THE WITNESS: Yes, a director 4 in a staff, as I heard later from other Einsatzgruppe, usually had several executive officers to handle such questions and interrogating officers were included in this.
THE PRESIDENT: My question was whether the table of organization in the German Army includes a designation "interrogating officer".
THE WITNESS: In the Army, certainly not, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, in your organization, Security Police and Security Service?
THE WITNESS: In the Security Police there were officers who carried out interrogations....
THE PRESIDENT: That isn't the question that I put. Certainly there were officers who carried out interrogations. I want to know if there was a certain position, a certain title called interrogating officer?
THE WITNESS: I know of no such title, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, why do you say that the staff did not have a single interrogating officer? Any officer is capable of interrogating, isn't he?
THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. An officer who came from Office 3 to make out reports for the SD was not entitled to carry out an interrogation at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Supposing a Russian prisoner were brought to you and you were the only one there. Could you interrogate him?
THE WITNESS: I certainly could have done.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you interrogate him?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this never happened....
THE PRESIDENT: If a Russian prisoner were brought to you and you were the only officer around, would you interrogate him?
THE WITNESS: Certainly I would have asked-him where he COURT II CASE IX had come from.
...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you would, have Interrogated him. You would have got from him as much information as you could.
THE WITNESS: The information which would, have showed me by which unit he would have to be interrogated further.
THE PRESIDENT: But you would have asked him questions?
THE WITNESS: Yes, of course, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: So that any officer with a little bit of intelligence, and he would have had to have some intelligence in order to become an officer, would certainly be capable of interrogating?
THE WITNESS: In this respect, your Honor, as you express it, certainly. When I was testifying I had in mind that for these interrogations carried on by the Security Police, officers had been specially trained, but in the form in which you put it, your Honor, it was of course true.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Dr. Gawlik.
Q (By dr. Gawlik) Where does the expression "interrogating officer" come from, witness?
A I am no expert. It may be that I have used an entirely wrong expression. I imagine an executive officer.
Q What did you want to say by using the expression "interrogating officer"? What did you mean by it? to carry out executive missions and does and is trained for it. More than an interrogation is necessary for that.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, in order to clarify this matter I would like to say a few words. We have a different procedure than in America and our criminal matters are first handled by the police and there are certain officials with the criminal police, and then from '33 to '45 there were certain officials with the Secret State Police who were specially trained in interrogations, and those were called interrogation officers. They carried out interrogations of defendants with witnesses present. And only then passed matters on to the prosecution authorities. They had been especially trained for this to carry out interrogations.
THE PRESIDENT: But the witness has now just stated that by an interrogating officer he meant one who was competent to carry out executive missions.
DR. GAWLIK: We designated this as an executive mission. This has nothing to do with executions. We designated the whole mission of the police as an executive function.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I wasn't referring to executions when I said executive mission, but an executive mission would certainly go far beyond that of interrogation.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, of course, there were other tasks concerned with that, but the entire prosecution of a criminal action, the investigation of a criminal action of course there is more to it than interrogation -- but the technique of interrogation this belongs to the executive function.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, if it is broader than merely interrogating, and the witness would so indicate, I do not understand how so important an organization as an Einsatzgruppe headquaters would not have that type of an officer. Can you explain that to us, witness?
THE WITNESS: I can explain this, your Honor. Ohlendorf, as chief of the Einsatzgruppe, had these executive missions carried out by the Kommandos. No prisoner was ever brought to the staff. No civilian prisoner either during the entire time that I was in Russia, where there would have been a necessity for interrogating him. Only thus can it be understood that no authorized deputy was with staff at certain times. Otherwise it would have been completely impossible.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Dr. Gawlik.
Q (By Dr. Gawlik) Was there ever an expert for executive missions with the staff? of the Russian assignment, Office 1 of RSHA detailed a Chief 4 who immediately after the Russian invasion received a Kommando, after Ohlendorf had conferred with the chief of Office 1; and this man was never replaced.
Q Who was this? From which office did this man come? Mueller, and an official who had been only active in the security police. matters? 1936 until the end of the war, I never was active in any other department, not even in an information service. Therefore, I never received such training. tion has claimed that you were the senior officer within the group. Is that statement correct?
A I was not the senior officer in the Einsatzgruppe. The Kommando leaders, Standartenfuehrers Setzen abd Mueller, had higher ranks. of the German, I submit to you exhibit 159, document NOKW-629. This is a report of the 9th of October, 1941, to the headquaters of the Air Force. This is signed by you as an acting deputy and from document book 3-D, I submit to you, on page 39 of the English and 69 of the German, exhibit 160, document NOKW-628. This is a report of the 16th of April, 1942, This report is also signed by you as a deputy. In the German book this is missing. The letter IV as a deputy are missing, but in the original it is mentioned. I ask you now, was Ohlendorf absent during the time listed? remember that, but I do not want to doubt it for I have seen from the documents that Ohlendorf was on an official trip, but this happened very frequently. Sometimes it was short, sometimes for a lengthy period. In April, that is, in the second document, Ohlendorf was in Berlin on leave.
Q Concerning the first document, I have another question. If Ohlendorf was absent at all, can you comment on whether it was a short absence or a long absence? I said, I don't even remember it, and any kind of question of being his deputy did not even come up. April, 1942, his deputy, that is, Ohlendorf's deputy?
A No, I was not Ohlendorf's deputy.
Q It was first divided. First describe the October '41 situation and then the April situation. for my sphere, the SD reports and the liaison with the Army, and in this capacity I signed this document and this happened also if Ohlendorfwas there.
It was not the reason that he was absent but this happened if he was present too. In the manner in which Ohlendorf worked this is no special in Office 3 one of his department chiefs for his field had the right to sign documents for Ohlendorf as a representative for his particular sphere of work, but he did not become the representative for the entire Office 3. interpreted. In April, 1942 the same facts existed, but at this time I was in the staff as the senior officer and I was Ohlendorf's deputy for the current transactions of the staff. But this has nothing to do with the signature.
Q And who was the actual deputy of Ohlendorf. in 1942? is, from the middle of March to the second half of April, Ohlendorf had ordered that the Kommando leaders were to represent him in their different spheres.
Q Did Ohlendorf have anyone deputy at all; or, to clarify this point how many deputies were there? said, the commando leaders represented him in their spheres because Ohlendorf was of the opinion as he had been during the entire years of his activity that he could only be represented by a man who knows his area well himself. German; this is page 39 of the English, your Honor; this is Exhibit 160, NOKW 628. This is the report of the 16th April, 1942. Here a transfer of sub-commandos is mentioned. Did you order the transfer of these subcommandos?
A No, I did not. They were ordered by the commander to which these sub-commandos belonged. commandos? reports of the commando. commandos?
Q How about when Ohlendorf was absent? subordinated to the commando to which they belonged, Jews, gypsies or communists. BY THE PRESIDENT: for general direction in their activities?
Q To whom did the commando leaders turn for general directions?
Q When Ohlendorf was absent? army corps to which they had been attached; or, if it was a matter of an important general directive, they had to get in touch with Ohlendorf, and this was possible because we had radio communication with Ohlendorf. no matter where he might be, he still commanded the entire Einsatzgruppen? quiries by commando leaders or their request for new directives did not occur during this time at all, but if they had occurred, a decision would have been made by way of this radio communication.
Q Suppose that you were unable to reach him; suppose a commando leader was unable to reach him when he went to Prague; he might be enroute; he might be in a plane; he might be anywhere; that he could not be reached, and a decision had to be made. To whom would the commando leader turn for direction and guidance? responsibility for the security of the area. help this commando leader in reaching a decision? made. to what the other commando leaders were doing. Wouldn't he have to clear through the Einsatzgruppen headquarters? mean? to know what the other commandos were doing; he would naturally turn to the headquarters, the Einsatzgruppen headquarters to find out just what was being done in all the other commandos.
Now, to whom would he turn at the headquarters for direction and guidance? the other commandos in the orderly room in order to see how this commando solved a question. would look at these reports and then advise the commando leader who was making the inquiry. staff...
Q Some one would have to take the authority. Now, who would at the headquarters receive this inquiry from the commando leader in the field and would make the necessary investigation, and then finally transmit a message to the commando leaders? Who would do this at headquarters?
A If the commando commander came to the staff in Ohlendorf's absence, then I certainly would have said in this case: in the orderly room there are the reports of the commandos there; you have the possibility of looking at them and of seeing how the commando worked it out.
Q Let's suppose he didn't come personally, but contacted by radio or sent a message by courier, addressed to Ohlendorf; Ohlendorf isn't there, and it is impossible for Ohlendorf to be reached, and this commando leader must know just what the situation is among the other commando leaders. He is confronted with a problem; he wants to solve it; he needs information; he needs guidance. How, who at headquarters would help him out? these reports to take along to his commando leader.
Q Who would give him the reports to take along? I cannot say off-hand.
Q what rank did the adjutant have?
Q Yes. Then you out-ranked the adjutant. the guidance. to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q May I ask you a question about this, witness. What do you mean by help. Does that mean that you had given the commando leader a decision; that you would have to decide the matter? Or, that you could have been able to give the commando leader advice. decision, and that I could not have given any advice in any field which I did not work on; but it could have been only a matter of giving the commando leader a report from another commando, but how he then decides, whether he depends upon the decision made by the other commando, that was up to hiw own responsibility. if Ohlendorf was absent for a lengthy time? with me, made a large number of trips, when no authorized deputy was with the staff.
Q Witness, you did not understand me. Look at this sketch here. Who was Ohlendorf's deputy when Ohlendorf was absent; if he was absent for a longer period of time, who were the deputies?
the commando leader for his area, that is, for the area of the Special Commando 10-A he was represented by the Commando Leader 10-A, etc. Ohlendorf would have made had he been there? Ohlendorf's representative.
Q And did he therefore have any cause to apply to the Group Staff? deputy would always have had to be present at the staff, and these things did not even happen; these inquiries didn't occur.
Q And why did they not happen, witness? guously; the additional orders from the army were also well known; the executive directives had been regulated, so it can thus be explained that no inquiries had to be made to the Group Staff. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q How many persons were there in the Group Staff? enlisted men -- about thirty or thirty-five men, including guard personnel, signal personnel, kitchen personnel, etc. a group of soldiers and officers together, that some one must command. You know that?
Q Very well. Let us take the illustration of a battalion with four companies; the companies are in the field -- A, B, C, D. The company commander of Company C wants to know what A, B and D are doing because he is confronted with a situation whereby it is important that he know what his brother commanders are doing so that he can coordinate his efforts with their's. Now, he can't go around to see the captains of A, B and D; so, the captain of Company C goes to Battalion Headquarters the major isn't there; the battalion major, the battalion commanding officer isn't there.
He would be the person he would naturally turn to, but he isn't there. Now witness, you know that there would be soma one in the battalion headquarters who would take this company commander and talk over the situation with him.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Q. That would have been necessary, yes. Now, I just want to know who would be that person at the Croup Staff Headquarters when Ohlendorf isn't there, You have thirty-five people there; you have eight officers, and a commando leader comes or sends a courier and he wants to coordinate his efforts with the efforts of all the other leaders. Now, you cannot say, witness, that every situation had been anticipated; that no one would need to make any inquiries, because everything had already been worked out before. In war any situation can develop. When a commando leader is confronted with the necessity of making a decision, and he can't make the decision unless he has information, a little bit of advice, and he goes to the Staff Headquarters and Ohlendorf is not there, with whom would he speak?
A. Your Honor, during my presence he would have spoken with me of course, but may I say in connection that this comparison between the battalion and the Einsatzgruppen is incorrect insofar as a battalion could never have been commanded without a battalion commander; the commander was necessary there every day....
Q. Well, but you have the battalion commander with Ohlendorf -- to use the illustration, use his as the battalion commander in the illustration which I have given.
A. Yes.
Q. Yes, and then the battalion commander, the major isn't there; the major is killed in the illustration I have given. Certainly some one takes over.
A. Then somebody would have been designated to take over this past, Your Honor. And if I may clarify this, I . would not have any doubt that in our case of the Einsatzgruppenif Ohlendorf had been killed, the senior commando leader would have taken over his place. That would have been ordered by radio from Berlin on the same day.
Q. Yes, but before this happens, Ohlendorf isn't there and it isn't known whether he is missing because of casualty or if he is away on an important mission. He is just not there. Certainly if a successor is appointed immediately there is no question. We are in the twilight zone where we don't know what happened to Ohlendorf; he is not there. Somebody has to make a decision. You are in war, and a man arrives at Staff Headquarters; Who does he talk to? He talks to you.
A. Yes, but I could, never have made the decision if it hadn't concerned my sphere.
Q. In other words the commando leader comes to you and he says: The partisans are attacking on a one hundred mile front. I want to know what these other three commando leaders are doing. How shall I meet the situation? would you say we will see; I am going to write you a nice report on this; is that what you would do? You wouldn't give him a report.
A. No case -
Q. (Interposing) Well, of course you would talk over the situation with him; advise him, give him counsel, call for reinforcements. You would do something.
A. In thiscase I would have done something immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Why of course you would have done something. That is all I wanted to know.
Proceed, Dr. Gawlik. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, what would you have done; what could you have done in this case?
A. In this case which Your Honor has just mentioned, that is if our office had been threatened by partisans, I as the senior officer, I would have done everything in order to fight these partisans.
Q. In what way?
A. In the way I just described.
Q. What units?
A. The units of the staff which would have been attacked in this case. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. No, that isn't what I said, I wasn't speaking of the staff headquarters being attacked. Any one would know what to do if your own headquarters was attacked. I am speaking of this commando leader who comes in and gives a story of trouble in the field, Didn't you understand my question to be that?
A. Your Honor, that the commando leader comes with a message that the area had been threatened by partisans?
Q. Yes, he must know just what all the other commando leaders are doing; he must coordinate his efforts with their's; and he comes to you for a little bit of counsel; and you in a situation like that certainly you would immediately take over and talk with him and issue whatever orders the situation required.
A. Your Honor, in this example the commander would have immediately applied to the army, and the army had in such a case every power of order in the occupied area.
Q. Now, witness, what would the army have done. The army would have to find out what companies A, B and D were doing in the illustration which I have given. They would immediately then contact the battalion headquarters to find out what the situation was. The army wouldn't act blindly. So, it would come back to you again.
A. Your Honor, there was a liaison officer with the army from the Einsatzgruppen who consulted with the chief of staff and the G-2 and informed them about the garrison activity of the commando, that is to say, the army had very close connections.
Q. Well, the liaison officer isn't there, and this commando leader of Company C is demanding immediate action. He can't wait until you find the liaison officer and he can't wait until you find these reports. He wants immediate action. In that situation you would have to take over, wouldn't you?
A. Your Honor, practically speaking, the commander would have got in touch with his neighboring commando leaders and they would have made the decision themselves.
Q. Without any coordination from headquarters?
A. Of course the staff would have been informed about any changes in the situation, but they would never have required a decision.
Q. They would have made a decision?
A. No, Your Honor, due to the fact that it never happened.
Q. All right, suppose you have four commando leaders and they don't agree. Two say we will attack from the east, and two say we will attack from the west. Now, who makes the decision? Do they go off and attack in all directions without any direction, without any control?
A. Your Honor, we did not have these missions at all, but if it is a matter of military operations; then Wehrmacht officers were always used for this by the army. I cannot even compare this.
Q. You were being attacked; the army is one hundred miles away, and you do nothing; you send out reports and sit there; you send out a report and sit there -- is that what you want me to believe?
A. No, Your Honor.
Q. You would do something in the meantime, would't you?
A. your Honor, but the army was in our garrison; it never happened that way; we were there in order to be in their vicinity.
Q. You were always with A.O.H.?
A. The staff was always in the vicinity or in the town itself where the army headquarters was, anyway, the whole time in Russia.
Q. Well then, you really didn't have much use for a headquarters because the army controlled everything.
A. Your Honor, for all the examples which you have listed, the army had all the complete power of command.
Q. Well then, there wasn't much use for Ohlendorf to be there because the army had control; the army did everything; Ohlendorf was merely a figure-head.
A. In these examples which Your Honor has mentioned, the army gave the orders, but we had more missions.
Q. Well, all right. Take the missions which you did have. Ohlendorf was the man who gave the orders; is that right?
A. Ohlendorf, yes.
Q. All right; Ohlendorf isn't there; now who does it?
A. In that case orders would be given by myself in the sphere in which I worked. Furthermore, the commander was the deputy in Ohlendorf's absence, Therefore, in spheres which were not my own, that is for the executive missions, I could not give any orders and did not give them.
Q. So that if a commando leader arrived and said that we are confronted with a certain situation in the field, whether it be partisans, whether it be Jews, security, or counter-intelligence, all you could do would be to sit down and write a report on economics.
A. No, I was able to do more.
Q. What did you do besides sitting down and writing a beautiful, fat report on economics?
What did you do?
A. Myself you mean?
Q. Yes, in this situation I gave. Ohlendorf isn't there and a commando leader comes in and wants some help in the field to which he is assigned, whether it be partisan, Jews, Gypsies or security; no matter what.
A. Your Honor, I could not have made a decision and I did not, but, if such a decision had been necessary -- but it was not necessary, because all orders were known -- if a decision had been necessary,
Q. Well, I have said, you cannot contact Ohlendorf. Ohlendorf is away somewhere. Now who would make the decision?
A. I could not have made it. I, -
Q. And then when Ohlendorf would return, you would say to him, "Herr Ohlendorff, a commando leader came here demanding that I make a decision. A very serious problem arose in the field. He had to know what the other kommando leaders were doing, and I just couldn't help him. All I did was sit down and write a nice report for him on economics." Is that what you would have told Ohlendorf?
A. No, I would not have said that to him. I would have told him that the kommando leader had looked at the reports and the directives which the other kommando leaders had made and he depended on those.
THE PRESIDENT: Thr Tribunal will be in recess 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. RIEDIGER: Riediger for the defendant, Haensch. Your Honor, may I ask that the defendant, Haensch be excused from this afternoon's session in order to prepare his defense, and also to direct that he be brought to Room 57.
PRESIDENT: The defendant, Haensch, will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon and the marshal is directed to see to it that the defendant, Haensch, "will be in Room 57 this afternoon so that he nay confer with his attorney.
DR. ROESSEL: Roessel for the defendant, Ott. I ask that the defendant, Ott, be excused from tomorrow's session in order to prepare the defense.
PRESIDENT: The defendant, Ott, will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow so that me may prepare his defense with his counsel.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, as a representative for Dr. Aschenauer, I ask that the defendant, Ohlendorf, be excused from tomorrow's session in order to prepare the documents.
PRESIDENT: The defendant will be excused from the session tomorrow. You may proceed.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, after the question which Your Honor put to the witness, I have some questions of my own to put to the witness, and may I ask that the witness be permitted to rise and point out on the map where the group staff was and where the commandos were?
PRESIDENT: By all means.
THE WITNESS: The group staff was at that time in Simferopol in the Crimea. The Commando 11B was at the same place and had several of its subcommandos south and west of Simferopol. The Commando 103 was in Feodosia. That is 150 kilometers from Simferopol.