Court No. IIA, Case No. 9.
However, this avalanche would just roll over the little man who tried to raise an objection. In this way my own description of things in Berlin, in which I did not only tell them of this development but where I also told them about the mental destruction of the individual person, was found not to have any reaction. I am also firmly convinced of the fact that the chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen also would have been unsuccessful in raising an objection if an objection had not been issued by the command agencies of the Wehrmacht. agencies were bearing the responsibility for the tasks which were forced upon the Security Police. But from above there came no obstruction but only instigation.
Q What was your own attitude towards that? there was an order which was not so firmly limited I determined that criminal activity of the person concerned had to be the basis for the most harsh measure it required. In this connection I would like to point out once more that the sequence of time with regard to this order within the Einsatzgruppen C took another course as far as I was concerned. I ordered that no shootings were to take place without that reasons for the execution were examined conscientiously, and that the persons concerned, the victim as well as the person who had to carry out the execution, was told that in every case the necessity of the situation had to be taken into consideration and had to be decisive. I myself regretted it most that no court martials were established. They were refused by the Keitel Order and by pointing out the fact that the Russians did not use any court martials either. Here the Wehrmacht did not raise any objection either. It could and should have reserved for itself the right to institute court martials. of a formal proceed. I accepted officers to head these small detachments who had been professional policemen and officials in the police Court No. IIA-Case No. 9.for many years, and who, furthermore, in their training course had shown themselves to be very conscientious and that they had received some legal training.
Without their personal decision no execution could be carried out. I was unable to reserve my own decision in this matter because all prerequisites for that were lacking, and they had been given the right to make the decisions. However, I am still grateful to fate, even today, that the officers who worked under me were humane and decent, and if I may express myself so, in this connection: they were quite reasonable. Order, could not have prevented anyone not carrying out any more executions, and it would have given everyone the possibility of correcting me if they were not in agreement with my opinion. However, none of them did that. This also becomes evident from the documents. It should have been proven by them.
Q At Zhitomir weren't you informed of the other order by Jeckeln? announced. about that supplementary order? civilized nations and international law is concerned, I am unable to decide. I am not a legal expert. However, the fact is that Russia did not recognize International Law, and the ruthlessness of the methods which they employed could be clearly seen by all. Is it that under these circumstances the partner is also bound to International Law? After all I no longer was able to see any International Law. The fact is that the German measures toward the Western powers were never used. In this, however, one should see a premeditated action. That is the way the little man in the street looked at it, and he was certainly convinced of the fact, in his bitter fulfilling of his duty, that if he had refused to obey these orders, it would have cost his own life Court No. IIA, Case No. 9.and he did not believe that he was doing any wrong.
Whether, in consideration of these things, we are dealing with something wrong here, that probably would have to be decided by an International Court of Law. However, regardless of the fact whether this was wrong or not, I was unable to give my inner agreement to these measures, and I did not do it. you any extensive comment on the subject because my requested and approved transfer liberated me from this issuing of orders. ments, I want to ask you one more brief question. Yesterday when we discussed your official assignment you mentioned the fact that even before your assignment in Russia you were in charge of Einsatzkommandos. Was this decisive it any way for your assignment in Russia later on? be approximately the same, especially since I did not know the Streckenbach order, since I was absent from Pretsch. With the exception of the statements of Heydrich, which I have told you about already, I did not hear any details about the assignment in Russia which could even have lead me to conclude that such special tasks would be demanded of me. Only subsequently I heard of the statement of Heydrich that more severe measures would have to be taken against the Jews, and here I had to give it another meaning than I did at the moment when I reported to him. At the time, in any case, I really did not assume that shootings on a major scale were intended or planned, Even though up to that period of time I had been a member of the Security Police for eight years, I myself never had received any order or ever heard of an order which would have dealt with the shooting of Jews.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I am now coming to the discussion of the Prosecution documents which the Prosecution has introduced so far. I would like to ask this Tribunal and the Prosecution to have the following volumes at hand, Volume I, Volume II-A, II-C and III-C, because I Court No. IIA, Case No. 9.shall only discuss documents from these volumes.
THE PRESIDENT: Those documentsbooks will undoubtedly be available on Monday when we will reconvene at nine-thirty O'clock.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 20 October 1947, at 0930 hours.)
THE MATSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II-A.
Military Tribunal II-A is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
DR. MANDRY: (For Defendant Sandberger): Your Honors, my client has been ill for several days and for that reason I could not work on the questionnaire. I ask that my client be excused from attending today and tomorrow, and I would be very grateful if he would be released immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is your client?
DR. MANDRY: Sandberger.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Sandberger will be excused from attendance in Court today and tomorrow, in accordance with Dr. Mandry's request.
DR. MANDRY: Your Honor, may he be taken down immediately to room 55?
THE PRESIDENT: He is in Room 55 now?
DR. MANDRY. No, he is still here. He wants to be taken to Room 55.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Marshal will have the defendant Sandberger escorted to Room 55 so that he may confer with his attorney.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, may I continue with the direct examination?
THE PRESIDENT: You may. BY DR. DURCHHOLZ:
Q. Witness, on Saturday when we concluded the session we intended to look at the document books. I now ask you to make general statements, briefly, on the documents.
A. Yes. From the very beginning I want to express very clearly that my leaders and myself do not want to be identified with the manner in which the reports were made, because it was disgusting. The wording in the reports is not the same wording as it was in the original reports. The contents surely only contain part of the original reports. The contents and the way it is written are the result of not in every respect very pure imagination of the staff leader of Einsatzgruppe D. Sturmbennfuehrer Hoffmann. Hoffmann was a defficiency character. He was as uncontrolled by ambitious; as he was dishonest. Everybody was afraid of him because his intrigues. This is not only my opinion of today; this opinion I told him to his face, and described it to Dr. Rasch in a report of several pages. This was even my only personal report during the Russian campaign. How Hoffmann got his statement and figures. I can't imagine at all. Surely, in order to shine he took everything down in favor of the Einsatzgruppen and what the Commandos in other offices did according to their duty. For example, the measures of the Commandos Jeckeln, and also the measures of the commandos of the army, the Wehrmacht. His devilish report about the resettlement measures in Kiev alone is a proof of his character. Hoffmann was released and relieved of the Security Police and at that time I told him myself that he was dismissed. If, in spite of his untrue statement the documents prove that my previous statements are at least basically correct, I can only be grateful.
Q. About the occurrences in Lemberg which have already been mentioned, do you want to say anything in addition to that?
A. Yes. I believe that it is not necessary to state anything more about it because it will not express anything further than what I have already said. May I add that the events in Lemberg at the time were shown to the foreign press, and to foreign representatives also. allowed to make three corrections.
Q. Witness, which document are concerned here?
A. It is my affidavit in Volume 1, Exhibit 26, Document No. 3644, on page 132 of the German text. Here it reads, in the first sentence, in the German text in the third line from the top, "according to which guilty persons and those suspected were to be shot as reprisals"; hut I stated in the record; "According to which the guilty persons and the participants were to be shot as reprisals." This mistake I did not notice because "suspected persons" were mentioned previously in connection with arrests. I can submit also the original from which I dictated - and which I put at Herr Wartenberg is temporarily disposal. In this connection may I mention that the statements which I gave here I have previously given to Herr Wartenger in the same manner. Please, make corrections. In the last sentence of this paragraph it reads; "It saw Dr. Rasch on the place of execution." That is right. But in this connection it gives the impression that this happened during the executions carried out by Einsatzkommando 6. That is not so. I saw him when Einsatzkommando 5 carried out the first execution. I told Mr. Wartenberg about this at the time but as the text had already been written he told me that I could clarify this during my examination, which I would like to have done by this now.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durchholz, the witness has stated that he has the original. What does he mean by that?
DR. MANDRY: At the time he had made the statements at Herr Wartenberg's request himself, and gave them to him, and the affidavit was then made up out of those statements. The witness still has the original which he gave to Herr Wartenberg at the time, and this was shortened and excerpts taken out.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the original in his own writing?
DR. MANDRY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: How did this get back to him once he gave it to Wartenberg?
WITNESS: Herr Wartenberg gave it back to me personally; or one of the gentlemen of the prosecution gave it back to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do I understand that this so-called original which you possess differs in some essential point from the affidavit which you signed, and which is now an exhibit?
WITNESS: No, your Honor. That is not what I tried to tell you. It was merely that the wording is incorrect. The actual statement is absolutely correct; only the connection might give the wrong impression here. That is all I wanted to clarify.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. If even the connection is such that an improper inference may be drawn from the affidavit and you regard this as of some importance, why wasn't Mr. Wartenberg questioned on this when he was here in Court?
WITNESS: Your Honor, these mistakes I informed my defense counsel about when I saw the document immeidately; and Herr Durchholz at the time when it was submitted also objected to it. And you, your Honor, granted to Herr Durchholz that this correction be carried out when I was examined here.
THE PRESIDENT: That is entirely correct. But I am now wondering why Dr. Durchholz didn't question Mr. Wartenberg on this feature.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, I did not consider this clarification. so important as to question Herr Wartenberg here. I believe it sufficient to merely ask the witness to clarify it. The facts, actually, are correct. Only they appear to have been taken out of the connection and are not very clear.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed. BY DR. DURCHHOLZ:
Q. On page 6 of the same document it says, under number 7, "About the 6th or 7th day after the executions..." - but actually it should read: "About the 6th or 7th day after my arrival in Lemberg." This is shown, and is obvious, from the way I described things previously because on the 6th or 7th day after the executions I was already in Dubus. This is merely a correction as to the date.
Q. Does that finish Lemberg?
A. Yes.
Q. While advancing, you stayed, in Dubno for about six days. What happened there?
A. I think here I can make a brief statement, too. I have already described the events in Dubno, and surviving witnesses were examined on the events. The entire events were handed over to a dective Commissar in the General Go vernment who was competent on this, because as previously Polish territory it was to belong again to the area of the General Go vernment. I think I do not state anything incorrect if I repeat that in Dubno no executions were carried out by Einsatzkommando 5. In Dubno I had to give part of my detachment to Kreminig. According to my opinion the AOK-6 had requested them to go there. At first I thought that this would happen only at Shepitowka, but now I recollect it having been already at Dubno. The two other detachments alternated took over patrol and guard duties and the one off duty had to look after the supplies for the providing as well as for the preparing of food, because the detachments were independent and looked after this themselves. Also vehicles and equipment had to be maintained.
Q. From Dubno you moved to Shepitovka, did you not? Anything special to be said about this?
A. Shepitovka was surrounded by very dense and thick woods for many kilometers, and in these woods troops were hidden who were well armed, and constantly attacked small units, so that even during the day the streets could only be passed in convoy. During the night they were closed to traffic. My two part detachments - the third was still being absent - were performing patrol and guard duties day and night. Inquiries were made also; an Intelligence Section was set up, If I remember correctly, while staying in Shepitovka two people who were caught because they proved to be partisans were shot. The detachment in Kreminev also, as far as I remember, at the order of the Army Command had reported two or three shootings.
As far as I remember these were persons who had made armed attacks on individual vehicles of the Wehrmacht, where a driver was killed.
Q. On 25 July, approximately, you arrived in Berditschew, and there you stayed until you left for Berlin on the 24th of August - approximately?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you want to state anything about that?
A. Here, systematical security work was started. May I refer to the report I have given already? My detachments -- the third one had returned in the meantime -- I set up in such a manner that the one dealt with the city area itself, the second detachment looked after the surroundings of Berditschew, and the third one I kept for special tasks because at that time the harvest had to be brought in the various small cities had to be given Mayors and the collective farms their managers and this had become very important because these areas -that is, the small cities and the collective farms -- did not have any leaders.
Q. Did you hear anything about executions during that time?
A. Yes, All the time while I stayed in Berditschew, as far as I remember only two major cases of executions occurred. One was in Berditschew where, at the order of the Wehrmacht, on the citadel such persons were shot who during the fighting for Berditschew had been caught as armed partisans, and had been put to prison at the citadel by the Army. The other case was at Schmelnik, where a real terror group had appeared, who, apart from other criminal deeds, had murdered 25 Ukrainians who had cooperated with the local German commander.
Q. Let us now skip over to the individual documents. In Volume 3-C, Exhibit No. 130 of the Prosecution, Document NO-3841, that is on page 98 of the German text, - it is your affidavit in O berursel of 20 December 1945, and there it says under figure 1, at the top, second sentence, I quote: "After the end of 1931 until 1934 I was Referent to the Political Department of the Police in Bremen."
Are the dates correct?
A. No, they are not correct. It should say, "approximately at the end of 1930" - as I have already stated here.
Q. Very well. In the same document on page 4 of this document, it says in the last sentence of paragraph 6, I quote:"Streckenbach himself described the activity of the Einsatzgruppen in the East to me as murder." what do you want to state to that?
A. When I made my statements I stated my opinion on this, too, and I believe I have clarified the occurrence already. May I point out that when disussing these events at Oberwisch in 1945, we merely dealt with Einsatzgruppe-C. In Oberwischat the time I was only asked about these three events which are contained in this affidavit. I myself only gave confirmations of the previous questions. This statement by Streckenbach referred not to the entire activity of the Einsatzgruppen, but It also was connected with the actual wording which Obergruppen fuhrer Jekelm at the time had handed to Dr. Rasch. He thus expressed that the order transmitted in that form, namely that "women and children are to be shot so that there will be no vendetta", was an invitation to take part in murder. This position did not refer to the Fuehrer order as I already pointed out, I would like to ask that this be corrected.
Q. Please look now at document book II-C, which is Exhibit No. 82, Document No. NO-2947. That is the Operational Report No. 47 of 9 August 1941. On page 5 of this document it says, "That in Berditschew in 45 houses of Jews a great number of stolen goods were stored which was distributed among the suffering Ukranian population." Witness, do you wish to state anything on that?
A. Sofar as I remember, these were not stolen, but hoarded goods, such as food. etc. At the time, these were put at the disposal of the population, because if these had been stolen goods, that is looted property, surely, COURT IIA CASE IX measures would have been taken, which in this report have not been mentioned, and, sofar as I remember were not issued, either, but if measures would have been taken, then surely the Einsatz group doubtlessly would have reported on it.
Q. May I ask you to look at the same document, on page 7 of this document, where it states: "Furthermore Einsatzcommando-V until now has shot 74 Jews." Please say something about that?
A. I have the following comment to make on this. Shortly after I arrived in Berditschew, an officer of the Wehrmacht reported to me when I visited this Wehrmacht agency, that they had persons who had been arrested in the Citadel who were to be executed, because during the fighting for Berditschew they had been caught with arms, and had been taken to the Citadel. Since he pointed out to me from the very beginning that according to the instructions the Security Police had to carry out this task, I told him about this, and, therefore, asked a leader of the sub-command in Berditschew to carry it out, and I investigated the case. Two or three, or perhaps, four days later, Dr. Rasch visited me at Berditschew, and informed me that when he just visisted the Army group, they had objected to the fact that the executions had not been carried out as yet. Under the circumstances I had to ask the sub-commando leader to examine the occurrence, and to investigate it. I no longer am able to give the exact number of those arrested. The figure given may be correct. I do not think, however, that all persons were executed. The executions were carried out in the Citadel in the presence of the commandant, and the occupational troops were present too. I think we can say for certain that there were not only Jews, These statements COURT II-A CASE IX probably would have been made by Stabsfuehrer Hoffman, because he Seemed to like it better to out it that way into his reports.
I shall show, for example, that an incorrect statement was made on another occasion as well. This document is also of importance, because in connection with the situation Report No. 2, it can be shown that the reports were not always correct. This Situation Report No. 2 is in this same document book, on pages 6 to 15 of the German Text. It is Exhibit No. 69, Document No. 2652, Situation Report No. 2, the time of the report 29 July to 14 August, 1941. In the Situation Report No. 47, to which I compared this present Situation Report, is on page 80 of the German Text, and is correct. It shows that in Shitomir the public execution of a Jew, age 60, who had been a judge since 1918, and in who, when interrogated had admitted to have carried out one-thousand murders, and, this man was to be killed together with his hangman. In Situation Report No. II, which I have just indicated, it shows on page 14, that this man was hanged in Berditschew, while numerous people attended the execution. This is not true. Ii only this One document had existed, surely, I would have been blamed for this. However, the situation Report No. II, almost has verbally the same contents as the Situation Report No. 47. If these reports are compared, one can see that the names mentioned, the names of the cities, are not the same. In Situation Report No. 2, it says, on page 13, in Berditschew, 222 Jews were shot. I must add the same to this --
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to page 13. Now I do not find page 13 in this report in our document book. Mr Hochwald, do we have it in our document book?
MR HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I am sorry, we don't have it there, and it certainly must be somewhere else; if the COURT II-A CASE IX witness can refer to which page of the original?
THE PRESIDENT: No, he means page 13 of the original. If he is referring to page 13 of the original, I want to draw attention to the fact that on page 13 in the English Document Book, I find page 11 with the original excerpt, and, then the next itme is page 20, of the original excerpt.
MR HORLICK-HOCHWALD: That is right.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I made a mistake here. I get the wrong figures for the pages. It is page 13 in the German text, not the document page.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right. I am referring to page 13 of the original, as you indicated, and that page 13 does not appear in our document book.
MR HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Page 9 of the original document, Your Honor.
THE INTERPRETER: It is page 9 of the original document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you may proceed.
MR HORLICK-HOCHWALD: It is page 9 of the original document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we found it.
THE WITNESS: There it shows you that in Berditschew 222 Jews were shot, but according to the Situation Report No. 47 it is shown that the EK-V shot 74 Jews, and another command shot 148 people. I repeat, if this document were the only one in existence, surely because I was in Berditschew, I would have been blamed for them all.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the Situation Report No. 46 that you are referring to?
DR. DORCHHOLZ: Your Honor, it is Situation Report of No. 47, it is Exhibit No. 82.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. DORCHHOLZ: Document No. 2947.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: It is on page 66 of the document
THE PRESIDENT: I know that is the one he referred to before, but we had difficulty in locating his specific reference even in that document.
DR. DORCHHOLZ: Your Honor, unfortunately I do not have the English Document Book, else I would have tried to indicate the pages in the English document book to make things easier.
THE PRESIDENT: when you quote from a document, or refer to a document, it might be well to indicate the page and the paragraph of the original as it is shown here, and that would help us to locate the specific item being discussed.
MR HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Your Honor, the specific item to which the witness has now just referred to, the shooting of the 74 Jews, is in the middle of page 71 of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: The comparison with Situation Report No. 2 is finished now. I now want to show you Situation Report No. 47, and return to it. I want to point out page 80 of the German text, that is page 13 of the original, where the activity of the police regiment of the Higher Police and SS Chief is mentioned, and it reports on the shootings, I am talking about this, and asked that I may repeat it based on other documents in order to show this activity is particular. The units in Chorestkow were continuously active in the entire territory, therefore, it is not only possible or probable, but in my opinion it is certain that the statements as to the activity of these units were reported by my partcommandos as well. If such measures were carried out in their territory. In the Situation Report No. 47, on page 6 of this document, that is page 12 of the original - - -no, on page 10, of the original, Your Honor, in Tarmopol and in Chorestkow where pogroms took place that is, they tried to do this. For the sake of order, I wish to point out that Einsatxcommando-V was never in these localities; also according to the following statements on pages 11 and 12 of the original, in Shitomir, Trojanow, Krostyschew, Tscherjaschow, Jaslow, Polonna, Proskura, and Winnica & Barcarow that first, except for Zaslow and Polonna belonged to my territory, I do not know, because these localities I dan not find in the map at my disposal.
Q Now in Document Book II-C, Document No. NO3151, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 73, page 31 in the German text -
MR HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Page 27 of the English, Your Honor.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: That is the Situation Report No. 86, of 17 September 1941, I quote: on page 2 of this document, German text, and in paragraph four the following: "Einsatzkommando-V at the time is distributed over a large territory, and it is combing out the villages of this area systematically. Among others, several Bolshevistic mayors and chiefs of collective farms were taken care of."
MR HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Page 29 of the English Document Book.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: 9continuing) Apart from that several insane people were eliminated, who had the task to blow up railroad tracks and bridges and to carry out other acts of sabotage." Witness, what do you wish to comment on this? did not report. I am sure. In my statement I have already mentioned that a part-commando was systematically assigned not to "take care of" mayors and chiefs of collective farms, but rather to appoint such men. I assume that in this Situation Report something wrong has been reported, because I can not remember and I consider it quite impossible that here systematically mayors and chiefs of collective farms, without any special reason, should have been executed. I do not want to exclude the fact that such cases may have happened, because in my report on the activity of my kommando, I have already expressed that Russian agents were very clever to put their agents into such positions and to use their influence and there, under the cloak of reliability, they had a great deal of influence. They gave them espionage orders, and, therefore, they helped the intelligence service. If this would have happened, and I would have mentioned that, surely Herr Hoffmann would have reported it in detail, because he liked to make reports. He says in the following paragraph: "Four executions were carried out in Ulanow, and 18 in Uledowka," this was reported and the figures mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, do I understand you to say that Bolshevistic mayors were not executed?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, in this report, no executions are mentioned at all. They are just general statements that Einsatzcommando, V systemacally had the task to eliminate mayors and chiefs of collective farms, to get rid of them.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood you to say a few moments ago that it was not correct that Bolshevistic mayors had been executed. Is that what I understood you to say?
A I said, Your Honor, that this generalization is not correct. I had given the job to a Teil kommando in order to appoint mayors and chiefs of collective farms; I, therefore, think it is impossible that the Teil kommando could have been active here to get rid of them systematically, but I do not want to say that it could not have happened, that the mayor, or chief of collective farm was executed, because he was an agent or a saboteur of some sort.
Only the generalization is not correct. not be executed merely because they were Bolshevist mayors? be something in addition to being a Bolshevist and a Communist and a Mayor in order to be executed? able action.
Q But didn't the original Fuehrer Order actually include all Communist-functionaries? Communist-functionary? commit some punishable act against the German forces in order to be liquidated?
A. Your Honor, then I think I misunderstood your previous question. If a Bolshevist mayor was still in his position, and he was arrested in a deadly danger in the rear of the fighting army.
Q. Yes. Well then, we come back to the report and we find that this statement is correct.
"Among others, several B olshevist mayors and " - I can't pronounce that word -- "were taken care of."
Now, that means that the Bolshevist mayors were executed, does it not?
A. Your Honor, when such a person was arrested, and I never said this was not done then it must have happened.
I merely objected because any more.
They certainly had disappeared.
Q. But if further they were taken care of in the words of the report, and the phrase "taken care of " did not, I understand, mean
A. Naturally, your Honor.
Q. Very well. As a matter of curiosity what does that long word which I stumbled over mean, "Kulchose," well, I won't make an
A. Kolchose, your Honor. That is a collective farm.
Q. I see.
A. And these are chiefs of the collective farms. THE PRESIDENT: Very,well, thank you.
A. (Continuing) In the upper paragraph on Page 33 of the German text it is reported that in Chmielnik 229 Jews were dealt with.
This figure has been invented.
May I ask to compare it to another document?