Q. Well, when you looked at the negative you had to compare it with your memory, with you image of a face. Merely looking at the picture would mean nothing unless you could make a comparison, and that's the only way you recall a mental image. Now, when you saw the picture in the negative, the you recognized it as the man whose picture you had taken; is that correct?
A. Yes, I recognized him as a person of whom I had taken a photo, but whether his name was Dr. Haensch I did not know. I only compared it with the book.
Q. Yes, and you say that you remember only these faces which are unusual?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, what was there unusual about Dr. Haensch's face that you recalled it when you saw the negative as the one whose picture you had made five years before?
A. There was nothing exceptional. Only I recalled it when I heard the whole context.
Q. What do you mean by the whole context?
A. I took out the negative and I found the name in the book and compared it to the negative, and I then remembered that I had seen that face and that I had taken the photo myself.
Q. By looking at the name you recalled the face?
A. About that, yes.
Q. Can you recall the faces of all these names that are in this book?
A. No, I cannot do that. I would have to look at a negative or a picture of the person concerned. Then I would remember that I have already seen the person and retouched the picture. By retouching the picture the impression of the person becomes even deeper than when one just looks at it for a short time.
Q. Yes, but what does referring to the book do to help you recall the features of the face?
A. The book only helps to find the negative.
Q. You said that you looked at the negative. Then you looked in the to remember that that was the person whose picture you had taken.
Is that what you just said or said a few moments ago?
A. Yes, quite right.
Q. All right. Now, I want you to tell us how looking at a nme in, this book helps you to recall features?
A. No, I looked for the negative after seeing the name, and then I
Q. Well then, you only look in the book to find the negative?
A. Quite right.
Q. So that you recollection is from the negative and not from the book?
A. Yes.
Q. So then we come back to the original proposition. What is there recall the features of Dr. Haensch?
A. I don't quite know what to say. I described the whole process in detail, and I can only repeat myself.
The moment I saw the negative
Q. When you saw the negative you remembered the person, you remembere about when he came for the picture, and you recalled the time of the day?
A. Not the exact day, no. I only saw that from the book.
Q. But you did remember the time of the day. You remembered it was in the forenoon?
A. I cannot say this under oath, but I think it must have been in the morning.
somehow I seem to remember that subconsciously.
Q. Can you tell by looking at every negative whether the picture was taken in the morning or the afternoon?
A. No, I cannot do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, would you please continue with your cross examination?
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please; may I have the three exhibits which are before the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: YES. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. Witness, will you tell the Tribunal whether on the negative themselves there is some number or some date?
A. The number and the name is on it in any case. Whether the date is also on there, I don't know. Yes, on the negative the number and the name should be there.
THE PRESIDENT: Was it your custom to add the date to the negative?
THE WITNESS: Not always, no, because we looked for these negatives according to names and figures and not according to dates.
Q. (By Mr. Hochwald) But name and number must be on it?
A. Should be on it, yes.
Q. Will you just examine these two pictures? Can you tell the Tribunal whether on these two negatives -
A. No, there is no number on them.
Q. Name? Is there a name on it?
A. No, no name either unfortunately.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you say unfortunately? Why did you add that? What difference does it make whether they are there or not?
THE WITNESS: Because my employees did not do this properly when they wrote on the negatives. It really should not have occurred.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you have an assistant in the actual photographic process?
THE WITNESS: No, I developed these things myself at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, you are the one who should have added the name and number?
THE WITNESS: No, I developed the plates and the next day when the employee came she settled these writing matters.
THE PRESIDENT: And she would write on the negative?
THE WITNESS: Yes, she should have written the name and the number on it.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the names and numbers appear on all the other negatives?
THE WITNESS: Yes. name and number?
THE WITNESS: It is possible that this occurred repeatedly, I am not sure. But every negative should bear the name and the number in order to find it afterwards.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Let us say in a hundred negatives how many would bear the names and numbers?
THE WITNESS: Among a hundred negatives it might have happened once that it was omitted.
THE PRESIDENT: And it happened to be Dr. Haensch?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
Q. (By Mr. Hochwald) Will you tell the Tribunal what that is? Do you know what it is or shall I hand it to you? Will you be good enough to hand it to the witness.
A. Yes, that is the photostatic copy of the writing pad which I put at the disposal of the Tribunal.
Q. When was this copy made?
A. It was made by my employee during my absence.
Q. I still do not know when it was made?
THE PRESIDENT: Have you made it clear that it is the photostat? Isn't that what you mean? I don't think the witness understood that.
Q. (By Mr. Hochwald) When was the photo copy made?
A. It was made during my absence. Frau Dr. Haensch visited me in the studio while I was away on a journey and my employee made this photostatic copy for Dr. Riediger.
Q. Is it not true
THE PRESIDENT: I don't quite understand it. She said Dr. Haensch visited her?
DR. HOCHWALD: As far as I understood it, your Honor, the witness said that Mrs. Haensch visited her employee in her absence and that in her absence this copy was made on the request of Dr. Riediger; is that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q. (By Mr. Hochwald) As far as I remember you have just this morning told the Tribunal that this employee of yours was not an employee in your business. It was only a servant in your house, a housekeeper. How do you explain,to the Tribunal that your employee, who was not in your place, or in your business when you made this photograph, who did not keep these books, that she was able to give Mrs. Haensch not only the necessary information but also a photo copy just of this little book, or the page of the little books?
A. My employee had once been in the MPA, that is, the Military Testing office, and there she must have done that kind of work, and at the request of Dr. Haensch she made this photostatic copy.
Q. Who requested you -- Dr. Haensch requested you or Dr. Riediger?
A. I meant Dr. Riediger.
Q. How would this employee have found the negative without number? The negative is not numbered. Will you tell that to the Tribunal?
A. On the envelope will be the number of the negative inside it.
Q. Are you sure of that?
A. No, I am not quite sure, but it might have been filed under the name as well and she found it under the name.
Q. I hand you the envelope and will you tell me what you find on there?
A. That is the name and number written on it.
Q. Will you please compare pencilmark of the name and the number on the negative and the envelope and will you tell the Tribunal whether you see a difference?
A. Yes, the one on the top I wrote myself on the negative, no, I mean the envelope, and the other one my employee must have written.
Q When did you write the number?
Q At the same time? the 21st February 1942, this number and the name of Haensch were written by you on this envelope, is that correct? when the picture was taken. the same date approximately?
Q How is that -- will you explain that to the Tribunal? You have just said that you wrote it, the name and the number.
A I can explain that. I develop at the end of the day. I develop my negatives in the evening, and the next day they are sorted and filed when they are dry, and the name and number is put on them. that correct?
Q You have examined the envelope, by now, did you not--did you? Did you not examine the envelope, I said? ferent pencil than the name--is it not, Witness--please answer?
A I don't think that it was a different pencil.
Q You are here under oath. Did you not find when you just now examined the envelope that the pencil of the number is much fresher than the pencil of the name?
Q Very well. The Tribunal has the envelope before it. I would now turn to the page in this notebook. By whom was this filled out?
book, is that right. a place for the amount which was paid before hand, and the date. This is the normal form, is it not? Can you remember when Dr. Haensch gave the order that these pictures should be sent to his wife?
A No. I only found that again in the book. My employee wrote this down.
Q Was he more than one time in your place?
A No. He was there only once. pictures should be sent to his wife, is that correct?
Q Under "Street", however, here it is said, "Hartmannsweiler Weg 16", and between "Name" and "Street" there is squeezed in a second address, which is the second address?
A That is the address which Dr. Haensch gave where the sample pictures were to be sent to. place which is provided for it? down the home address, and then later on the custormer might have said, "but I would like to have it sent to another address", and then we added the address where it is to be sent to. In the large book I remember that immediately under this there is an order which also gave us another address where the pictures are to be sent to.
Q It would be then Number 392?.
A Yes, that is possible--'93, I believe.
Q You can find out there. It is in the large book. This is 393, is it not? If you will just look into that in this case, 393, where you gave as an example, too, there is only one address in it.
which you make? into this little notebook?
A No. I was not present, but here under 406 it says-
Q But I want your answer, do you, or don't you know how this second address came into the little notebook?
A I don't know offhand. My employee wrote it here in her own handwriting.
THE PRESIDENT: What about this illustration of 393, was that cleared up?
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honor, 393 bears also a remark where the pictures were to be sent to, and the witness said it happened very often that it was to be sent somewhere, and I looked up in the book the number she gave, and just under 393 there is only one address, the address where the pictures were to be sent to. Possibly the witness will tell the Tribunal whether this contention of mine is correct.
THE WITNESS: Yes, this contention is right, but in my book it is shown repeatedly that the home address is written here and the sample prints are to be sent somewhere else. May I give you the numbers for this?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Witness, you volunteered that under 393, the double address will be found. Now, Mr. Hochwald tells us that a double address does not appear under 393. Do you want to offer any explanation as to why you said that under 393 there would be a double address?
A I cannot say this. Probably only this one address was given where it was to be sent to, but wherever I could get a home address.....
MR. HOCHWALD: Will you hand the clerk, the big book, please---will you hand it to me?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q Did you find some other number where you had two addresses?
A Yes, several. If possible, I always asked people to give me their home address in case fees have to be received so that I can have the home address to obtain these amounts.
MR. HOCHWALD: I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. RIEDIGER: photo of Dr. Haensch. According to the normal way of business, when could you assume that the rough prints would be ready to be sent off?
Q That is two to three weeks?
Q Then I have here this picture which was sent to me. Is this a copy of these plates?
Q Was it taken by you?
Q And can you determine when you made this copy?
A No. I cannot determine that now, but these must be the pictures which were sent to Hirschfelde.
Q But you can't determine this from the picture yourself?
THE PRESIDENT: Might the Tribunal see that picture? BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q What is your custom with regard to receiving payment for pictures?
A In most cases I have a small amount paid at the beginning; if they are acquaintances, I do not ask them to pay on account, and when the pictures are delivered, the rest is paid, but it happens repeatedly that the customers don't have any money with them, and then they pay for the pictures when they collect them.
Q Well, these pictures were sent to Mrs. Haensch?
Q Were they sent by messenger?
Q Then how did the mailman collect the money?
A I don't know whether it was sent by mail or whether Mrs. Haensch sent the money or whether she brought it herself-- I don't know. It is possible that my employee received it. call and pay?
A I don't know that any more now. delivered, wouldn't you?
A I don't know exactly. It is possible that it was sent later on, either the messenger brought it to me--I am not sure. pictures and later on the money would be paid? receive the money for the pictures?
PRESIDENT: Dr. Riediger, if you have no further questions to put to the witness, the witness may be excused.
DR. RIEDIGER: I have no further questions of the witness.
PRESIDENT: The witness will be excused and the defendant will be taken back to the witness stand. And you are instructed, witness, not converse or communicate with Frau Reich until such time as she has testified in the Tribunal. Do you understand that?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I know that.
MR. HOCHWALD: May I proceed, your Honor?
PRESIDENT: Please.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q Dr. Haensch, you have told the Tribunal that you were dismissed from your position in Doebeln as you made a report on behalf of the mayor with a difference of the kreisleiter? Is that correct? of this city administration on behalf of the city administration for the Foreign Office, namely, the SD.
Q Was it the only reason that made this report?
A Yes. I don't know what other reasons I might have had.
Q You did not know about the existence of the SD, is that correct? of the SS who were competent for such things. Only I heard about this for the first time through this SS leader; after the report had gotten into the hands of the kreisleiter, this SS man came to me and told me about it.
Q I would like to refer to Document Book IIIC; page 53, of the English, page 86 of the German; document No. 3261; Prosecution Exhibit 141. This document, Herr Haensch, is your life history which you made out yourself in August 1937 for your SS files. just above the heading, "page 5 of the original". It is in the middle of page 53 in the English, Your Honor. This paragraph needs, "on 15 February 1935 I entered the employment of the Municipal Administration Doebeln as an Assessor. There I was dismissed on 15 July 1935. The underlying cause were discrepancies between the Municipality and the NSDAP Kreisleiter (district leader) in the course of which I, in my capacity of confidential agent of the sub-Regional Headquaters of the Security Service Dresden, had given the Security service reports which through no fault of mine had come to the knowledge of the district leader."
Does that now show, Dr. Haensch, that this report of yours was made for the simple reason that you were the confidence agent of the SD? text, it cannot mean that . The life history was made a year and 3 months later, 1937, and at the request of the SS personnal office who wanted me to write a life history. As I can see, I wrote very briefly everything concerning the dispute in Doebeln, according to the truth. Of couese, I said that this report, was added to later on. It might have come into the hands of the kreisleiter that I made these reports; how else should I express it, as a trustee of the SD. As a confidential man of the SD, I did not know that at the time, I did it for the SS, but of course, I realized that the department to whom the report want was the SD. Therefore, it is quite right if a year and three months later I wrote it in order to explain what the situation was, I made these reports in my capacity as confidential man for the SD. the report the confidential agent of the SD, is that correct? man of the SD at the moment? I could not regard myself to be a confidential man of the SD but of the SS, but I heard afterwards that the department to whom this report was sent was the SD. In fact, it was like this, that this confidential report, which this is, I wrote as a confidential man of the SD. right?
A Yes. It does not say anything incorrect.
Q You have testified here, Dr. Haensch, that before you came or before you started your activities of Sonderkommando 4B you were instructed about your duties by Heydrich, by Mueller, the Chief of the Gestapo in the RSHA, by Thomas, the commander of Einsatzgruppe C, is that correct?
A Yes. That is not quite right. I was not introduced by Mueller in any way, and as I said, Heydrich simply bade me goodbye, and I said, as far as I can remember, what Heydrich said to me at the time. to your predecessor Braune, and to the commanders of the sub-commandos, is that correct?
A I talked to Braune, as far as I remember; a few days passed before I talked to the leaders of the subcammandos--before I could have talked to them -- I don't know exactly.
Q You spoke to him at the time you were in command?
whom know the Hitler Order, ever mentioned this order to you. I only want to recapitulate. Haydrich was the first person, very likely, who received this order. Streckenbach and Mueller had handed down the order. Thomas and Braune and the subcommando leaders undoubtedly have carried out this order. All these people were very familiar with this order.
None of them told you a word about it. Can you explain to the Tribunal how that could have happened?
and on the basis of all I have heard during the proceedings here, and I can assure the Tribunal that I thought about it seriously how this might have been cnnected. If I give an explanation now, it is an explanation I can give because I know about all the facts which have come in here. In my opinion things which had already been passed were discussed in the commando.
Q May I interrupte you for a minute? You said, "things which were in the past". We have reports here to which we shall come later. It is stated 6 of March, which shows between the first and sixth of March 1942, it is exactly ten days you came to Sonderkommando 4B, 1224 Jews were killed in Artenowsk, and that by this action Artenowsk was freed of Jews, that you cannot r member whether it is very much in the past, Dr. Haensch, this Fuchrerorder was not executed by your commando, Just exactly ton days before you came to be commander of Sonderkommando 4b? the Tribunal that at the very earliest I arrived on 15 March.
Q That is what you said? assume to have been event mentioned in the document should have occured shortly before. Perhaps, I may draw your attention to what I said yesterday. It is not true that this report appeared for the first time on 6 March. The same report is already contained in a report of events 27 February.
Q I think that you are mistaken. This is a report which covers a period between the first and the last of March, Dr. Haensch, and therefore it is absolutely clear that these killings were carried out between the first and the sixth of March.
I will show that to you. I wanted to show it to you later. The document is in Document Book IIIA.
This is Document 3876-PS. It is on page 42 of the English, Your Honors, and I don't know just now which page it is in the German.
It was page 57 of the German. There you came to Sonderkommando 4B. According to your own contention you have been there the 15th.
It was therefore that it did not appear like this.
Only it seems quite impossible to me, and I will prove this, but I don't understand one thing concerning this document.
This is the Situation Report of events No. 9 of the 27th of February.
were referring is by no means the report No. 9. It is the Report No. 11.
A No, that is the strange thing about it. I wanted In the Situation and Operation report No. 11 of the 23rd shooting of the Jews on the 23 of April, 1942.
Dr. Hochwald, I don't quite understand your explanation here.
I have read with my own eyes and perhaps Dr. Riediger will submit the a Situation Report, or Report of Events No. 9 of 27 February, Activity and Situation Report NO.
9. The document which you now submit to me is the Activity and Situation Report No. 9. That is, it is a copy on a -- on a -
Q You are mistaken. You will note it is No. 11. It shows that the period covered -
A No. 9.
Q I know it is No. 11. I can't help this. I can read.
A It states there No. 9. document, the report you have been referring to is the Report No. 11 and this report covers the period from the first to the last of March and in this report the killing of the 1,224 Jews in Artenowsk is listed, so if you -which you refer, No. 11 of the 23rd of April , 1942. The copy which I have in front of me here shows that time of report of 1 March until 31 March 1942, but what you mentioned to me before that -- what you named to me, is not the Situation and Activity Report No. 11, but a Situation and Activity Report No. 9, which you have opened in the book here and this Situation and Activity Report No. 9 is dated 27 February, 1942. I have seen that with my own eyes. The date is missing here. No date is anywhere, but it is neither the report 1 March -
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, the witness, if I may say so, is a little bit confused. This Document 3876-PS, to which I referred, contains two reports, but the report about the killing of the 1,1224 Jews, which is also a part of Document 3876, and I have given the witness the page number. I think it is absolutely clear.
Q (By Dr. Horlick-Hochwald) Let us, without going into the document then, let us assume for a minute, Dr. Haensch, that what I have stated is correct, that these 1,224 people were killed just about ten or fourteen days before you came in and would it not be very strange that you have found no information, no trace, no oral statement, from one of your officers, no report from the officer who was in charge of Office 4 what had happened a few days before you came in?
to me, but there is one thing I would like to draw your attention to first of all and I shall explain this to you further in a minute; it is quite impossible in my opinion that this event should have happened so shortly before it was reported -
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Witness, please, please. I think the question has been answered. Mr. Hochwald put to you what was in the nature of a hypothetical question. "Let us suppose that 14 days before your arrival, this number of Jews had been killed. If that were true, it would be strange, wouldn't it, that there wouldn't be some talk about it?" And you answered it. "Yes, that would have been strange." That is the question and that's the answer.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Thank you very much, Your Honor, may I ask the next question?
THE WITNESS: Dr. Hochwald wanted -- well, I wanted to add something. In that case I won't do it.
THE PRESIDENT: No, you can add it, but what you are going to add there I think we know. It is your contention to deny that it did not happen. Is that what you are going to add, Yes or no.
THE WITNESS: I wanted to add that it really did not
THE PRESIDENT: All right, that's it. You have added it.
Next question, Mr. Hochwald.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Thank you very much, Your Honors.
Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) It is correct that when you unchanged is that right?
Thomas?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald you might develop
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I was going to ask this question
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) Will you please turn to Document Book II-A. This is page 60 of the English, Your Honors, page 64 of the German.
This is Document 3405, Prosecution Exhibit 42.
Here you are mentioned as leader of Sonderkommando 4 B the 16th of January, 1942.
If I than the 15th of March to Sonderkommando 4B, is that right?
Q Therefore, you don't take responsibility for the killings of 861 persons by Sonderkommando 4B, which took place between the 14th of January and the 12th of February.
You deny any responsibility for that, is that correct? This is Document Book I, Your Honors, page 87, Document 3340, Exhibit 22. Document Book I. facts; these events did not take place during my time and I was not in Russia any earlier than, at the earliest, the 15th of March. that out of these people which were executed, 861 persons were killed because they were Jews? correct? I don't know if that is correct.
A You asked me is that right. I cannot give you any information or that.
Q I only asked you if you know that report. The only question -
A I see the report and I know the report. I saw from the document that it is the Report of Events of 25 February. other report about the killing of 1,224 Jews in Artenowsk, about which we have just spoken. This is in Document Book II-c on page 60 of the English, 64 of the German, Document 3240 of the Prosecution, Exhibit 80. which appear three dates, 27 February, or 6 March, and then at the latest on the 23rd of April.
Q How do you explain then, Dr. Haensch, if you were advised not to change anything in the management, in the executive measures of the Sonderkommando, how then suddenly, after you arrived, the general policy of Sonderkommando 4B to carry out the Hitler Order suddenly stopped?