fore, it was obvious that I was very much attracted by foreign information service. Therefore, after war broke out and when my Stuttgart SD Department was officially joined to Office 6, I devoted myself to this task.
Q I am now thinking of the years 1939 to 1942. Did you, during that time have a personal conception and idea of foreign political problems? European disaster. I nver believed that it would ever come to war with Poland either. According to this, my attitude, after the beginning of the war with the aid of this foreign information, I tried to find ways and means to maintain peace and to have peace negotiations.
Q Did you actually concretely bring about such negotiations? I had through liaison men connections with English circles. I had established such connections and I reported about these to Berlin.
Q What was your aim? tact between one German and one English personality and it seemed to me it should be aimed at to bring about a political understanding between the Western powers. In 1940, after the Western Campaign, it was quite obvious that an understanding with England could be achieved, if it was brought about cleverly. By this modification, I mean the bringing about of a loyal peace treaty with France. In 1942, however, I hoped for a union on an Anti-Bolshevist basis.
Q Did these discussions actually take place? came about, because Hitler or Ribbentrop prohibited getting in touch with the enemy at that time. period of your activities in Office 6?
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
chief tried himself to go to find this particular way.
Q Did you discuss this attitude of yours with other authorities? dealing with France, I expressed this attitude. Also my office chief made us of the material which was brought in by me and the oral and written reports. still be able to work in this particular way, that is, to bring about able compromise? so far. First of all, the success of the invasion on the German part meant that there would be a two-frontal war which they could not possibly stand. Furthermore, the Western Allies with their success had a strongly fortified position. The possibility was given now to Germany, of course, to keep the Bolshevist Army from the German borders with sacrifices.
Q. What caused you to believe in a possibility of an understanding with the Western powers at that time?
A. From our work dealing with foreign news the increased tensions between Russia and England were well known. Also the facts that there were American circles who were reserved as far as the question of unconditional surrender was concerned ... from our work dealing with foreign countries. the tensions which became stronger between Russia and England was well known to us. Also the fact that there were circles in America who took a doubtful attitude towards unconditional surrender.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, I don't want to impede the Defense in any way. However, of this is going to continue much longer this line of questioning, I would like to point out that what the defendant did to improve relations between England or France or the Western powers as against Russia has absolutely nothing to do with this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is in the nature correct, Mr. Ferencz, but the Defense has the right to submit whatever evidence it has, and whatever line of reasoning it cares to present, in an attempted exculpation of the charges brought against it, and if the defendant believes that by establishing what he was attempting to do to bring about peace, that this tends to fortify his denial that he had anything to do with executions, it would be relevant and the Court will permit it. The objection is over-ruled.
DR. MAYER: Thank you, your Honor.
Q. (By Dr. Mayer) Did you have contacts which could have led to negotiations?
A. Yes, but those negotiations never came about because the final victory of Germany became the bible of the German people, so that any remarks as to the actual position became senseless and any foreign political attitude and thought were encircled by the two mottoes of unconditional surrender of the Allies and the final victory on the other side... that was the official German motto. For a political information service regarding this particular position there was no way out, and nothing could be done.
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, I have reached the end of my questioning within the direct examination of the witness. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, you made one statement with regard to your attempts to bring about peace with England, and the phrase that we captured through the translation was that this peace could be achieved...this end could be achieved...if you went about the operation cleverly. Did you regard the attempt of Rudolf Hess as a clever movement? Would you put that within the category of the cleverness of program which you referred to?
A. I don't know the actual reasons for Hess's flight, but if this flight had an official or inofficial aim to start peace negotiations without any preparations, then, of course, I cannot regard this as a very reasonable attempt, the manner which it was done.
Q. Did you know anything of it before it took place?
A. No, I did not.
Q. What was your rank during the time that you were chief of Office VI in the RSHA?
A. In June 1944 I was promoted to Standartenfuehrer.
Q. What is the equivalent in the military field... what rank?
A. If a comparison is at all possible, it is the rank of a colonel.
Q. Yes, While you were making all these efforts to bring about peace with the Allies, was there any resentment on the part of Ribbentrop that you, only a colonel, would attempt to usurp the functions which undoubtedly he was very jealous of?
A. I was merely an information service activity which would show that there was a possibility of confidential negotiation, and this fact does not necessarily need an attitude, although in this particular case there was an attitude and it was passed on the authorities, not by myself but by my office chief.
Q. The Foreign Office, then, was entirely satisfied that you conduct these efforts?
A. No, it did not go via the Foreign Office from our own office, but our office chief passed it on to Himmler, as far as I know, and Himmler decided.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Any defense counsel desire to cross examine the witness? I understand you are finished with the direct examination, Dr. Mayer?
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor. BY DR. SURHOLT (for the defendant Dr. Rasch):
Q. When did you join the Eastern assignment, witness?
A. As I have already said yesterday, it was in the first days of September. It was then that I arrived in Russia.
Q. Who was your Gruppe chief?
A. Brigadefuehrer Nebe was in charge then.
Q. How long was Nebe your Gruppe chief?
A. During November the position changed.
Q. And who took his place?
A. Naumann.
Q. Do your know whether, in the meantime, Dr. Rasch had been Gruppe chief or whether he was not Gruppe chief?
A. During the time when I was in Russia I never heard that Rasch was a leader of my Gruppe.
Q. As kommando leader of Gruppe B, therefore, you only knew that Nebe was in charge of the Gruppe, when you came and Naumann took his place later on?
A. Yes.
DR. SURHOLT: Thank you.
COURT II CASE IX BY DR. FRITZ (for the defendant Fendler):
Q. Since when do you know defendant Fendler?
A. Since the fall 1943.
Q. Where and under what conditions did you meet him?
A. Office VI was looking for a departmental chief, a Referent in my Gruppe, 6-b, and Fendler was assigned to Office VI, it was part of my own Gruppe, and he was subordinated to me directly within the Gruppe.
Q. You said in your direct examination, witness, I think, that the Gruppe dealt with countries of western and south western Europe.
A. Yes.
Q. And what countries did Fendler deal with?
A. Fendler was "Referent" for the sub-department 6-b-4 which dealt with Spain and Portugal.
Q. You have already explained generally in your direct examination the task of Office VI. I would like you to tell us now what special tasks were the tasks of a Referent, as Mr. Fendler was.
A. A Referent in a Gruppe had to obtain information ab out the country with which he was dealing. In the case, of Fendler, it was Spain and Portugal. He also had to have the necessary technical qualifications, and he had to get the technical information and other informational material, and he had to compile such material. The office material was then evaluated, and was passed on. As far as information which he received concerned the country he dealt with, -- in this case Spain and Portugal -- he had the responsibility as a Referent for a Spain report which he had to compile. If information was received concerning other countries, they were passed on to the responsible Referents of other offices. These reports were submitted to the Office Chief, the Gruppe COURT II CASE IX Chief, who passed them on to competent authorities or to the Reich agencies.
Q. And who signed these reports?
A. That depended entirely on the receiver of the report. It depended on by what agency it was received.
Q. What authority to sign did Fendler have?
A. He had the authority to sign all reports which went to his own office, or his subordinates. All reports to his chiefs and superiors had to be signed by the Gruppe chief or by the proper office chief.
Q. Did Office VI, or the defendant Fendler - apart from receiving information from foreign countries have also tasks dealing with active foreign policy?
A. No, no.
Q. Did Office VI have to deal with assignments of a political or propagandistic nature in the foreign organization of the NSDAP?
A. No.
Q. Did the defendant Fendler have anything to do with observation or supervision of persons or groups in foreign countries with the aim of persecuting them, either politically or by police?
A. No, that was not within his sphere of activity in the department, Fendler had nothing to do with it.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal whether, in the subdepartment 6-b-4, there were only members of the SD or the NSDAP or the SS, or that they had to be members of the NSDAP?
A. No. Within the sub-department it was of ho significance, of no importance, whether anybody was a member of the Party of the SS for instance, there were emergency conscriptions into the office, civilian employees who, some of them, were not even members of the NSDAP; and, of course, many of them were not members of the SS. Qualifications for COURT II CASE IX the passing on of foreign information was the most important thing.
Some of them were members of the Wehrmacht, who had been detailed for such work.
Q. Was the defendant Fendler, while he was employed in Office VI, was he active in the Party or any one of the departments?
A. I know nothing about it. According to my knowledge he was fully employed in the office.
Q. Was defendant Fendler a member of the General SS?
A. No, he was a member of the SD. He was a member of the SD.
Q. Was he a member of the armed SS, the Waffen-SS?
A. That was only a formal matter. At the end of 1944 he joined the so-called "Training Institution" Konitz, but he remained in the Office VI, and he went on with the assignments of Office VI.
Q. Is it correct that the defendant Fendler received the order from you -- it was in 1944 -- to take part in establishing negotiations with the Western powers and technical requirements, and that he carried out these tasks?
A. It was contained in the program which I mentioned before, that Fendler worked on this task which had been given by the Office Chief, and in various cases he submitted reports which were to this effect.
Q. Do you remember what rank the defendant Fendler held when in 1943 he joined the Gruppe?
A. According to my memory he was Hauptsturmfuehrerbecause during the period he was employed there he became Hauptsturmfuehrer -- Regierungsassessor -- when he joined my office.
Q. Do you remember when Fendler was promoted to SS Sturmbannfuehrer?
A. I cannot say with certainly, but that was at the COURT II CASE IX end, shortly before the collapse.
Possibly in January 1945. I do not exclude the possibility that it was only in April 1945. It was at the end.
Q. It is supposed to have been in January 1945.
A. It is possible.
Q. It is possible?
A. Yes, it is possible.
Q. Did the Referent for 6-b-4, and there also Fendler, did he have any executive power?
A. No. There were no executive tasks contained in the foreign service, and therefore Fendler did not hold such an assignment.
Q. I have two conclusive questions concerning the personaltiy of the defendant Fendler. Do you know him as a brutal, and fanatic personality?
A. No, Fendler was not brutal, and he was not fanatical.
Q. Did he have tendencies to disregard authority?
A. No, Fendler was an independent personality who always did his duty in office VI.
DR. FRITZ: Thank you. Your Honor, I have no further questions. BY DR. VOGEL (for defendant von Radetzky):
Q. Witness, if I remember correctly, you were, from the middle of August 1942 until the middle of January 1943... you were active in SK 4-a.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. What were the assignments of the defendant von Radetzky in your Kommando?
A. When I took over the kommando he was liaison officer with the Second Army, and it was also his task to maintain contact with the Hungarian Army.
Q. Is it known to you that von Radetzky, before your Court II Case IX arrival to the SD 4-a, was the deputy of the kommando chief?
A. No, that is not known to me. And I don't think it is very likely... because at that time there was a Sturmbannfuehrer and Regierungsrat, Government Councillor, in the kommando who, if there had been such a thing as a deputy, he would have been the deputy.
Q. Is it known to you that the defendant Radetzky attempted to be relieved from his activities and his assignment in the kommando?
A. He discussed the question of his release, or the question of his attitude and assignment in the kommando, with me. At this time he attempted to join a combat unit. Shortly after my return to Berlin in the year 1943, Radetzky visited me, and he told me that he wanted to try at Office I to be relieved from this war emergency assignment.
DR. VOGEL: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other Defense counsel desiring to cross examine may do so now. the Prosecution may be prepared to take up the cross examination after the Tribunal reconvenes at one forty-five.
(The Tribunal recessed until 1345 hours) (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 6 November 1947)
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, I just have two or three
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Lummert.
BY DR. LUMMERT: Witness, may I ask, is it correct that women and children?
officer of EK-IX which was active in the area in your rear?
anything about the defendant Blume at that time?
A Yes, as the leader of the kommando behind Blume's,
Q Then I have one final question. In your first Blume as soft and bureaucratic.
What do you mean by this expression "soft"?the "soft" type, and that for this reason he was reticent
Q Was this expression "soft" to mean that the defendant Blume refrained from the executions?
men were made. I also had the impression that he was very careful about caring for his men.
Q You mean that he treated them well?
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me, I did not quite catch that last answer of the witness. Will you repeat it, please. The interpreter can repeat it?
THE INTERPRETER: The witness was asked whether he meant that Blume treated his men well, and he said, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that what you mean by being "soft" because he treated his men well? characteristic.
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, I have no further question.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q Steimle, didn't the men in Sonderkommando VII-A also tell you that Blume was murdering Jews before you arrived? that the defendant Radetzky came to you while you were the commanding officer of Sonderkommando IV-A and tried to get out of Sonderkommando IV-A, is that correct?
Q Why did he want to got out of your kommando? and when his job as liaison officer to the Army had become unnecessary.
didn't like the activity that was taking place there? completely understandable that he wanted to get away. what took place? combat troop unit. Furthermore, he no longer had the job of liaison officer. dissatisfied with the type of activity that was taking place in Sonderkommando IV-A?
A During the time he was in my kommando he didn't express his opinion of that activity. VII-A?
A I can not give the exact date for that. At least he was not present when I took over kommando.
Q Didn't you ask the men in your kommando, where is your leader, or when did he leave? he left, but today I no longer know what the period of time was between his departure and my arrival.
Q You say today you do not know. Isn't it a fact that you know, or at least you expressed an opinion on it not long ago in the interrogation? or even longer.
Q You said that in your interrogations, and why don't you say it now. You say now, you don't know?
A I just said that at that time I didn't have a definite idea which I can give about the period which elapsed between his departure and my arrival.
eight or ten days, didn't you?
A I can not remember at the moment? the defendant Naumann? Smolensk.
Q When was that?
A I can not give you the exact date. It was before he visited me, and it was in the month of November. and I can count back from this visit. It may be about eight or ten days between our meeting in Smolensk and his visit to me in Kalinin. He was in Kalinin either in late November, or in the first days of December, it can by only that he met me about the 20th or 25th of November, or two or three days earlier. I can not give you the exact date.
Q Isn't it true that in the interrogations you said that you met Naumann about the middle of November? because, for instance, I included the 20th November in this period of time, namely, the middle of November. with any more exactness as to the date, and you think it was towards the end of November, as Naumann stated in his examination? beginning of December he had visited me, and our meeting was about eight to ten days before this visit.
you discussed the extermination of the Jews with him? confirmed to me once more that the order provide for the execution of all Jew, and that we could not her around this order, and, I can remember that he said he had spent sleepless nights over this order.
Q. In other words he told you and passed on to you as his subordinate the Fuehrer Order, is that correct?
A. He again confirmed to me this Fuehrer Order which I already knew.
Q. He passed it on to you then as your superior officer? If he said that here is a Fuehrer Order to kill all the Jews didn't he then pass on the order to you?
A. The Fuehrer Order existed for me because I had received it from Nebe, and from my experience in my kommando. This conference was merely a renewed confirmation that the order read that way.
Q. You mean that you didn't raise the question with him in order to try to get away from carrying out that order. You just raised it in a conversational way about killing Jews in there and anything he said was on a purely friendly personal basis, is that what you are trying to say?
A. The conference dealt with the misgivings which I and Nebe expressed about this. You can see this form the fact that he said he had spent sleepless nights about it; the order was of the type that one had to have misgivings about it.
Q. Then isn't it true that what happened is that you said, here we have this Fuehrer Order to kill defenseless people, and Naumann replied yes, I spent many sleepless nights over it, but it's a Fuehrer Order, and we have to carry it out. Didn't he then pass on the order to you in that sense at least?
A. If I can say it in one word, he confirmed it to me that it had to be carried out.
Q. You heard the defendant Naumann testify that he never discussed the killings of Jews with you, didn't you?
A. I didn't hear this in that form.
Q. In what form did you hear it?
A. I thought that he said that he talked with his officers about it.
Q. When I questioned him on whether he had passed on the order to you he denied it. What have you got to say in that connection?
A. He didn't pass on the order in that sense, because I already knew it, but he confirmed it to me once more, because it came from Berlin, and he had received it from Heydrich as he told me.
Q. Then he clearly at least implied that you too were to carry out that order?
A. That was clear that I had to carry it out.
Q. When did you become a member of the regular SS?
A. I only was a member of the SS within the SD in 1936.
Q. Isn't it true that in an interrogation on 7 July, you were asked if you were a regular member of the SS and SD, and at that time you answered, yes?
A. I was a member of the SS as far as the SD was an SS unit.
Q. Will you answer my question, please? I am asking you whether you were asked on 7 July whether you were a regular SS and SD member, and you answered, yes. Now is that correct?
A. Yes, I am. Yes, I am.
Q. And when did you become a member of Amt-VII, which was declared to be a criminal organization by the IMT?
A. Did I understand you correctly, Office-VII?
Q. Amts-VI?
A. Amts-VI. I joined Office VI by an order of 8 February 1943.
Q. Why were you hiding under an assumed name as a farmer after the end of the war?
A. I didn't hide under an assumed name, but the passport which I had been using since '43 as an intelligence officer I continued to use in order to look after my family in the French Zone, and as long as I could not get there I registered myself with the police under that name, together with two other comrades who were department chiefs in Office VI and registered under their correct names, so there was no question of hiding.
I had no civilian papers in my name of Steimle but before my imprisonment I tried by all means to find out about the fate of my wife and children, and I wanted this information because shortly before the end of the war I heard through a rumor that my wife and my children had been shot during the advance of the French troops, but this was not true. Then when I got the pass, I agreed with my two comrades that after we had visited our families, we would report to the American authorities as soon as possible and we would register with them as members of Office-VI. When I was interrogated I gave my entire personal data without being asked and to the surprise of the interrogating officer.
Q. What name were you using when you were working as a farmer?
A. The name of Bulsch, which I already used in my office.
Q. What were the dates when you were in command of Sonderkommando-VII-A?
A. 6th or 7th of September 1941, until my furlough on 10th December 1941.
Q. You have seen the documents, have you not, which list you as commanding officer through 13 February 1942. Have you seen those?
A. Yes.
Q. You say that is a mistake, the document are wrong?
A. I explained this in my direct examination that during my furlough I asked for my transfer, and I submitted a certificate by a dentist, and, therefore, the formal transfer was possibly delayed sometime.
Q. Who made the reports for you to Einsatzgruppe-B Headquarters, or did you make them yourself?
A. No, they were made by the commanding officers of the subkommandos.
Q. You mean there was no report sent from Sonderkommando VII-A as a unit to Einsatzgruppe-B?
A. Certainly, the various individual reports were compiled and sent to the Einsatzgruppe.
Q. Who compiled them?
A. The reports were not compiled but reports were sent on together, so far as I remember.
Q. Did you read them?
A. Certainly, I read those reports so far as I was present.
Q. And were the reports that were made in Einsatzgruppe-B the consolidation of reports from the Sonderkommandos within the Einsatzgruppe-B?
A. I didn't get the question.
Q. You say you sent reports to Einsatzgruppe-B. Isn't it true that Einsatzgruppe-B sent those same reports onto Berlin?
A. I assume that Einsatzgruppe-B used these reports in making out its own reports.
Q. Do you know that the commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe-B exaggerated these reports when he sent them to Berlin?
A. At my time I didn't hear anything about this.
Q. When did you first learn of the functions of Sonderkommando VII-A?
A. What do you mean by functions? Do you mean missions?
Q. I mean, missions?
A. When I was informed about it by Nebe in Smolensk.
Q. When was that?
A. In September 1941.
Q. What did he tell you was the mission of this Sonderkommando that you were about to take over?
A. I explained this in my direct examination. He told me about the mission against Communist resistance movements and their helpers, the Jews. That is what he spoke about, and he also spoke about the making out of reports, and he also mentioned that important documents were to be collected.
Q. He told you then that at least part of your mission was to kill all the Jews and Communist leaders, is that correct?
A. He told that the active Communist forces and their helpers, Jews, are to be killed. At that conference I understood it to mean that resisting forces, whether they be Communist or Jews, are to be shot.
Q. In other words, in September you didn't know that all Jews were to be killed, but you thought only those who actively resisted were to be killed, is that correct?
A. I believed this until I heard of the complete order from Foltis, and then I also understood what Nebe meant.
Q. What did Foltis tell you?
A. I told that in my direct examination. He said that during the advance various adult and able-bodied Jews had been shot; that the kommando had not shot women and the children, and he spoke of the Fuehrer Order.
Q. You say that he spoke of the Fuehrer Order. Do you mean that he told you that there was an order that was issued by Hitler passed on through the channels that all Jews were to executed?
A. I had heard of the Fuehrer Order as such from Nebe; the extent of the Fuehrer Order was to be gathered clearly from Foltis statement.
Q. In other words, Nebe first mentioned the Fuehrer Order, but didn't go into told you that the order meant to kill women and children just because they were Jews, is that correct?
A. In this sense, yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, I would like to get the chronology of these various discussions of the Fuehrer Order. The defendant spoke with Naumann, he spoke to Nebe, he spoke with Foltis. Let's get the order of it and what he ascertained at each discussion about the Fuehrer 6 November 1947_A_MSD_16_1_Hoxsie (Lea) September 1941 with Nebe - when Nebe mentioned it but didn't go into details, is that correct?