These incidents took place in Berditschew, but at a time when I had left Berditschew. but it is not only probable but certain that the activities of these Kommandos are also listed in the reports of the detachments of my Kommando. I personally was in Berlin during this time, and I was not carried in the reports of my group. Therefore, for this time and for the following period, I cannot take the full responsibility. I take the responsibility for the fact that my limited order was kept up to the fullest extent, even though at the beginning of August, that is, 2 weeks before this period which is mentioned here, I was given the order in Shitomir to execute all Jews who were not able to work, including women and children.
At this opportunity, I would also like to add that during my month's stay, from the 23rd of July until the 24th of August in Berditschew, 12,000 Jews were living in Berditschew. During this entire month, as far as I remember, the exception of this one single execution at the citadel, no executions took place, even though during my stay in Berditschew after the 24th of August t e order was already valid to execute all Jews not able to work. At the time about 3,000 Jews, in order to be able to preserve them as workers, were employed in the airport in Berditschef. BY THE PRESIDENT: out, what do you mean by your "limited order"? phases of the order are to be considered; since I was not in Pretsch at the time the Fuehrer order given there by Streckenbach was unknown to me.
Q I don't want the whole history; just what was your "limited order"?
A Dr. Rasch gave the order, according to which functionaries, saboteurs, that is, functionaries, altogether, agents, and so forth, were to be executed. I limited this order, insofar as I told my detachment commanders in every case that guilt would have to be proved.
Q Yes. Now you say that this was carried out, that your limited order was respected even in your absence?
Q This sentence which you read from the report states, "Between 24 August and 30 August, 1941, Einsatzkommando 5 carried through 157 executions by shooting, comprising Jews, officials and saboteurs." your limited and qualified order.
A Your Honor, I can't say whether this report is correct, because during this time I was in Berlin and I did not see the reports. I merely wanted to point out that from the number alone, it seemed to me to be correct, because it is my conviction that the order which was issued at the beginning of August, according to which all Jews not fit to work were to be shot, was not carried out. the ones who were executed, would it not be reasonable to suppose that Jews were executed only because they were Jews, because, since you also listed officials and saboteurs, if the Jews had been killed, because they were saboteurs, then they would come within that classification and not merely because they were Jews.
A Your Honor, that is the way it was. I pointed out that the Jews were not merely shot because they were Jews, but only if they were actually active as functionaries, saboteurs, agents, and so forth. You can see this from my report or from the reports of my detachment commanders it can also be seen. That is why I said at the beginning that the Einsatzgruppe made up their own reports, but beyond that Berlin also changed the orders and they did not reporduce those facts which my detachment commanders reported. A report which was made out by my detachment commanders looked about as follows: "So-and-so many saboteurs or functionaries or looters were executed," and then perhaps they mentioned among these there were so-and-so many Jews. That about is the way the reports read which came from my detachment commanders. what is said in here has nothing to do with my own reports. the report, does not exclude the interpretation that under "Jews" you could have had also women and children, because you have in two other categories, officials and saboteurs? but I believe I can depend on the reliability of my commander who never reported to me about an execution of women and children.
Q Well, now, let me ask you just one question very specifically: Do you accept this statement in the report as is? Jews there could be included women and children? it can of course, be assumed that that was the case.
Q That it could have included women and children? Let me out it this way: This statement as it now reads could be interpreted that some people were killed only because they were Jews and within the group of Jews there could have been women and children, but you now tell us that this is incorrect and that as a matter of fact no women and children were killed.
Is that what we want to draw from what you have said? says that 875 Jewish women were killed and they became women Jewesses only because they were beyond the age of 12, so that, therefore, that could have included also young girls. Now do you refute that part of the report also?
A No, Your Honor. I just said that here the Kommandos of the Higher SS and Police Leaders actually executed women and children as Jews. Because of this I wanted to point out that this took place despite the existence of my order, despite of this order. These did not take place in my Kommando, because I went to Berlin to object to this order to shoot women and children. I wanted to prevent this, but on the part of the Higher SS and Police Leaders it did take place.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand your explanation. BY DR. DURCHHOLD (Attorney for the Defendant Schulz) order to shoot women and children? which women and children were executed by any detachment of Einsatzkommando 5? Jewesses under 12 years of age? Kommando did not cooperate.
Q Now I come to Document Book II-C; this is the Document NO-3146, Operational Report 94 of the 25th of September, 1941, Prosecution Exhibit 81, page 15 of the original document. I quote the second paragraph, second sentence:
"Einsatzkommando 5, for the period between 31 August and 6 September 1941, reports the liquidation of 90 political officials and 290 Jews;"
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWADL: Your Honor, that's on page 64 of the English Document Book, last paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have located it. Thank you.
Q Witness, please comment on this: one, during this period I was in Berlin. Here I would like to point out that the activity of the Higher SS and Police Leaders is mentioned particularly. It says there that his units in the Month of August executed 44,125 persons, mostly Jews. I point out the activities of these units again and again, because I am convinced of the fact that the Einsatzkommandos of Einsatzgruppe C were charged with the figures of these units for a great part. made report of its own all about executions or that the Einsatzgruppe C in whose area Jakeln worked included their figures in its own reports? gruppe C can be shown that they are mentioned along in the report, but I would like to point this out. I may seem tasteless if I express myself in this way, but with the everlasting pressure to report figures, it is completely possible that the detachment leaders in order to spare their men and make life easier for themselves reported some executions which were carried out by others as their own. I would like to say that I myself looked for a way out and I gave my detachment commanders a way out to be able to give erroneous reports, misleading reports, for instance, to have them report that in a certain locality so many Jews lived formerly abd now only so many are listed, and the fact that some of them fled should not be mentioned, but just left open in order to make it seem to the Group Staff that an Einsatzkommando actually killed those people.
perhpas it is to be criticized, but it is a way out of a desparate situation and it is too entirely possible that Herr Hoffmann whom I knew personally was so ambitious for figures and thus satisfied his desire from these reports and even exaggerated them and that he added zeros and therefore reported completely distorted facts and that he used such means to gain attention when I was in Shitomir already.
Q Now please look at Document Book II-A. This is in reference to Operational Report 1-11 of the 12th of October, 1941, Prosecution Exhibit No. 38, Document NO-3155 on page 4 of the original document, second paragraph. I quote: Einsatzkommando 5 in the time of the 7th of September until the 5th of October executed 207 political functionaries, 112 saboteurs and looters, as well as 8,800 Jews." Witness, please comment on this.
A. Quite apart from the fact that this report covered a period of 15 days, which was after I left the command, the story I told you shows that I did not give such an order. I can say the same thing with certainty about my detachment who, around the 25th or 26th of September 1941, were ordered back to Berlin and were already in Berlin at the latest by the 1st of October 1941. This is doubtless an action which took place after I was relieved. I would like also to point out that after I returned from Berlin, which was about the 15th of September, and where I expected my already designated successor in Skwira, I no longer received any more reports and I did not see any more reports. The detachment leaders who during my Week's stay in Skwira were with me in conference., did not tell me of any type of action, with the exception of the fact that in the entire area the units of the Higher So and Police Leaders were especially active there. With this I do not want to say that the Einsatzkommando did net carry out any executions when I was in Skwira; they certainly did take place wherever it was necessary. But the prosecution seems to have documents according to which these executions took place in Berditschew, or near Berdischew, for it says in the indictment, on page 13, by using the same figures and dates, under "S", I quote: "During the time of the 7th of September 1941 to the 5th of October 1941, Einsatzkommando 5 in the surroundings of Berditschew murdered 8,800 Jews and 207 political functionaries." In this document the mention of this locality is missing. As I said, my Einsatzkommando left Berditschew on the 26th of August. My small Commando staff was used in a school in Skwira. Skwira is about 90 kilometers east of Berditschew. The three other detachments were moved to places which were even further east, about 80 to 100 kilometers east of Skwira, that is, 150 kilometers away from Berditschew.
As long as I was in Skwira - and that takes in the' period of 15 September to 24 September - no detachment of Einsatzkommando 5 left its garrison in a westerly direction, perhaps these things are connected with the advance in Kiev - I cannot say that - for Einsatzkommando 5 went to Kiev after leaving Skwira. This can be gathered in Document Book 1, Exhibit No. 30, Document No-3140, page 150 of the German tent, page 9 of the original. There it says:
"A Vorkommando "(that is, an advance detachment) "of the Sonderkommando 4a left by Obersturmfuehrers Haefner and Janssen, 50 men strong, arrived on 19 September 1941 with the fighting troop in Kiev. The advance detachment of the Gruppe arrived there on the 12st of September, while the Gruppe staff followed on the 25th of September." they are important for me when I was recalled from Skwira.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand, witness, that you are telling us that the statement in the report contained in Document NO-3155 regarding the activities of Einsatzkommand 5 is in error, and that instead of Einsatzkommand 5 it was Sonderkomnando 4a, is that what we are to gather from you now?
THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, I didn't want to say that. I merely pointed out that Einsatzkommando 5 was not even in Berditschew, but was about 100 to 150 kiloments away from Berditschew, and the document which I just mentioned shows that Einsatzkommando 5 soon afterwards arrived in Kiev. I don't know whether Einsatzkommando 5, after I was recalled, was committed in Berditschew. As long as I was in Skwira during this week which I mentioned, Einsatzkommando 5 was not in Berditschew.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I believe the witness made a mistake. He meant Kiev. Not Berditschew.
WITNESS: Yes, Berditschew. According to the indictment these 8,800 Jews were killed in the vicinity of Berditschew.
THE PRESIDENT: But wherein do you draw this explaination about Einsatzkommando 5 from Document No-3140? Did you understand my question?
WITNESS: I have the document NO-3140 in front of me.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, you read from that document from what you read you now tell us that perhaps Einsatzkommando 5 was in the area of Kiev. How do you draw that conclusion from this document.
WITNESS: On page 16 of the original of this document it says,--
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well; I have found that. And that explains what you Were telling us. Why, then, did you read about Sonderkommando 4a? What did that have to do with the story? That Sonderkommando was in Kiev.
WITNESS: I merely read the text, your Honor, in order to show that first of all the Gruppe staff was in Kiev, and secondly, Einsatzkommando 5 was together with the Gruppe. I didn't want to say anything about Commando 4a. I merely wanted to mention a sentence which began with that.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me that if you had merely called our attention to page 16 of the original you would have achieved all that because paragraph 2 on page 16 maked Sonderkommando 4a and Einsatzkommando 5 stationed in Kiev, isn't that correct?
WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: That is just a little excursion then, when you read about 4a in the first paragraph of page 9.
WITNESS: I don't understand your question, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: WELL, it isn't important. I was only calling attention to the fact that you read a statement which in no way bore out your contention that Einsatzkommando 5 was in Kiev - whereas if you had read from page 16 that would have explained it to us at once, and what we went through seems wasted motion, that's all.
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed. BY DR. DURCHHOLZ:
Q. Now I am coming to Document Book II-C, Exhibit 75, Document NO-3404-A, Operational Report 119, of the 20th of October 1941. This Operational Report mentions Einsatzkommando 5, and says that in Uman and in other cities this Commando was active.
Witness, what do you have to say about this?
A. Here I can only say the same as I said about the preceding document. I received no reports about these actions from my detachments since the report mentioned here reports about a period of time when I was already in Berlin. About the incidents in Uman I can say nothing. They are completely unknown to me. No one discussed incidents in Uman with me. The city of Uman itself did not belong to my area at all. Therefore, I consider it probable in this case, too, that the command of the Higher SS and Police Leader was active there. How Uman got into the reports of Einsatzkommando 5 I cannot say at all. I personally was never questioned, nor have I ever given an order to go to Unman. Uman itself is several hundred kilometers away from Skwira. Einsatzkommando was divided into three detachments -- the detachment which was closest to it, namely, in Swenigorodka, was also 100 kilometers away from Uman; and I again hope this is not considered COURT II-A CASE IX in bad taste - but I consider it technically impossible that such a small detachment which consisted of about 30 people could, on one single day, execute 1,400 Jews.
Here, too, I can only say that I have never given such a report, and that I would not have given such an order. Quite apart from the fact that on the 23rd of September I handed over my command to my successor. I only mention it because this mentions a plan, and if a plan had proceded this action, I would doubtlessly have known about it. I may ask that Dr. Rasch be interrogated about this during his examination. I can say nothing about Uman.
Court No. II-A, Case No. IX.
Q. Witness, the Prosecution charges you in a number of other documents with having participated in executions. These are the documents which are contained in Document Book II-C, Exhibit No. 72, Document No. 2850, that is the Operational Report 132 of the 12th of November 1941. Then, in the same Document Book, Document No. 2832, Exhibit 79, that is the Operational Report 135 of the 19th of November 1941; and in the same book, Document No. 2827, Exhibit 74, that is Operational Report 143 of the 8th of December 1941. What do you have to say about these documents?
A. They all were made out after my time, and, of course, I cannot say anything about them. It may be of interest to look at Exhibit 72 in Document Book II-C, Document No. 2832, that is Operational Report 132, on page 19 of the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say Operational Report No. 132? Here it is listed as 135.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: 132, your Honor. 132, 135 and 143.
Witness: It might be useful to mention Operational Report 132, even though this is after my time and have nothing to say about it. I mention it only to underling the incorrectness and inexactitude of the report and to show that Einsatzkommandos are charged with things with which they had nothing to do. In Operational Report 132, on page 19 of the original-
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: 135 of the English document book, your Honor.
WITNESS: It says that Einsatzkommando 5 executed, from the 28th of September to the 4th of October, so and so many functionaries in Kriwoi-rog; and in the time of the 28th September until the 4th of October it killed so and so many functionaries in Dnepopetrowsk.
book, Exhibit 79, Document 2832, page 57 of the German. There it says, on page 22 of the original-
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Page 57 of the English, your Honor.
WITNESS: (continuing)... that "Einsatzkommando 5 is busy in the district of the Dnjeprbogen (bend of the Dnjepr) since the 6th of October 1941. Apart from extensive rural districts the following towns, all of a definitely industrial character and densely populated", namely, Dnjepropetrowsk, etc. This shows that Einsatzkommando 5 was not at all active in this area but that this was the area of Einsatzkommando 6. I mention this merely to underline the unreliability of the reports. Otherwise, I have nothing to say about the other documents because they are after my time. BY DR. DURCHHOLZ:
Q. May I make a concluding question. According to the indictment, letters "U", "V" and "W" - the witness as leader of Einsatzkommando 5 is charged with having participated in executions which took place from the 20th of October 1941 to the 24th of January 1942.
Witness, were you in Russia during this time at all?
A. About the 28th or 29th of September 1941 I returned to Berlin from Russia, and after that time I never returned to Russia.
Q. And at what time did you officially hand over the command of Einsatzkommando 5?
A. I handed over my command just when Kiev was captured. That is why I mention the dates from the document, in order to emphasize that at the latest, one or two days after Kiev was taken, I turned over my command to Obersturmbannfuehrer Mayer.
Q. Were you ever in Kiev?
A. NO; from Skwira I went by way of Berditschew back to Berlin.
Q. In your Einsatzkommando 5, did you ever order measures against Gypsies or so-called racially inferior people?
A. No, I don't know such an order at all.
Q. Was there a gas van in Einsatzkommando 5?
A. No, not during my time.
Q. Do you know of any mistreatment of prisoners of war and of civilian populations?
A. They are unknown to me. They would have been severely punished by me, for the detachment commanders -I told the detachment commanders, and at every other fitting opportunity, not to commit any indecensies or mistreatment, and to conduct themselves decently and cleanly at all times.
Q. Did your Commando carry out any destruction of personal property?
A. No, I don't know of any single case where such a destruction was carried out.
Q. The prosecution charges that valuables were taken from the victims or from the people to be executed. What do you know about this?
A. In my Einsatzkommando this was not the case. Such valuables were given to the relatives of the victims. If such relatives were not present these valuables were handed over to Einsatzgruppe as per order. How the Einsatzgruppe disposed of them, I don't know. I can merely remember that some cash of insignificant value was handed over to the Einsatzgruppe. Valuables were not present at all.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, this concludes the examination of the witness in the Russian assignment. After this I want to come back to his activity in the Office I of the R SHA.
And then, in conclusion, to his activity in Salzburg as the local police chief. I believe that I shall conclude the direct examination after a short While, but I consider this a proper time for a recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Before we recess: Mr. Hochwald, these two localities mentioned by Dr. Durchholz -- Salzburg and Berlin -- insofar as the offices of the RSHA are concerned -- do they come within the purview of the charges in the indictment?
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Certainly not as far as the activity of the defendant in Berlin is concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Is he charged with any crime committed in Berlin or Salzburg?
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: No, he is not, sir. This question would only be relevant as to a decision on Count No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: I see, Is that your purpose, Dr. Durchholz?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will be in recess until one forty-five.
(The Tribunal recessed until 1345 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: The Tribunal please, inasmuch as the witness has finished his testimony concerning Counts One and Two of the Indictment, and of what the witness is going to say now, can only have a certain relevency as to Count Three of the Indictment, the Prosecutiln is willing to concede that in the RSHA after his return from Russia. and in his position asinspector of the SIPO and SD in Salzburg, the witness did not commit any act and did not reveive any knowledge which would have made him guilty on Count Three in the Indictment, that in order to save time and to make the trial expedient.
THE PRESIDENT: We gather from what you say then, that whatever the defendant is charged with in the Indictment, has or has not been answered by the testimony up to this point, and that anything further which might be said would shed no more light on Count Three.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: And you are willing to concede that regardless of what he might say in connection with his activity in Berlin, and in Salzburg, it would not incriminate him under Count Three.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: We want to submit that, when he says now, and I do expect he will say so, that he did nothing incriminating in the period after returning from Russia and in Salzburg and Berlin, so we will submit to this statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Count Three is rather a broad Count. Insofar asthe defendant would testify to what happened following his return to Berlin, the Tribunal understands that the Prosecution does not charge him with participating in any criminality after that time.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Therefore, efforts on that point would be irrelevent.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: But if the witness might want to explain what he did in Berlin before in order to expulgate himself from the charge under Count Three, then that would be relevant.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: That is what we understand, but the witness has already testified, and the testimony of the witness from now on should come at the time after ids return to Berlin, in the beginning of November 1941, until the end of the war, and what I want to express to the Tribunal is that we see the liability of the witness under Count Three any time previous, first, let's state the date as 1 November 1941-
THE PRESIDENT: Until the termination of his activity in Russia.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durchlolz; what have you to say to this?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, the defendant is charged under Count Three because he was amember of the SS after 1 September 1939, and remained a member of the SS after that date. The IMT had determined, that a defendant is guilty if he remained a member of this organization which has been declared criminal after that date and asto his direct examination the witness has given detailed statements that he does not want to identify himself with the crimes committed by this organization, He showed the reasons which were decisive for him to act in the manner as he did, and he wants now to prove the reasons why he remained in this organization, that is, only to be mitigating, and insofar as any crimes were ordered, after his assignment in Russia, to avoid such crimes. For that reason it is important for the defense that he may prove his personal attitude as to individual events, and his position later. Of particular importance seems to be the attitude he adopted in Salzburg later, and may I say that the witness in Salzburg received the well known Air Force Order, according to which the parachutists of the enemy who had jumped, without interference from the police, should be lynched by the excited population.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durchholz, now that you understand the position of the Prosecution, you may proceed with your examination of the defendant, keeping in mind it is not necessary to respond to any charge along the lines mentioned by Mr. Hochwald. You may examine him, but perhaps you may do it a little more briefly than you had intended orginally, because of the concession made by the Prosecution.
DR. DURCHHOLD: Very well. I shall try to make the questions as brief as possible, but I consider it necessary to give an overall picture of the personality of the witness. I therefore ask that I may address the questions as I had intended to.
THE PRESIDENT : You may proceed.
BY DR. DURCHHOLZ:
Q. Witness, after returning from Russia, you were in command of the Officers Training School of the Security Police again, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Before your assignment to Russia, and after your assignment in Russia, you tried through directives you gave to the participants to show them how to conduct themselves asfuture police leaders. May I ask you very briefly, with a few brief words to explain the attitude which you asked the participants to take?
A. I shall try to be as brief aspossible. First of all I'll answer the question whether this has no connection and no relevency. Owing to my experiences in Russia I felt it to be my duty to train the young officers at the Officers Training School very carefully. As a basic idea I always told them that they had to be an example, becuase a living. example is the best education. I pointed out to them the difference between the ideas of being a leader and being a superior. First of all I used the phrase, "Master Race," the slogan "Master Race" and gave them two explanations, which in German sounds so very similar, and yet they are so entirely different, namely, the socalled "Master Race" or "Master man," and the socalled"Masterly man", or the "domineering man"? I compared these ideas to other ideas as well, which in my opinion were often misused drastically, the ideas of strictness on the one hand and, brutality on the other hand, and at the same time the difference between weakness and kindness.
Many people can not see any difference between them. Finally, I also got the concept of selection, which particularly within the SS was a very important word. I clearly said that within the Security Police we were further from representing a selection, and we had to try everything possible through energy and hard work, and by giving our best to become better, but that we could only consider ourselves to be a selection when, using fair self-criticion, we could say that the least one amongst us was as good as the best amongst an average man. I particularly emphasized that it was of importance to be humane and chivalrous.
Q. You then became chief of Gruppe-I-A in the Reich Security Main Office, were you not? While there did you have anything to do with the executive there?
A. No, the Group-I-A was that group within Office-I which dealt with personnel questions. They were subdivided into six referatedepartments. If I may tell you about the departments of the Referate and what they dealt with: Department -I dealt with general official measures, distinctions, terms, and employing personnel in occupied territory.
Department 2 dealt with personnel files of State police. Department 3 with personnel filesof the criminal police. Department 4, the personnel files of the SD. Department 5 SS matters. Here, in all the departments of the Security Police all matters of promotions were dealt with; from here it went to personnel Main Office, which decided promotions. The RSHA were not entitled to promote anyone on their own authority with the SS. They also had no authority to regulate the reasons for promotions. They were strictly laid down, and had to be followed according to the proscribed measures. Department 6 which later came to Office-II, dealt with and looked after the relatives of people who had fallen in battle, and the casualties. Then there was a department for organization which merely dealt with organizational affairs of the inner construction,
Q. Then you became chief of Office-I. Please tell us in one sentence what Office-I meant?
A. Office-I dealt with personnel matters. Previously they had been connected with Office-II. When Streckenbach went to the WaffenSS, those two offices were separated completely. Office-I then had four departments: Group I-A which I have just mentioned, personnel; Group I-B, training and education, about which I have already talked, and---
THE PRESIDENT: Your attorney said to answer in one sentence. Now you were to give us a brief outline of the office. It might be interesting but to go into any long detail discussion of all the movements and mechinationsof the Office is scarcely necessary.
BY DR. DURCHHOLZ:
Q. Another question, witness. Did you have any close connection with Himmler?
A. No, I had no connection with Himmler, except during four lectures, when sofar as I remember he was in Hamburg, and one in Koenigsberg, once in Berlin, and once in Salzburg, when he talked to the counter intellegence.