenberg could not remember at the time to have received that letter. I now come to the last section of the second main portion in the examination of the defendant Blume. These few questions concern the defendant Blume, how he judged the Fuehrer Order concerning the shootings in the year of 1941, whether he considered it to be right or wrong, and what consequences he thought it would have in his opinion at the time. Witness, before I ask you about this in detail, please note the following: I am not asking you for your to-days opinion about the Fuehrer Order, but I am submitting to you purely witnesses questions, that is, questions about the facts at the time, which you are to answer to the best of your knowledge and belief as far as you remember. I therefore, ash you for the moment to forget everything that has happened since the bummer of 1941, and which might perhaps prevent you in some way to testify on this point. Please forget, therefore, completely that at a later period American and English airplanes destroyed the German Main cities, and hundreds and thousands of German women and children were killed. Please forget the atom bomb and its results.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, I must object to, this type of question by the defense counsel; the atom bomb, and bombing of German cities are well known, there is no necessity of putting it in the form of a question for the witness. It is obviously being mentioned for the sole purposes of prejudicting either the answer, or the Court, and has no relevency in this case.
DR. LUMMERT: I may reply something to this. Other Defendants, I remember one case at least replied to this question that they were not willing to testify because those things happened later. For that reason I would like to have a reply from the witness, and, I, therefore, ask that he imagine himself back in the year of 1941. I, therefore, ask the witness -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment.
DR. LUMMERT: -- to imagine -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Just a moment, please.
DR. LUMMERT: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: In the first place you asked the witness to become a superman and to perform magic, you asked him to forget what happened since 1941. How you know as an educated person that it is absolutely impossible. If I tell you to forget what happened yesterday, with all the willpower in the world you can not forget, what is engraved upon the mind, remains there. If anything is forgotten, it is forgotten because of the natural evolution of time, but you can not by ordering a man have him forget something which is already there, so that question is absolutely without any meaning or sense. Now if you want him to say or describe what happened in 1941, then ask him: "what happened in 1941?" but don't tell him to tear up the calendar, and the almanac, because the archives of the memory can not be destroyed.
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, I beg your pardon. I probably COURT II CASE IX did not express my intentions very well, I merely asked the witness about things he thought at the time in 1941.
BY DR. LUMMERT:
Q. Witness, when at the end of June and July, 1941, you moved to Russia with your Sonderkommando-VII-A; did you at the time consider the Fuehrer Order concerning the destruction and elimination of Eastern Jews in the Southern Territory -to be right or wrong, and, what personal conclusions did you draw from this?
A. If I try to imagine myself back completely into the year of 1941, I must stop for a moment to mention Streckenbach's announcement to us about the Fuehrer's Order in Pretsch. I already testified last Friday that on that day my feelings and thoughts conflicted, and that finally I tried to find a way out by asking Streckenbach to put me in charge of a small Sonderkommando. I need not repeat my testimony on this in detail. If you now ask me whether I considered the Fuehrer Order right or wrong at the time, I must say that at the time I did not concentrate my thoughts on the three words, that is, "right or wrong," but according to my opinion at the time the Supreme German leadership was responsible for this order, and particularly concerning the laws of war, and International Law: Insofar at the time I did not allow myself any criticism on the order, but I merely said to myself that the Supreme German leadership would have considered every pro and con of such an important order, and they could judge the situation better than I could in my inferior Sonderkommando position: insofar as this was an order of the State, that is, of the Supreme Commander of the State, and as the Supreme Command of the State was beyond good or Evil for me. On the other hand it seemed cruel and impossible for me from a human point of view, simply to shoot defenseless people, and en masse, and I followed my inner-voice when I COURT II CASE IX tried at the time not to carry out this order personally if possible, and thus personally and with human sense I rejected the order at the time.
I considered the order wrong in the sense, not in this sense, even as concerned men of military age, and most of all concerning the shooting of women and children. Owing to this view I carried out this order only in one occasion, namely, in Witebsk, when Nebe forced me to do this through his immediate order.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. I didn't quite understand the witness' statement that he thought that the execution order was wrong insofar as it applied to men of military age, and women and children. Did I understand that correctly?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I said that in my personal opinion I didn't consider the order to be right, also not as far as it concerned men of military age, and, in particular, concerning women and children.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, did you think it was all right for those who were not of military age?
A. No. In particular not so: I said that owing to this, my inner-conviction, I only carried out this order on one occasion, namely, in Witebsk, when Nebe ordered me through his immediate order to do this, and at the time I limited the shooting to men of military age. I have already testified to all of this previously. When I said previously that this order, as an order of a Supreme Commander of the State, was beyond good and evil for me. I must add a word about my personal relation to the leader, Adolf Hitler, I must confess that I believed in the Fuehrer to such a degree as one could possibly believe in a person. I considered him to be a great, intelligent man; as a political leader of Germany he had overcome the terrible crisis of the year of 1932. He had done away with unemployment, and had established a wonderful order in Germany. He had joined Austria and the Sudetanland with Germany, and these were not invasions, as I know myself that more than 95% the Austrians and the people from the Sudetenland were enthusiastic about it, to be accepted into the Union of German Reich. After all, war until then had led to success only and, in particular in the middle of 1941, at the time the order was given, Hitler was at the height of his power. sidered unavoidable for many years. When in June 1941, it was made known in Germany that beyond the Soviet Border large armies had been marched up, and that a German attack was only to be first before the Russians attacked us, I considered the war against the Soviet Russia quite justified, and, of course, naturally also wanted the German victory over Bolshevism.
According to all I had heard about Soviet Russia in previous years, and particularly when interrogating people who returned from Russia, I was also fully convinced and am so even now, that Jewery in Soviet Russia played an important part, and still does play an important part, and it has the especial support of Bolshevitic dictatorship, and still is. If now the Supreme German Command in this position issued an order for extermination, headed by Hitler, who was at the height of his power at the time, and whom I trusted deeply and admiringly, it can be understood that at the time I accepted the order as one takes any other order, or any other law by one's Supreme Power of the State; but independently of this I personally rejected the shooting of defenseless people, and for that reason I instinctively avoided this order. Through my report on the Jewish question, in White Ruthenia, I even tried through some other regulations the settlement of it, about which I already had testified last Friday. If I may summarize my opinion at the time, I would like to say the following: At the time there was a collision between my duty to obey, and my personal humane demands of my conscience. On the one hand I had a very bad conscience because I did not want to carry out the Fuehrer's Order if I could help it, and, on the other hand I could not bear the idea to carry out this order, and insofar as I did carry it out, I only did this because I was immediately forced by orders - which did not leave me any other way out.
DR. LUMMERT: At this point I would like to introduce Document Book Blume's No. IX. The witness testified at the time that in 1941 he believed in the Fuehrer as a wonderful great statesman and human being, and an outstanding man, whosoever expresses this conviction nowadays is mostly not understood, and especially in, the case of foreigners who do not understand this, who found it very difficult to judge the conditions as they existed, the conditions which existed in the decade since 1933 in Germany.
I considered it now my duty as defense counsel to submit at least one document to the Tribunal, instead of a hundred, or a thousand, which could be introduced, to support this testimony of the witness Blume. I request the Tribunal to consider this document as a kind of "window" through which you can get a view of the psychological condition of Germany under Hitler at the time. This document concerns Austria, the annexation of Austria, and it contains the statement of an Austrian Catholic Bishop, which wan given at the time in March 1938. The document is in Document Book page 95.
MR. FERENCZ: May it please the Tribunal. The document which is now being offered is as an opinion expressed in 1938 concerning the joining of Austria to Germany, The charges against the defendant Blume are very specific. They charge him with murder, mass murder, in the years following 1941. It is submitted that his opinion on anything in 1938 concerning the plebescite of Germany and Austria has absolutely no relevency in this case, and, we, therefore, object to the admission of the document.
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, may I reply to this. I believe the document is very relevent. The witness mentioned that the joining of Austria and Germany in his opinion was one of the great acheivements of Adolf Hitler, which improved his position in his opinion. In 1941 this still had effect, of course, and I intend to ask the witness now in detail about this statement by the Bishop, and on the joining of Austria.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lummert, I just want to show you what difficulties you are going to get into with this kind of a document. You are asking the witness to express himself on the joining of Austria to Germany, You are going to ask him whether itwas morally justified. If we permit this question then I am going to ask the witness several questions. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, did you believe that in 1940 it was justifiable to bomb London and other cities in England which brought about the destruction of women and children? Did you believe that was correct? Did you believe it was morally correct for airplanes to fly over cities in England and drop bombs killing women and children?
A. According to the way the propaganda put it at the time, nothing was described to us which made us conclude that in the enemy territory targets were bombed which were not of military importance.
Q. Then you do not believe that women and children were killed in those air raids over England which included the destruction of Coventry which was razed to the ground?
A. No, your Honor, of course I cannot say that. I merely wanted to say the destruction......
Q. Please answer the question. Did you believe that was just?
A. I did not know it, your Honor.
Q. Very well. You knew that Germany marched into Poland. Did you believe that was just?
A. Yes, your Honor, I believed that this happened because the Polish attitude toward us forced us to do this. I am now speaking of the attitude and the idea we had at the time, owing to the way it was explained to us.
Q. Did you believe that it was proper to bomb Rotterdam killing thousands of women and children? This was all prior to 1941.