in these excesses. Nevertheless, he issued an order telling them that it was not permitted to take part in it. Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that some, at least some of the members of the Einsatzkommando, the Sonderkommando, participated in them, and that the result, of this participation was the order by Hermann?
A No, I don't think so. This was how he cared for it.
Q Can you tell the Tribunal whether Hermann was in Pretsch? of leaders where Streckenbach handed down the order about the killing of the Jews? an order?
A During the time of my assignment "I heard nothing about it, which might have given me reason to assume this. he did know about the Fuehrer Order? If a kommando leader had received this order in Pretsch, then he did not have to hand on, of course.
Q But is it not very unlikely that he was ignorant of this order? You think that he --- Was he a priest?
A Please?
Q Was he a minister? Or was he an officer?
A Officers; by description I would call him an officer. He was not a soldier.
were to be killed, why should he have been a safeguard for you, that this order which is in accord with the Hitler Order, was not carried out? Why should he have reluctance to kill these 600 or 180 Jews? It was a part of the order to instigate pogroms, to instigate such excesses. The Defendant Ohlendorf has testified here on the stand that he was requested by the RSHA to instigate such pogroms, and that he refused to do so. Why should the person of a Sonderkommando leader be a safeguard, if that was not carried out in contradiction to this document?
A No, this would be a conclusion going too far. Mr. Prosecutor but I would like to add something here. If a kommando leader in this case - these are assumptions and conclusions of mine if a kommando leader had received the order in Pretsch, then he personally could have decided not to carry out this order to its full extent, but to limit it to that extent which he considered necessary in each individual case. His announcement in Lemberg was therefore accordingly. I shall also talk about this now because you indicated indicated it. If in Berlin, I bog your pardon, or rather in Pretsch, he received the order to instigate pogroms, I cannot say this from my own knowledge, because he did not talk about it, at least not with me, and if he did not want to do it, then the possibility existed for him that he reported to Berlin the fact that a pogrom had occurred in Tarnopol and described it in such manner as if it had been done on his initiative.
Q But from personal knowledge you don't know anything about it?
Q Will you turn now to Document Book II-A. This particular quote, your Honors, is on Page 44 of the document book. It is Document NO3144, Prosecution's Exhibit 38. It is said here that Special Kommando -
THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon, what page of the original, please?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: It is Page 4 of the original.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) Under the heading "Einsatzgruppe", "Security Police Measures." Page 44 of the English, your Honors. The next to the last paragraph form the bottom, it says "Special Kommando 4b, in the period between 13 and 26 September, executed 103 political officials, 9 saboteurs and looters and 125 Jews were killed for the simple reason that they were Jews? Otherwise they would have been either labeled as political officials or as saboteurs or looters, or I do not know for what crime, but is it not patently clear from this report that these 125 people were killed for the simple reason that they were Jews? the possibility exists that these were Jews who actually connected with matters and events which would have listed them in the other categories as well, or classified them as such, but they were classified individually because perhaps it was required for the reports that in each individual case the Jews were to be classified separately.
Q. Did you participate in the drafting of the reports which were sent from your Sonderkommando to the Einsatzgruppe?
A. No, I talked here about an assumption.
Q. How did the reports from the Sonderkommando to the Gruppe, how were they drafted, how were they made? Am I correct in assuming that you made the SD reports to the Gruppe?
A. I made my reports to the Kommandofuehrer and he decided that they were used after that. In most cases he handed them on himself, that is, he handed a note to the Gruppe, or he handed them on to the Wehrmacht.
Q. Did you ever see such a report, that was made by the Kommanda Fuehrer?
A. An SD report?
Q. A complete report which was entered.
A. No, I don't think he made complete reports buy that does not cover individual reports so that he saved work; that material submitted by theexperts and the reports submitted by the experts he handed on was just a note or a covering letter or else he would have to require everything.
Q. If I want to sum up your testimony though, is it correct that you know and know that at a time when you were in the East the Jews were killed there in great numbers?
A. What do you mean by in great numbers?
Q. I understand you to have said the killing of 20 to 100 people is already a great number of people. Of course if you compare it with other numbers of situation reports we have heard here it might be possibly a smaller number but I just want to say approximately 50 or approximately 100 at a time?
A. I heard that Jews were being shot in the East at the time when I was with Sonderkommando 4 B.
Q. I want to turn now to your affidavit which is in Document Book 3-C, your Honors, on page 55, document NO 4144, Prosecution Exhibit 142.
Did you sign this affidavit, Mr. Fendler?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you swear to it, after reading it through?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have the opportunity to make changes in this affidavit?
A. Yes, and no, Mr. Prosecutor. A few important minor matters I think of corrections in typographical errors --were allowed me but a few additions which mattered to me and certain impressions which I wanted to clarify unfortunately I was not allowed to make.
Q. May I ask a simple question then. Why did you sign the affidavit?
A. Because I was no native.
Q. Were you under duress when you signed the affidavit?
A. Not while signing, no.
Q. Do you now want to say that you were under duress before the signing of the affidavit during the interrogation by Mr. Warterberg?
A. I would almost like to say that; not a physical duress.
Q. What kind of compulsion was it then?
A. Two kinds. Mr. Wartenberg first threatened me with more severe arrest, and secondly, he threatened me with extradition.
Q. Extradition to whom?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. To whom?
A. He threatened to extradite me to the Czechs.
Q. Did you have a fear the extradition to the Czechoslovakian Government?
A. No, I told him that.
Q. So that was no duress?
A. I was not so sure whether I would be extradited even if I was not guilty at all.
Q. If you are not guilty and not extradited you are better off than here.
Here you are under indictment?
A. At the time I was not indicted; I only assumed that I was called here to be used as a witness. When signing this affidavit I did not know, as I have already said during my direct examination, that this would be used as evidence against me.
Q. Would you have changed your testimony in your affidavit if you would have known that you were to be indicted?
A. I would have completed it and clarified it in order to avoid misunderstandings.
Q. Did your counsel know about this fact which you have told the Tribunal just now when Mr. Wartenburg was interrogated here as a witness from the 6th to the 7th of October?
A. I don't know for certain whether at that time I had talked about it to my defense counsel Dr. Fritz; he only took over my defense a few days before the trial started.
Q. That was considerably later and it was made clear by the Tribunal to all defense counsel that Mr. Wartenberg would be at the disposal of defense counsel for cross examination just for one reason, in order to find out all the interrogations were conducted by him and how the affidavits were made out. I have checked the record today and I did not find any question which was put by your counsel to Mr. Wartenberg, the only competent witness present. Can you explain to the Tribunal when Mr. Wartenberg was at the disposal of defense counsel for cross examination?
A. If I remember correctly at the time I believe the Tribunal established that corrections or supplements on the contents could be made during the proceedings by each one of the defendants. I, on my part, had no reason to have Mr. Wartenberg questioned about this because at the moment I was satisfied telling myself there are no obvious mistakes or errors contained in the affidavit, but there are only a few explanations necessary in order to clarify matters and that I would have the opportunity to make the supplements finally as I tried to do during my direct examination today.
DR. FRITZ: Your Honor, may I give an explanation about this, since it is my duty as defense counsel. I don't know any more why whether I was absent on a journey - I didn't know that Mr. Wartenberg was being questioned and I wasn't present; secondly, these matters which Mr. Fendler just mentioned, I only heard about afterwards.
A I only heard about them afterwards.
He only told me he wanted to make
THE PRESIDENT: You have given an explanation as to why you weren't here when Mr. Wartenberg was ready for cross examination, BY MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD:
Q. Did I understand you then corectly that you say that tents of the affidavit are correct?
A. Except for a few supplements which I wanted to add, yes.
Q. You have been in Czechoslovakia, have you not?
A. Yes.
Q. You were in Olmuetz, is that correct?
A. Yes
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal where your office was located there?
A. Yes, in the first days the Commando was housed or rather Richard Wagner Square.
Then they were billeted in the building at the
Q. Is it true that in the same house of the Moravian Sugar factory there was also the Gestapo?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever learn while you were in Olmuetz what the Gestapo was doing there?
A. First I have to explain the following, that the small kommando of the SD, at the time as I said was in the same house under the same roof as the Gestapo, but they had a separate set of four rooms. This was some apartment with a separate entrance.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Q. You did not know anything about the activity of the Gestapo there in spite of the fact that your offices were actually in the same house?
A. I know and I heard about it, that investigations were made about persons who endangered or might endanger the security. These kommandos had been given a screening book for that purpose.
Q. Is it known to you that in Olmuetz when the Gestapo came in most of the Jews were arrested?
A. I can say the following here. I know that a great number of the Jews had escaped and therefore were not present any more. Whether most of them were arrested I cannot say. I know that Jews were arrested at the time; the ratio between the two groups, which I just mentioned, I can't say about exactly.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal that most of the Jews who did not flee, who were still there, were arrested?
A. Whether the Gestapo arrested them or whether they already were arrested I cannot say.
Q. Then when did the Gestapo come in?
A. I don't know exactly any more whether it was 15th or 16th March 1939.
Q. When did the German troops come in?
A. The German troops arrived the same date.
Q. Who could have the Jews arrested before the Gestapo came?
A. That would have been possible by the Home Guard units of the ethnic Germans.
Q. Do you want to tell the Tribunal that this German Selbstschutz was in charge of the city before the German troops and the Gestapo came in?
A. If I remember correctly it was like this: That for a few hours no other authority existed in the city insofar as I recall because of unexpected snowfalls the coming in of the German troops was delayed, for many hours.
Q. And you presumed that during these few hours the German Selbstschutz arrested all the Jews?
A. I don't assume that they all were. I don't know the ratio of figures.
Q. Do you know what happened to these Jews?
A. I know that some of these Jews for some time were in the so-called camp Stefanau. This was an internment camp.
Q. What happened then?
A. I know then that this camp was dissolved. What happened to the individual inmates I cannot say.
Q. Were you in Olmuetz when war broke out?
A. You mean in September 1939?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know most of the Jews who had returned either from Prague or were unable to flee were arrested, and then sent to Buchenwald? Is that known to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know by whom these people were arrested?
A. That must have been done by the State Police at the time.
Q. Is it known to you that these people were arrested and sent to a concentration camp only for the simple reason that they were Jews?
A. No, I did not know that at the time.
Q. What did you think why they had been arrested?
A. For general security reasons as a precautious measure. That's how I heard people talk about it at the time, pointing out as they said at the time during the first World War the Home Front had been disintergrated because of Jewish elements.
Q. Did you believe that that was correct?
A. I cannot say anything about that; at the time I was still too young.
Q. I possibly made myself not enough clear. I, of course, wanted to say if you considered it correct if these people were arrested and sent to concentration camps just in order to clean the Heimatfront from the Jews.
A. Do you mean my attitude to the question at that time or now?
Q. Not today; then, when you did see how the people were sent to the concentration camps, and you knew about it.
A. At the time I did not know that they were sent to concentration camps. I only knew that they were sent into camps. I assumed that those were some kind of internment camps.
Q. Did you know that concentration camps existed in Germany?
A. Yes.
Q. How many did you know about in 1939?
A. In 1939 I should have heard of two, one was the socalled Camp Sachsenhausen near Berlin; and the other one was at Dachau.
Q. Did you learn about Buchenwald during your activity in *---*
A. I don't think so. The existence of the Camp Buchenwald I think I only heard about later.
Q. There is an affidavit in your document book which was not submitted by your counsel. If the Tribunal pleases, on pages 60 and 61 of the document book Fendler. The affiant here tells the story that you assisted here Frau Suessmuth and her Jewish husband in the camp of Stefanau, the existence of which you have here testified just 15 minutes ago, and she goes on to say that her husband died in 1940 in the concentration camp at Buchenwald. Did she, meaning herself, an Aryan, get arrested by the Gestapo in the same year and did you make an intervention that she got out.
Did she not tell you ever that her husband was later sent to Buchenwald?
A. I do not remember that. Probably Frau Suessmuth at the time did not even know where her husband was; she probably only knew he was in a concentration camp, or at least he was not with her any longer. She only heard afterwards that he had been brought to Buchenwald at the time.
Q. Was it known to you that Czechoslovakian citizens were sent for forced labor to Germany at that time?
A. At this time I don't think so. At that time, if I am correctly informed, people were asked to work in Germany voluntarily.
Q. I think there is also an affidavit in existence which shows that you might have known at least something about that and this is on page 64 of the document book Fendler. I do not want to take the time of the Tribunal to read that into the record buy it is clear from the document that you, Mr. Fendler, were of some assistance to Czechoslovakian citizens when they were not sent to Germany, so you must have known by then that arrangements were not so voluntary?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, may I give a brief explanation here. This assistance took place after I left Olmuetz. Until the collapse, I must say now, unfortunately, I retained my apartment at Olmuetz and stayed there occasionally. This event to which this refers as far as I remember happened in the year 1944.
Q. But you knew then before the collapse of Germany that Czechoslovakian citizens were forcibly sent to Germany for work?
A. Of course. My denial only referred to the time that I was active in Olmuetz until the end of 1944.
Q. You have given the Tribunal information about your knowledge, what happened in the East, about your knowledge as to what happened in Czechoslovakia; about your knowledge as to what happened or did not happen to the Jews.
Did you consider during the time you were a member of the SD, of the Party and of the SS, these measures were justified?
A. To this rather general question unfortunately I have to give a general answer. I must say that collective measures of that sort are rejected by me on principles and that I regret them for these persons who are concerned buy this applies to all such things and for all times.
of law so you would know something about international law. Do you think the orders as they were known to you about the summary procedure, where people could be executed at the discretion of the officer, where no procedures according to martial law -- that would be the right word -were held -- did you consider these orders correct according to the laws and customs of war according to the law valid in Germany and common to all civilized nations? Did you consider them in accordance with these norms? this question with "yes" or "no." Then you explain; but this question would be nice if you could answer it first with "yes" or "no." question was too complicated and put in a too general way.
Q I can possibly make it a little bit more specific. Do you think that the order which abandoned procedure according to martial law and gave discretion to an officer, who must not have any legal training, who must have only had a commission, to shoot people and to order executions was in accordance with the laws and customs of war and the Hague Convention? but please, may I give further explanations on this? During the time of my assignment in the East I was shocked and moved by the impressions I received there, about the manner of warfare by the Russians. I don't want to say now afterwards, nor do I feel called upon to do this, that I want to justify any German measures; I can only say that in the condition that I was at the time I could not arrive at any ambiguous decision above the necessity and justification of the measures ordered by the German leadership. I can only say that concerning the orders given I was shocked.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I have no further questions.
BY THE PRESIDENT: voluntarily. was it now?
Q You say that Mr. Wartenberg threatened with sending you back to Czechoslovakia. Now, do you stand on that statement? Honor, not when signing the affidavit.
Q Very well. During the interrogation did he threaten with sending you back to Czechoslovakia?
Q Why should you worry about going back to Czechoslovakia? With all the people you helped there they would probably have received you with open arms, wouldn't they? you returned to Czechoslovakia harm would visit you? What did you do there?
A Please, may I explain the situation?
Q Please answer that. What did you do in Czechoslovakia that, if Mr. Wartenberg threatened be put into effect, would have caused you harm?
A I myself did not do anything there, buy Mr. Wartenberg told me: "You know how your kind of people are dealt with there. You can expect to hang two hours after the verdict is pronounced." That is what Mr. Wartenberg said so I replied to him: "I am not afraid of facing any Czech authorities." Of course, all that matters is if they would give a just verdict on my attitude in Olmuetz. which were not true?
no way affected the truthfulness of what you told him? of interrogation by Mr. Wartenberg rather excited me and it is possible that in that state my recollection failed me partly but, none the less, in spite of these threats, I tried, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to speak the truth as far as possible.
Q Did you tell him in fact the following: "I have never been officially designated as a deputy of Hermann's. I have, however, taken charge of official matters during his absence." Did you tell him that?
Q Is that true? today affirm, is there? affidavit, your Honor. I merely asked that some supplementary remarks should be inserted in order to make the meaning of that what I had said quite clear.
Q Very well; so far as it goes, it is correct. as the truth and the actual facts as I related them at the time. between 13 and 26 September, were you? 133 political officials, 9 sabateurs and looters and 125 Jews. Did you know of that execution? either.
Q Please answer my question. Do you know of this execution?
by the Kommando. There might have been several executions. As I said in my direct examination, I heard about it in Krementschug that one execution was carried out, shortly before the transfer of the Kommando to Poltawa. Whether those persons were excuted on that occasion mentioned in this report here now, I cannot say. done by Special Kommando 4-B in the period already indicated and that execution brought about the death of the individuals I have mentioned. Do you know of that execution -- yes or no? I know that an execution took place in Krementschug.
Q Why don't you know of this execution which occurred while you were with the organization which performed it? Explain why you, the senior officer in command of an organization which only consisted of 80 men or a hundred at the most, always one compact unit, why you would not know of an episode of this gravity? been carried out I should probably have heard about it or possibly I assume so, but I cannot say in detail whether this execution occurred. I only know -- I don't know whether the persons mentioned here were executed then; I only know that some execution took place. ing occurred at this time?
A In Krementschug? You mean in this time we are now discussing, your Honor?
Q Do you remember the execution? carried out or was carried out. numerous execution?
A I cannot say that. I do not recollect the preparations on that I would have noticed them.
THE PRESIDENT: Between now and Monday morning you try and recollect just box many were executed at that execution and all other relevant facts.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 15 December 1947 at 0930 hours).
of America; against Otto Ohlendorf, et al., 15 December 1947.
0930-10.00. Justice Musmanno,
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II. United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
DR. SUSS: Dr. Suss, representative for the attorney Dr. Linck for the defendant Ruehl. Your Honor, I ask that the defendant Ruehl be excused from this afternoon session, and from tomorrows session the entire day, in order to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want him sent to Room 57 this afternoon?
DR. SUSS: Yes, I would like to ask for this.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Ruehl will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon, and tomorrow all day. This afternoon he will be taken to Room 57 where he may confer with his counsel.
DR. SUSS: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome. adjournment, we were discussing the action which occurred while you were with Einsatzcommando IV-B, which resulted in the execution of 103 Political officials, 9 saboteurs and looters, and 125 Jews. Now tell us about this action. You were with the Einsatzcommando at the time, you were the next senior officer in rank in the commando, and it is inconceivable that you would not know about this operation?
my assignment I had nothing to do with the executive jobs, that is, the arrests, investigations, and finally with the carrying out of the sentence which led to the executions. In addition, I didn't know about the files of these cases -
Q Just a moment. Did you know about this particular action which occurred between 13th and 26th of September which brought about the execution of 103 Political Officials, 9 Saboteurs and Looters, and 125 Jews?
A I don't know, Your Honor, whether this was one action - it in Kremenchug that one execution took place, but I don't know what people were concerned there. you were with the IV-B? of which I heard.
Q And how many were killed in these six executions?
A I can not say, Your Honor, as I don't know.
Q For what were the executions? to the document, or, rather to the report to which the president has just referred, if I may refer to this, that is in Document Book II-A, Document No. 3155. There are two paragraphs after the passage which Your Honor has cited, and, in this it is stated in general that the following motives are at the basis for the execution carried out by the commando: Political functionaries, looters, saboteurs, active Communists, carriers of such political ideas.