Q You say you didn't see anyone being beaten. Did you hear of the Jews being beaten? beaten? You must have in your mind the thought that somebody was beaten because he was a Jew or you wouldn't tell us for no reason at all that you didn't see then being beaten. me about this, whether the Jews were beaten, and I said. "No, I don't know, "and I never saw myself that the Jews were beaten. I can only say that P.O.W.'s were shot, but that was not done by this police unit. I don't know who carried out that action. Thos were the first corpses I saw in Russia; those were the corpses of P.O.W.'s.
Q Were they Jewish P.O.W.'s?
Q What nationality were they?
A Those were Russian P.O.W.'s: yes, they were Russians.
Q And by whom were they executed? war were executed?
A Well, in every street there were corpses. Of course it was known.
Q This was while you were there?
A I beg your pardon? corpses were on the street?
Q Yes. Did you ever happen to discuss this with Professor Six, that you saw Russian corpses on the street?
A He had already left. I talked about this with Dr. Augsburg.
Professor Six was still there?
Q How long after he left did these corpses appear? for Germany. that you knew of or that you heard about? building. a Jew or of some other nationality?
AAmong those P.O.W.'s, there were some among them I should imagine, there were so many people in the Russian army. In the Russian army there were all nationalities.
Q So that some of these corpses could have been Jews?
A Why not? Of course.
Q Were they all in uniform, all the corpses?
A Well, uniforms, they were just tatters and rags. One could not call that uniform any more. The Russian soldiers were in rags. These had been uniforms I think.
Q Well, could there have been any civilians among those corpses?
A No, they were P.O.W.'s. work? there. I got that from the field kitchen.
Q You received food for your word?
Q And that was your compensation? that food?
territory got food.
Q How did you happen to meet up with Professor Six in Berlin?
A I first went to the local commander's office and inquired there about the fate of my husband.
MR. FERENCZ: I think there was an error in translation. The translator did not add "in Berlin" .
THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes, that is very important.
Q. (By the President) How did you happen to meet up with Professor Six in Berlin? the library?
Q Oh, I see, he got you the job?
Q And he was very kind to you in Berlin? he do which was kind to you in Berlin? really prohibited, but I liked to read them.
Q Anything else? prohibited, those books, and I could also read Thomas Mann and Heinrich Mann and Stefan Zweig. All the books which I liked I was allowed to read.
Q Did you receive any pay for the work you did in the library; did you receive compensation for this work that you did in the library in Berlin?
Q Yes, and you were allowed to listen to foreign broadcasts?
A Yes. Professor Six told me I should not tell anyone about it. He didn't want to know about it. the heart of the literature -and I listened to Russian music and various other statments -- I said very often that National Socialism and Communism are very similar, only in Russia it was even more terrible, the dictatorship. So he said I shouldn't talk about these political opinions or else I would be sent to a concentration camp and then no one could help me, and I should keep quiet about all my thoughts. foreign broadcasts and reading this very devastating, bad literature by Heine and Thomas and Heinrich Mann that you would be sent to a concentration camp and that he couldn't help you? self to a very serious danger, isn't that right?
Q Because you didn't need his permission to do womething which was going to get you into a concentration camp?
A Would you please repeat that?
Q You didn't need his permission to do something which would get you into a concentration camp? deeply and this meant a lot to me. I even brought a Heine book along from Russia, and Professor Six knew this, I took this along to Germany.
Q Were these books in the library where you worked? books were part of the library, all books which hadbeen prohibited, and I was allowed to take care of them. All these were prohibited books, but it was all beautiful literature.
Q Do you think it was very chivalrous of him to say, "Now, you can read these books but if you get in trouble, don't bother me about it"? Six, and I kept comparing National Socialism and Communism, and Professor Six always listened to it very patiently, and I had the impression that inwardly he thought the same thing, only he didn't dare to say it. Socialism and Communism were the same thing?
A Oh, yes, certainly. Their methods are the same, of course. Don't you know in Russia I also thought -- I didn't know about the methods. That is why I believed that the Germans came in order to exterminate Communism, and I knew quite well what Communism meant, and when I lived in Germany I could find out repeatedly that that was not the idea at all of the advance, to fight Communism. a rich country. But they only wanted the materials, goods, and this is always the pretence that this is all idealism. That happens in every war after all. improvement over Communism?
A Improvement? It was a poor imitation. expressed?
A Yes. I know this very well. I always felt that Professor Six was a different person to the others. The others whom I met later in the institute there, they were obsessed, they were fanatic about what they said, but Professor Six is not a fanatic, no. He always listens to everything very patiently, and that he agreed, I noticed, because he always laughed. Well, if one laughs then I think one believes in it.
Q Did you hear Professor Six lecture on Jewery?
Q Did you ever hear him expound on the Jewish race, talk about it?
AAbout the Jews?
A Yes, I said I often talked about Heine with Dr. Six, about his style, and so forht, and he said, "Well Frau Vetter, that is Jewish, I am not allowed to hear about this.
Q Did he ever talk about the Jewish problem?
Q Did you ever, Witness, talk about the Jewish state in the Palestine? library. I didn't read that.
Q I am not saying books written by him. I am talking about his conversations. You see, Professor Six delivered many lectures and there was one lecture which he delivered on Jews, so with that on his mind I thought he might have conversed with you about it some time.
A No, I was not the scientific assistant. That was someone else, but such questions he didn't talk about with me. I wasn't there when he worked on that lecture. Another assistant took care of that.
Q Just what did he say about that?
A Well, what do you mean? presence. You have already indicated that on one occasion he told you that he wasn't to listen to any talk about Jews. Did he ever comment on Jews, in general, just Jews?
A Well, you see, our discussions really didn't deal with such subjects, but on the whole we only talked about personal matters and when Dr. Six talked to me he was always tired of his work and I knew he just wanted to have a rest, so we talked about the family and art. About all he wanted to know about the dialecticmaterialism in Russia. No particular questions, no special questions. I myself did not like politics.
know that Professor Six displayed towards Jews was that he failed to report a half-Jewess. That is, as far as you can go about his attitude towards Jews, that was that one half-Jewess he knew and he didn't report her?
THE PRESIDENT: We want to thank you for a very enlightening discussion. Does counsel wish to question the witness any further?
DR. ULMER: I have no questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Now supposed we take stock and see what we have for Monday. Who will be ready to present documents on Monday? Dr. Heim?
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, may this witness he excused?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the witness may be excused.
(The witness was excused.)
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I beg your pardon. Am I to consider my presentation of documents of today as concluded or are there any objections coming? May I consider the presentation of my documents as concluded?
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. The Tribunal will now be in recess until Monday morning at 9:30 o'clock.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 19 January 1948, at 1930 hours.)
A. Musmanno, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Before we take up any other business and so that the statement which we are about to make will appearin the record immediately following the examination of Veronika Vetter and so that there can be no misunderstanding later on the Tribunal states that it is convinced that Dr. Hermann Ulmer in his examination of Veronika Vetter in Stuttgart did nothing which would in any way cast any reflection upon his professional conduct, We will say further that it is part of a lawyer's duties to investigate all evidence which he believes may be helpful in the presentation of his case. There was nothing in the examination of Veronika Vetter to suggest in the slightest way that Dr. Ulmer did not live up to the highest ethics of a lawyer. He questioned this witness, obtained information, wrote up a statement which she had the opportunity to read and to correct, and then she signed it. And, when Dr. Ulmer did that he met every requirement and not the slightest discredit may be case upon him for the work which he did in that connection.
Yes, Dr. Aschenauer.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I would like the defendant Ohlendorf to be excused from attendance in court this afternoon for further preparation.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Ohlendorf will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
DR. HOFFMANN (for Nosske): Your Honor, on 21 November 1947 the Tribunal allowed me to admit as a witness for the defendant Nosske a certain man called Burckhost. I have heard that this man Burckhost arrived here yesterday. I know what I want to ask him. I don't have to discuss it before hand. I would only like to ask the Tribunal to give instructions that this witness be brought into the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean he is ready and available at this moment?
DR. HOFFMANN: I don't know for certain whether he is available at this very moment, but I think he can he by this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton?
MR. WALTON: If your Honors please, I remember from the copy of the notice of approval to this witness. However, I respectuflly point out that the Prosecution does not know on what points this man will testify and we ask that the 24 hour rule be invoked to give us a chance to prepare the cross examination of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then at the earliest you would be ready is tomorrow morning.
MR. WALTON: At this time, yes, sir.
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes, your Honor. Of course, just in order to speed up the matter I wanted to suggest that the witness could come even today but I am prepared to examine him tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the witness will be available tomorrow.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the Tribunal will recall that the Prosecution objected against document 58 of the defendant Braune for the reason that this document was introduced by defense counsel only inthe form of a typewritten copy. Defense counsel for the defendant Braune has in the meantime kindly handed to the Prosecution the original of the document for perusal and we want to state that we do not object against this document 58. We want to state again, -- The Prosecution had informed the Tribunal, that we do not object against this document as defense counsel was good enough to promise to show us the original.
He has done so in the meantime.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the statement made by Dr. Hochwald, Braune document 58 will be accepted.
DR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
Who is now ready with presentation of documents?
DR. KOHR (for Blobel): Your Honor, I would now like to introduce Document Book II of Blobel. It merely contains seven documents and the sequence of the exhibit numbers is the same as the number of the documents. As Exhibit 5 I offer document Blobel No. 5. This is an affidavit by August Haefner of 3 November 1947. The affiant was candidate for the leading service and attached to NK4A as officer and trained police official. The defendant Blobel put him in charge of Advance Kommando Kiev and apart from that for a brief period he was an official of AOK6. The affiant also was present when Blobel reported at the headquarters of the AOK6, to General Field Marshal von *eichenau. He gives a detailed description about this and about events in Sokal and Luck. He confirms in this affidavit the statement of Blobel about his stay in the hospital in Lublin. 6. This is another affidavit by August Haefner of 11 December 1947. As mentioned at the beginning Haefner was chief of Advance Kommando Kiev. In this capacity he gives detailed reports about the situation in Kiev as it was after the capture by the Germans as 19 September 1941. He confirms the statements by Blovel in the witness stand that he arrived in Kiev, contrary to the document which has been brought in by the prosecution , only on 24 September. Also this affidavit proves that in Kiev Blobel suffered a head injury.
Document Blobel 7 I offer as Exhibit No. 7. This is an affidavit by Karl Hennicke of 7 November 1947. Hennicke was expert, 3, departmental chief of Einsatzgruppe C. This affiant gives testimony of his character but also shows that Blobel repeatedly fell ill, while he was in the Eastern Campaign.
Blobel document 8 I introduce as exhibit 8. This is an affidavit by Welther Huppenkothen of 8 December 1947. Huppenkothen was departmental chief of SD Sector West in Duesseldorf in 1934 and was commander of the Security Police and SD in Lublin in 1939 and 1940. The affiant first of all gives testimony of the character but he also gives a survey of the activity of Blobel as Chief of the SD Sub-sector Duesseldorf and also proves that in July 1941 Blobel was in the isolation ward of the Lublin Military Hospital.
Dr. KOHR: (Continuing): Document Blobel 9 is introduced -
DR. HOCHWALD: May I see the original of Exhibit Blobel 9?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: It hasn't been supplied to the SecretaryGeneral yet to my knowledge.
DR. HOCHWALD: I was just now informed by defense counsel for Blobel that the exhibit is already in the hands of the Secretary General.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Well, if it was presented to me last week it is already in the archives. I can get it in just a minute.
DR. HOCHWALD: May I ask then if this is a literal copy of the exhibit?
DR. KOHR: Yes. Blobel Document 9 I offer as exhibit 9. This is -
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution objects against this document for several reasons. The excerpt of the transcript -- and I haven't got the original in my hands -- but defense counsel tells me this is a literal copy of the transcript -- the excerpt of the transcript, as it is offered by defense counsel, is incomplete. The excerpt does not show whether and by whom the witness was crossexamined and what his answers to questions of the Prosecution were. It is certainly not admissible that defense produces only those parts of testimony which are favorable for agreement and leaves out those parts which may be less favorable or even unfavorable for the defendant in this case. The testimony of a witness if offered in evidence before a Tribunal, different from the court before which the witness appeared , should certainly be offered in full so that the Tribunal can obtain a clear picture of the contents of such testimony. As to the facts which are alleged to be proved by these excerpts the Prosecution wants to point that these facts are completely immaterial for the case before the Tribunal. It is clear that the alleged order of General Eisenhower, and the Tribunal will certainly recall the testimony of the defendant Blobel in this case, could not have been issued earlier than in 1945 or 1946 which dates also appear in the transcript of the testimony of the witness Wollny which is now offered by the defense for the simple reason that such order could not have influenced the acts of the defendant in 1941 or 1942.
Moreover none of the defendants in this case has alleged that he had knowledge about this order or that he had even heard of it until after this trial began. The credibility of the defendant cannot be proved by the excerpt which is offered now by counsel for the defense. After carefully examining the transcript of the Blobel's testimony in this connection Blobel did not testify that he had knowledge of the testimony of the witness, Wollny.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, this document is not admissible because the defendant himself stated that he knew nothing of such an order after having made the blanket utterance that everybody knew. Then in Court after examination by the Tribunal he indicated that nobody so far as he knew knew of this order. You can only introduce this affidavit to impeach in this statement your own witness in your own defense and if you have the desire to impeach Blobel then we will hear you but if you intend to submit this in support of anything which he said because he repudiated the statement from the witness stand and even went so far as to apologize for his utterance. The document, therefore, will not be accepted.
DR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much, your Honor.
DR. KOHR: Your Honor, may I be permitted to give an explanation about this --why the excerpt from the transcript has become part of document No. 2 of Blobel. On the occasion of the examination of Dr. Braune in the witness stand when the quota of the ratio 1 to 200 was being discussed I tried at the time to explain how it come about that we had this excerpt from the transcript. At the time when Blobel was on the witness stand he said something to the effect that the result of the examination of the witness Wollny in case 7 had made this statement here in the courtroom. It is true that Blobel did not know this for himself. The knowledge now as excerpts from the transcript is being submitted merely for the purpose to make it clear what was the source of knowledge and where he got this knowledge from.
THE PRESIDENT: But don't you see we get into an entirely irrelevant and collateral matter. Suppose the defendant Blobel had said that he heard that in Spain a certain situation existed. Then later on he would say: I made a mistake, this situation does not exist in Spain. Then you want to bring in a document to show why he made that statement about Spain; it becomes immaterial because the witness in the meantime stated that he repudiated the statement. The statement is not challenged by anybody. Therefore, it is entirely surplusage to have it as a document.
DR. KOHR: I do understand this but I was under the impression that it depends on where one gains an impression. Now, one could think as if Blobel was asserting an opinion which he merely assumed while we were able to find out that the fact of the examination of the witness Wollny in case 7 was the reason why this ever came up in this trial. That is what I am trying to say.
THE PRESIDENT: You want to say something, Mr. Hochwald?
MR. HORLICK-HOCKWALD: I just wanted to make a short comment. If I understand counsel for the defense correctly he wants to introduce the document in order to show the credibility of the testimony of his client, but what Blobel stated was not that he had knowledge of the testimony of the witness Wollny either directly or indirectly. What he stated was that every German knew about the order given by General Eisenhower, that for every one American who was killed two hundred Germans were to be shot. Then he amended his statement by saying that his order was well known in Germany. He expressed his conviction that many of defense counsel present knew of this order, that the defendant Ohlendorf must have had knowledge of the order and that his own defense counsel had knowledge about it. I have the English and the German copy of the pertinent passages of Blobel's testimony before me and would like to hand it to the Tribunal for scrutiny for this purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, that is not necessary. We think that the incident is closed and has no probative value of any kind. The defendant made the statement and he later on explained he made a mistake, in effect repudiated the statement and made an apology to General Eisenhower. The Tribunal accepted his statement and his apology, and it is no longer before the Tribunal. There should not be any reference made to this anywhere because with that statement of the defendant, which the Tribunal in good faith accepted, it, in effect, became canceled and obliterated, unfortunately not from the record was from memory, but certainly from the legal consciousness of the Tribunal. The incident no longer happened.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: That is what I just wanted to point out, and in order to keep the record straight, it is the contention of the prosecution that by the document just offered now by the defense counsel the credibility of the defendant at this point cannot be proved.
THE PRESIDENT: We anticipate that the prosecution will not make any reference to this in summation, in their brief, or otherwise.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I have finished my brief on the defendant Blobel.
I think that the defendant has received an English copy. There is no reference made in this brief to this incident.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KOHR: Your Honor, I would like to thank the Tribunal for this explanation, and I would like to say for myself that it was merely my intention to prove that Blobel did not make this unwise statement maliciously.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we understand this statement and understand why you made the offer of the document.
DR. KOHR: I now come to introduce Document Blobel No. 10 which I would like to introduce as Exhibit No. 9. This is an excerpt from the Legal Gazette of Germany of 1942, Part I, No. 44, the decision by the Greater German Reichstag of 26 April, 1942. I would like to say the following here. This document shows quite clearly the position of the German head of State. This document reveals in particular and shows the position of the Chief of State with his extensive rights, which were not limited to any extent, and I consider this document relevant; because I think according to Control Council Law No. 10 this does not exclude punishment, but according to these regulations an order from higher authorities would reduce punishment, if an action is carried out because of higher orders. I would like to offer this as an exhibit because I do think it has probative value.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do not want to press the point, as I know the magnanimous and liberal practice of the Tribunal to admit everything in evidence which defense counsel considers relevant for its case, but I do think that this excerpt is entirely immaterial. According to Control Council Law No. 10, crimes against humanity and war crimes can be punished whether they were committed in pursuance of an order or in pursuance of a German law, it does not make any difference.
THE PRESIDENT: But the law also states that the superior orders may be pleaded in mitigation so, therefore, this is entirely relevant.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I only want to point out to that, your Honors, that it was never contested by the prosecution that there was an order by Hitler which provided fob the indiscriminate killing of Jews, Gypsies -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the worst that you could say about it, Mr. Hochwald, is that it is cumulative.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: That is what I wanted to say, it is not contested by the prosecution that such an order existed.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is well to have it in the record.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I have just said I don't want to press the point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
MR. KOHR: I now would like to offer Document No. 11 which I would like to give the Exhibit No. 10. This is an excerpt from the speech of the Reichfuehrer-SS in Poznan on 4 October, 1943. The prosecution referred in their opening speech to this speech by the Reichfuehrer in Poznan, and I would like to point out that before the I.M.T. it was introduced under the Document No. 1919 ES, US 170, as evidence.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, there is, of course, no objection against this document on the part of the prosecution. We only want to point out that it is understood that the whole speech is in evidence, not those excerpts which are offered.
THE PRESIDENT: The only possible objection that I personally could have to this is that I can repeat that speech to you forward, backward, any way you want it, so that it is really superfluous in order to acquanit the Tribunal with it, but it certainly is relevant.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I only wanted to point out that we understand that the whole document is in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: By all means; by all means.
DR. KOHR: That concludes my presentation of Document Book II, Blobel. I would like to explain that I intend to introduce as Document No. 12 an affidavit by Walter Ostermann. Unfortunately, I have not yet received this affidavit back from the translation department and, therefore, neither the Tribunal nor the prosecution have a copy of it in English of the exhibit.
I would like to ask the Tribunal to give me opportunity to introduce this document as an exhibit here. me to make. I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that on 6 November 1947 Dr. Heim made an application that the sound track of the statement of the defendant Blobel on 6 June 1947 in the morning be heard in order to clear the question of credibility of the defendant Blobel. We ask that we will be able to hear this sound track here. Unfortunately, I am not able to tell the Tribunal what day Dr. Heim repeated this motion here, and I would like to make a request that this motion by Dr. Heim, which has not been decided yet, be decided by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: At the first opportunity, and that will be today, we will determine into the feasibility of the mechanical reproduction of the sound track to which you refer, and I would appreciate it, if no later than tomorrow morning, you recall this matter to our attention, but by that time we will be able to tell you just what the mechanical situation is with regard to this request.
DR. KOHR: Thank you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome. Any other defense counsel ready to proceed?
(No response).
THE PRESIDENT: Apparently not. Mr. Hochwald, is Mr. Ferencz ready to proceed with the rebuttal? Oh, pardon me.
DR. KOHR: Dr. Kohr for Dr. Link.
Your Honor, Dr. Link asked me this morning that if nothing could be discussed a suspension should arise in the Tribunal because if nobody else is able to present any documents he asked me if I inform him through his secretary to appear here immediately. Your Honor will probably remember that Dr. Link already mentioned the fact that he wanted to present his docu that he wanted to present his document on Friday.
Dr. Link is taking part in the Krupp trial and is there at the moment and can be brought here immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you sure he is in the courtoom?
DR. KOHR: He is in the courtroom of the Krupp trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is very interesting. So may someone inform him to come to this courtroom of his own free will?
DR. KOHR: His secretary will be able to do that, I think so, because he said before that he was willing to do this.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we invite him to visit us.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution would appreciate it if the defense could proceed with the presentation of document books, I have just been informed by Mr. Ferencz that our rebuttal document books are not completely ready yet. I cannot tell the Tribunal just when they will be, but I am sure it will be sometime today. I just haven't got them yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, has someone now actually gone to notify Dr. Link? Have you notified Dr. Link? You sent the secretary already? Oh, I see.
Well, Mr. Hochwald, after Dr. Link will have submitted his documents, will you then be ready to proceed with something in rebuttal?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, as far as we know, Dr. von Stein is ready to present his document books on the defendant Sandberger at eleven o'clock today.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: So that there will be no intermission in this respect.
THE PRESIDENT: And then you will be ready this afternoon?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I hope so, your Honor. I have just received only a short information from Mr. Ferencz who told me that the document books at this time are not ready yet but according to the best of my knowledge they will be ready this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you have any witness which you intend to present -
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I do not think so, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Mr. Hochwald, who did you say would be ready at eleven o'clock?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Dr. von Stein for the defendant Sandberger, That is what Mr. Glancy told me.
THE PRESIDENT: What about Dr. Lummert for the defendant Blume?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: As far as I have been told last Friday, Dr. Lummert is in a position to present his documents any time. He was supposed to follow the presentation of the defense counsel for the defendant Ruehl who is just coming in now.