THE PRESIDENT: This document would fall into the same classification of the one we ruled on immediately after the recess period, that it was found in the German archives with every indication of authenticity. Therefore, it will he admitted for such probative value as will be determined later on.
MR. FERENCZ: If Tour Honors please, I will begin again to read, the quote. In this letter, sent to the head of the Industrial Armament Section in Berlin: "The attitude of the Jewish population was anxious, obliging from the beginning. They tried to avoid everything that might displease the German administration. That they hated the German administration and army inwardly goes without saying and cannot he surprising. However, there is no proof that Jewry as a whole, or even to a greater part, was implicated in acts of sabotage. Surely, there were some terrorists or saboteurs among them--just as among the Ukrainians. But it cannot he said that the Jews, as such, represented a danger to the German armed forces. The output produced by Jews who, of course, were prompted by nothing hut the feeling of fear, was satisfactory to the troops and the German administration."
"The Jewish population remained temporarily unmolested shortly after the fighting. Only weeks, sometimes months later, specially detached formations of the police (Ordnungspolizei) executed a planned shooting of Jews. This action as a rule proceeded from east to west. It was done entirely in public with the use of the Ukrainian militia and unfortunately in many instances also with members of the armed forces taking part voluntarily. The way these actions, which included men and old men, women and children of all ages, were carried out was horrible. The great masses executed make this action more gigantic than any similar measure taken so far in the Soviet Union. So far about 150,000 to 200,000 Jews may have "been executed in the part of the Ukraine belonging to the Reichskommissariat; no consideration was given to the interests of economy."
they wrought. The Germans were characteristically systematic and efficient in their murders. There are no records in history more shameful to mankind than the description of the methods used in the Nazi program of genecide.
I will read further from Ohlendorf's affidavit which was introduced as Prosecution Exhibit Ho. 9, and it is on page 35 of the document book, page 40 of the German copy.
"In the implementation of this extermination program, the Special Commitment Groups (Einsatzgruppen) were subdivided into Special Commitment Detachments (Einsatzkommandos), and the Einsatzkommandos into stil smaller units, the so-called Special Purpose Detachments (Sonderkommandos) and Unit Detachments (Teilkommandos). Usually, the smaller units were led by a member of the SD, the Gestapo or the Criminal Police. The unit selected for this task would enter a village or city and order the prominent Jewish citizens to call together all Jews for the purpose of resettlement. They were requested to hand over their valuables to the leaders of the unit, and shortly before the execution to surrender their outer clothing. The men, women, and children were led to a place of execution, which in most cases was located next to a more deeply excavated anti-tank ditch. Then they were shot--kneeling or standing--and the corpses thrown into the ditch, I never permitted the shooting by individuals in the Group D, but ordered that several of the men should shoot at the same time in order to avoid direct, personal responsibility. The leaders of the unit, or a specially designated persons, however, had to fire the last bullet against those victims which were not dead immediately. 1 learned from conversations with other group leaders that some of them demanded that the victims lie down flat on the ground to be shot through the nape of the neck. I did not approve of these methods." standard procedure for executions. His affidavit, Document NO-3055, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 28, page 143 of the German book, and page 107 of the English book, indicates, too, that the killers were without humanity.
"As commissioner of Ohlendorff I followed his orders. I went to the gypsy quarter of Simferopol and supervised the loading of the persons, who were to be shot, into a truck. I took care that the loading was completed as quickly as possible, and that there were no disturbances and unrest by the native population. Furthermore, I took care that the condemned persons were not beaten while the loading was going on. Since it was my task to supervise the whole execution, I would only stay a short time at each phase of it. The -place which was designated for the shooting of these Russians and Jews was several kilometers outside of Simferopol and about 500 meters off the road in an anti-tank ditch. Among other things, I ascertained that the traffic in that region was stopped by persons designated for this, and was detoured on side roads. When the condemmed persons arrived at the place of execution they were ordered to leave their money, their valuables and papers at a place designated for this. I watched that none of the deposited items were kept by the SS- and Orpo men who were designated for the collection. The depositing of this property by the condemned persons was finished without the use of force. I supervised this phase carefully in order that all the valuables could be handed over to the Einsatzgruppe D for subsequent remittance to Berlin."
"For a short time, when the people who were to be shot were already standing in their positions in the tank ditch, I supervised the actual shooting, which was carried out in strictest conformity with Ohlendorff's order--in a military and humane manner as far as possible. She people were shot with sub-machine guns and rifles. I know that it was of the greatest importance to Ohlendorff to have the persons who were to be shot killed in the most humane and military manner possible, because otherwise, in other methods of killing, the moral strain would have been too great for the execution squad." execution squad, but the only concern for the unfortunate victim was that he be standing in the proper position in the tank ditch before he was shot.
killing which would eliminate some of the work for the executions. He states in paragraph 5 of his affidavit, Document NO-4314, German document book page 145, and offered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 29-I see there is another objection coming. I will continue the quote later.
DR. BERGOLD (Counsel for defendant Biberstein): Your Honors, I wish to make an explanation on principle here. From the document books of the Prosecution I understand that there is only one item of evidence against Biberstein, his own affidavit, which the Prosecution is about to submit. I talked about this case, and I wish to reserve the right to make objections, I cannot specify them exactly now. I wish to state that this decisive interrogation not always conducted according to the regulations on interrogations, as usual in an English court; and secondly that it does not contain the complete interrogation of the defendant--but only part of it--which therefore cannot be understood very well. For that reason I ask to reserve the right to object to this at a later time.
MR. FERENCZ: As I understand it, Dr. Bergold wishes to reserve his right to object to this document at a later time. We have no objection to that,,
THE PRESIDENT: The right is reserved.
MR. FERENCZ: I have just offered this document NO-4314 as Prosecution Exhibit 29. It is found on page 112 of the document book. Here the defendant Biberstein states:
"The persons to be executed had to kneel down on the edge of a grave and members of my Kommandos shot them in the back of the neck with an automatic pistol. The persons thus killed mostly dropped straight into the pit. I had no special expert for those shot in the neck. No physician was present either at this form of execution."
Occasionally the Germans tried to disguise their actions. The Jews were ordered to assemble and ware told that they were going to "be resettled. Thus page 15 of the report of 7 October 1941, which is Document NI-3140, found on page 116 of the document book, page 155 of the German, and offered as Prosecution Exhibit 30, we have this statement:
"The resettlement measure against the Jews was throughout approved by the population. The fact that in reality the Jews were liquidated was hardly known until now." page 159 of the German, and now offered as Prosecution Exhibit 31-
DR. HEIM (Counsel for defendant Blobel): Your Honors, I object to the affidavit of defendant Blobel. I ask that Document No. 3824 only to be permitted under the condition that Mr. Wartenberg, who took this affidavit, may be crossexamined. In this examination I want to show that this affidavit is an excerpt from a longer interrogation of defendant Blobel and that sentences of the affidavit taken out of the context give quite a different meaning than the defendant Blobel gave in the original examination--and wanted to give. In the course of examination it is supposed to be shown that the defendant Blobel, before signing the affidavit, wanted to make necessary corrections. His request was not granted, however, because he would have the opportunity to do this during the next interrogation. This interrogation which he was promised, however, never took place.
MR. FERENCZ: The Prosecution has absolutely no objection to the defendant who made this affidavit taking the stand in his case and explaining to the Court exactly how the affidavit was made, or any corrections he wishes to make at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, that is the inevitable right of every defendant.
MR. FERENCZ: I will now read the affidavit in question:
"During the period of my service as chief of the Sonderkommando IV-A, from the time of its organization in June 1941 until January 1942, I was assigned at various occasions for the execution of Communists, saboteurs, Jews, and other undesirable persons.
I can no longer remember the exact number of the executed persons. According to a superficial estimate, the correctness of which I cannot guarantee, I presume that the number of executions in which the Sonderkommando IV-A took a part lies somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000. I witnessed several mass executions, and in two cases I was ordered to direct the execution. In August or September 1941 an execution took place near Korosten. Seven hundred to 1,000 men were shot, and Dr. Rasch was present at the execution. I had divided my unit into a number of execution squads of thirty men each. First, the subordinated police of the Ukrainian militia, the population and the members of the Sonderkommando seized the people, and mass graves were prepared.
execution, 15 men were led in each case to the brink of the mass grave, where they had to kneel down, their faces turned toward the grave. At that time, clothes and valuables were not yet collected. Later on this was changed."
"1) The execution squad was composed of menof the Sonderkommando 4A, the military and the police. When the men were ready for the execution, Sonderkommando leaders, who were in charge of these execution squads gave the order to shoot since they were kneeling on the brink of the mass grave , and the victims fell , as a rule, at once into the mass grave. I have always used rather large execution squads, since I declined to use men who were specialists for shots in the neck, Each squad shot for about one hour and was then replaced. The persons which still had to be shot were assembled near the place of the execution and were guarded by members of that squad which at that moment did not take part in the execution.
II) I supervised personally the execution which I have described here and I saw to it that no encroachments took place." Not content with merely slaughtering people in open fields, the SS devised a mechanical method for murder.
The defendant Biberstein declares in his affidavit, No. 4314, which was just introduced as Prosecution's Exhibit 29, declared on page 113, and this is page 146 of the German book:
"I personally superintended an execution in Rostow, which was performed by means of a gas-truck. The persons destined for death, after their money and valuables ' sometimes the clothes also) had been taken from them, were loaded into the gas-truck which held be tween 50 and 60 people.
The truck was then driven to aplace outside the town where members of my Kommando had already dug a massgrave. I have spasms.
No physician was present at unloading to certify that the people were really dead." the ordinary massacres. In a letter sent to Berlin, Document No. 501 P.S. found on page 134 of the English document boo, 165 of the German book, and offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 32, an SS Lieutenant Becker, who was in charge of the vans complained about these difficulties: vans of Einsatzgruppen C and D had to be overhauled. Even though these vans were camouflaged as house trailers they soon became known to the civilian population as death vans. The Commandoes used their own men to unload the bodies after the gassing for they feared that if prisoners were used for this work, they might escape.
Lt. Becker explained that this work might cause serious psychological and physical injury to the commando men who had to do the unloading. methods used in these executions, I will now read excerpts from an eye-witness account. This account was given before the International Military Tribunal and a large portion of it was read into the judgment as a finding of fact. man, Document NO 2992 PS, and is offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 33. Part of this affidavit was read in the opening statement. I will read another part.
The witness, a german, Hermann Graebe , here states:
the earth mounds . The people who had got off the trucks -men, of an SS-man, who carried a riding or dog whip.
They had to put shoes, top clothing and underclothing.
I saw a heap of shoes of with a whip in his hand.
During the 15 minutes that I stood near the pit I heard no complaint or plea for mercy.
I watched a family about 20 to 24.
An old woman with snow-white hair was holding the it.
The child was cooing with delight. The couple were looking on with tears in their eyes.
The father was holding the hand of a boy of about 10 years old and speaking to him softly; the boy was fighting his tears.
The father pointed toward the sky, stroked his head, and seemed to explain something to him.
At that moment the SS-man at the pit shouted something to his comrade.
The latter earth mound.
Among them was the family, which I have mentioned.
passed close to me, pointed to herself, and said, "23". I walked grave.
People were closely wedged together and lying on top of each other so that only their heads were visible.
Nearly all had blood running over their shoulders from their heads.
Some of the people shot were still moving.
Some were lifting their arms and turning their heads to show that they were still alive.
The pit was already 2/3 full.
I estimated that it already contained about 1000 people."
Mr. Clancy will continue with Document Book 2.
THE PRESIDENT: I think this is an appropriate time to take a recess. The Tribunal will be in recess until 10 minutes past three.
(A recess was taken until 3:10)
DR. LUMMERT for defendant Blume: Your Honor, I have an objection, - a belated objection to raise, against the affidavit of the defendant Blume, Document No. NO 51545, Exhibit No. 10. I have just learned of this during the recess, when I had occasion during the recess to discuss the affidavit with the defendant Blumer. The first document book was submitted on Friday when I was no longer in the building. It was technically impossible to speak to the defendant Blume before this morning, and only now, just during the recess I learned that the defendant, Blume, when he gave the affidavit, was in a spirtitual state of mind, which made it impossible for him to give a valid and good affidavit.
JUDGE MUSMANO: Couusel when your Client takes the stand he will have full opportunity to explain the circumstances under which he gave the affidavit.
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, at the moment I would just like to reserve the right to make a formal objection against this affidavit, not against the contents - merely a formal objection, and I would just like to reserve this right at the moment.
JUDGE MUSMANO: The Court will show that you made an objection, and your right to a further objection is reserved to you and to your client.
DR. LUMMERT: I would just like to give this reason. The defendant, Blume,--
JUDGE MUSMANO: It is not necessary to go into the reasons. You will have an adequate opportunity.
DR. LUMMERT: Thank you, you Honor.
Court No. II-A, Case No. 9.
DR. HEIM: Dr. Heim for the Defendant Blobel. If Your Honors please, permit me to make the following statement belatedly. On the 11th of August I was allowed to present the Witness Hennige for the Defendant Blobel. Hennige, about two weeks later, was delivered to the Court prison. Repeated requests to the Prosecution to let me examine Hennige as my witness were refused, giving the reason that Hennige, since May, 1947--that is long before the charges were made-was named as a Prosecution witness. The Prosecution informed me that I can speak to the witness Hennige from the 17th of September on. I ask the Court to make a ruling to the effect that the Witness Hennige, who has been granted to me, can be examined by me without the presence of a commissioner, since Hennige is both a Prosecution and a Defense witness. Up to this time I have had only the opportunity to speak to this witness in the presence of a commissioner.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: These motions of defense by Dr. Heim were before the Tribunal, as far as I can remember, about ten days or seven days ago, I have answered these motions on behalf of the Prosecution. I do not think it is necessary that this question be taken up in open court again. The Tribunal has the motions of the defense counsel before it, and the Tribunal has the answers of the Prosecution before it, and the Tribunal will decide on it.
THE PRESIDENT: We will give you a decision on that tomorrow morning.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The name of the witness is Hennige? I mean the witness in the case.
DR. HEIM: Hennige.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I have a further question to bring up here. On the 17th of August I made a motion to interrogate the witness Court No. II-A, Case No. 9.Kraege who is in prison here, and I made a motion to grant this witness as my witness.
Repeated motions were refused, with the reason that Kraege was being examined by the Prosecution at the time, and that from the first of September on he would be at my disposal. On the 28th of August the Prosecution, without informing the defense, took this witness back to Dachau. My motion to bring this witness back to the Court prison in Nurnberg has not been answered so far. I ask Your Honors to tell the Prosecution to return this witness to the Nurnberg Prison.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, by regretable mistake the witness Kraege was sent out to Dachau as we did not need him any more. But we wrote immediately a letter to the Defense Information Center, giving the information that the witness was sent by mistake out of Dachau and asking Captain Rise, who was in charge of the Defense Information Center, to inform the defense counsel that if he should desire the present of the Witness Kraege we have no objections against that. I do not think that the Prosecution has the duty to get witnesses for the defense here. If the defense counsel makes a normal application for the summons of the witness here, the witness will be brought to Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: We must not make a distinction between Prosecution and defense when it comes to the matter of obtaining a witness. We are seeking to get the truth in this case, and if defense counsel asks the Prosecution for assistance to obtain a witness, the Prosecution must give every aid to the defense. I will make no distinction between witnesses, A witness is supposed to be impartial and neutral and not be for one side or the other. Of course each side has to take the initiative in obtaining the witness. Now, I'm glad that you have made this effort to have this man brought back, and I will appreciate your following it up to see that he does get here so that the defense may have him as their witness.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: I do not know-- Your Honor, I certainly will make every effort. I can recollect just now that the defense Court No. II-A, Case No. 9.counsel, after Kraege was sent out, filed a request, an application, for the summons of the witness Kraege; but if they did so the witness would be brought automatically to Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. GLANCY: If it please the Tribunal, this time I wish, with Your Honors' permission, to offer the documents into evidence which are assembled in Document Books II-A, II-B, II-C, and II-D. These documents are offered in support of the allegations contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Glancy, so that I may be certain about the numbering, do I understand that from No. I you go to II-A? There is no No. II as such?
MR. GLANCY: No sir, there is not.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. GLANCY: These reports contained herein contain the details of the crimes which are particularized in the paragraphs of the Indictment, which I have previously mentioned. I shall not quote from these documents which will be analyzed and discussed by the Prosecution at a later time when we shall treat the responsibility of the individual defendants here in the dock. I wish at this time to offer these documents into evidence with the understanding that the Prosecution will refer to them in detail at the appropriate time. The operational situation reports assembled in Document Books II-A, II-B, II-C, and II-D give a clear picture of the types of crimes with which the defendants are charged. With the permission of the Tribunal I shall proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
MR. GLANCY: I offer Document L-180 as Prosecution Exhibit 34. This is a Stahlecker report of activities of Einsatzgruppe A up to the 15th of October 194l.
I offer Document NO-2940 as Prosecution Exhibit 35. This is a report dated 6 of July 1941.
Court No. II-A, Case No. 9.
I offer Document 2273-PS as Prosecution Exhibit 36. This is a report of Einsatzgruppe A.
I offer NO-2935 as Prosecution Exhibit 37. This is a report dated the 7th of July 1941.
I offer Document NO-3155 as Prosecution Exhibit No. 38. This is a report dated the 12th of October 1941. report dated 1 December 1941.
I offer Document NO-2829--this is No. 2-8-2-9--as Prosecution Exhibit No. 41.
I offer Document NO-3405 as Prosecution Exhibit 42. This is a report dated 16 January 191+2.
I offer Document NO-3257 as Prosecution Exhibit 43. This is a report dated the 5th of January 1941.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Dr. Aschenauer for the Defendant Ohlendorf. Your Honor, may I express my basic misgivings about this type of presentation? I do not know whether in this type of presentation, in which one merely mentions document and exhibit numbers, the basic principle of the proceedings are preserved. It is impossible that during this time the defense has the time to test and examine these documents to see whether any objections should be made against them. It is out of the question to keep up with this type of presentation. It is impossible to raise any objections to the effect, whether this document is admissible or authentic or relevant. It is impossible to examine whether the document is signed correctly, from where it comes, from whom it comes, etc.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know, Dr. Aschenauer, whether you have been counsel in any of the other cases tried in the Palace of Justice here, but we have tried various systems with regard to the introduction of documents, and we have reached the conclusion that this is the most logical and the most expeditious manner of disposing of documents.
Court No. II-A, Case No. 9.
When they are read in open court a great deal of time is taken, and much of the contents is lost anyway, and the Tribunal must read the documents anyway, so that we are merely wasting time in reading in open court what the Tribunal must analyze and study with a great deal of detail later on. Now, what the Tribunal can do and what the defense counsel can do: We have just now terminated a case in which this procedure was followed. An exhibit number is given to the document and then the defense counsel at his leisure, as the Tribunal must also do at Court hours, study the documents. You will have ample opportunity to make every objection that the document suggests as to authenticity, as to relevancy, as to possible errors in translation. Any objection which you may make now can be made later. Otherwise, it would be an interminable procedure, and it wouldn't help the Prosecution nor the defense. And I assure you that it is only because we have tried out the other systems that we have now come to accept this system, and I think later you will be satisfied that all your rights will be protected.
MR. GLANCY: The Prosecution wishes to advise defense counsel at this time, Sir, that the reason we have chosen this method is to avoid constant repetition. At a later time when we go into the individual responsibility of the defendants, we shall refer to these again. The defense's wishes to object will not be prevented in the slightest by this procedure.
THE PRESIDENT: (To DR. KOESSL) Do you wish to present something?
DR. KOESSL (For the defendant Schubert): Your Honor, after what I have just heard, I believe it would be even better to submit the document in such a manner that the Prosecution say those documents in Book III-A, for example, will be Exhibits 40 to 60. In this manner, all document books could be submitted within a quarter of an hour, and we could then take up the three days in which we can read these documents and really study them.
THE PRESIDENT: But you seem to overlook the fact that each document must become an exhibit, and must receive an exhibit number, and that is what we are doing now. And if he gives a merely inclusive number for a document book, then you would not have the exhibit number to each document,
DR. KOESSL: I don't mean it that way, your Honor. I see,-for example, here, 23 documents, and according to those, one merely gives those documents the numbers 34 to 57. That is my proposition-
THE PRESIDENT: Well, your proposition is not well taken because there may be some documents he does not want to introduce.
MR. GLANCY: If it please the Tribunal, I will now proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
MR. GLANCY: I offer Document NO-2933 as Prosecution Exhibit 44. This is a report dated 16 July 1941. This is a report dated 2 February 1942. This is a report dated 19 September 1941. August 1941, as Prosecution Exhibit 47.
COURT II-A CASE IX This is a report dated 17 October 1941. This is a report dated 7 November 1941. This is a report dated 21 November 1941. This is a report dated 12 January 1942. This is a report dated 6 February 1942. This is a report dated 9 March 1942. This is a report dated 23 March 1942. This is a report dated 17 April 1942. Document NO-3277 as Prosecution Exhibit 56. This, again, is a report dated 24 April 1942. Book II-B. Prosecution Exhibit 57. This is a report dated 13 July 1941. a report dated 29 August 1941. It is a report dated 9 October 1941. It is a report dated 9 October 1941. This is a report dated 4 September 1941. a report dated 19 December 1941.
COURT II-A CASE IX a report dated 26 October 1941. a report dated 23 September 1941. a report dated 25 October 1941. a report dated 21 April 1942. Document NO-2993 as Prosecution Exhibit 67.
In Document Book II-C: This is a report dated 3 November 1941. This is a report dated 29 July to 14 August 1941. a report dated 12 July 1941. a report dated 29 July 1941. a report dated 12 November 1941. a report dated 17 September 1941. a report dated 8 December 1941. a report dated 20 October 1941. a report dated 3 October 1941. a report dated 28 September 1941.