by comrades that Rumanian units, as well as members of our kommando, when they moved into the city after the city had been taken, had been shot at by civilians. The Rumanians had arrested a number of suspects, and the kommando had received the order to execute these people because of this incident. BY THE PRESIDENT: people?
A From the Rumanian General, I assume. The order was issued by the Rumanian Wehrmacht forces, I am informed about it.
Q Was your kommando subject to orders from the Rumanian forces? Rumanian territory. was -- a German unit of the Wehrmacht, or the armed forces generally, was subject to orders from a Rumanian officer? Rumanian Army for this particular period and this particular sector. Thus I, in my own authority, conversed with and discussed matters with Rumanian officers in order to get supplies, to be registered and all that kind of thing. supplies. That is a matter of comraderie. But actually to be ordered about by the Rumanian authorities is something which wasn't too clear up until this moment.
A I cannot give any details about this. I only deduced that from the fact that we got the quarters from the Rumanians, that Persterer reported to the Rumanian general, that he went to see him very often, reported to him, and that the Rumanian general visited us. That I saw myself.
received an order from the Rumanian general to execute these Jews.
Q But that isn't the way you put in in your affidavit though. Why do you put it differently now from the way you put it in your affidavit? in many passages, your Honor.
Q Well, I read to you from the affidavit: "Sturmbannfuehrer Alois Persterer refused at first to carry out the executions, but in the end he gave in to the wishes of the Rumanians and 12 or 15 of these people shot by the kommando." The necessary inference there is that heard did it more or less as a favor to the Rumanians, to shoot these 12 to 15 people. opinion, according to what I heard there, and what I observed myself, that for us the relationship of subordination was absolutely clear. manner I have now read it to you?
A This way of putting it is not my own, your Honor. It does not show what I wanted to say in the interrogation because I described this incident in detail then.
Q Didn't this discrepancy from your own thoughts about the matter catch your eye when you read the affidavit prior to signing it? as to quarrel with Mr. Wartenberg about this little incident.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please continue, Dr. Linck? BY DR. LINCK: fully under the subordination of the Rumanians?
A I do not know anything about the subordination in detail. I only know that Persterer reported to the Rumanian general, that he went to see him on many occasions according to my knowledge, thus in order to report to him, and I also know that he went to see the Rumanian civil governor. I deduced it, as I say, from my own activity, because the Rumanians would not have supplied him anything if it hadn't been their duty to do so.
Q Yes. In order to come back to this matter which you know from hearsay, about these 12 to 15 people.
I now ask you Ruehl, do you know who arrested these people who were later on shot? We learned yesterday that between a negative answer and no knowledge there is a tremendous difference. Please consider and think it over whether you know it or were told about it or whether you know it from hearsay and tell the Tribunal so that the Tribunal must not conclude that you experienced it yourself. Do you know anything about who arrested these people?
A From my own knowledge I could not say anything. I know the incident only from hearsay, except the fact that this execution actually did take place. people in this instance...... the kommando when they moved into Chernowitz, is that correct?
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution must object to this line of questioning. There had been no feature prior to this time of anybody shooting at a kommando, and the Prosecution objects to suggesting a line of testimony to the witness. If these incidents were connected with it, I think the witness, since he is testifying from his general knowledge in the area, could give us all the facts that he heard about. I don't like the defense counsel to suggest the answer to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: I do think, Dr. Linck, that your question was a little leading.
DR. LINCK: I only wanted to summarize the whole matter. I thought it had already been said. I will put the question in another form then.
Q (By Dr. Linck) Just describe very briefly, Witness, what you learned concerning this operation. by comrades that Rumanian troops, as well as members of our kommando, when they moved into the town after it had been turned over to us, had been fired at by civilians. Furthermore, I heard that the Rumanians thereupon arrested a number of suspects, and the kommando was given the order from the army, from the Rumanians, to shoot these people because of this action. As far as I remember, 50 to 60 people were mentioned in this connection. I also learned that the commander objected to this order, or at least tried to rescind this order, point out that this was a matter to be dealt with by the Rumanians themselves. The reason for this could have been parly that he was not convinced that all these people were actually participants in this incident. I also learned that the Rumanian generals urged the carrying out of this order, and, thereupon, Persterer asked for an investigation in order to be able to sift out the perpetrators. These investigations were carried out by Departments 4 and 5 as far as I know, and on this occasion, according to my memory, 12 to 15 of those arrested were found guilty and were shot by order of the Rumanians.
The others, as far as I know, were released. whatsoever? who carried out the investigation.
Q How did you find out about it? gations, or what? you just described to us from hearsay. found out through remarks by Hauptsturmfuehrer Finger who was the competent officer in Department 4.
Q Hauptsturmfuehrer Finder was the departmental chief in No. 4, was he? investigations, did you see any reports or files?
A No, I did not learn anything about this at all. I did not find out about details. I only heard and received knowledge of the fact that investigations had taken place. I did not see reports. this operation, does not only refer to investigations and results but also the actuall carrying out of the execution order. Did you include that in your answer?
A Yes. That was not my task.
Q You also did not take part in the carrying out of the sentence? carried out by Kommando 10b in Chernowitz?
Q I shall now show you report of events of 1st August, 1941. It is Document Book II-D, your Honors, English Page 37, German page 40, Document 2950, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 90. There in Paragraph 2, I think it is on Page 39 of the English version if I remember correctly, there is talk about 50 Communists who have been arrested, of whom 16 have been liquidated. What do you know about that?
A I cannot comment on this at all. As far as I know Departments 4 and 5 carried out investigations and examinations and interrogations, but executions I did not hear about. Admittedly, Department 4 did it at another place geographically speaking. They were far from our own offices in another building, in another part of town, so that I did not really have the occasion to look at what they did. little hotel you spoke about when you arrive in Chernowitz?
Chernowitz find out anything about executions which your unit carried out in other places during the time in question? paragraph 5 of my affidavit.
DR. LINCK: IIID, page 76, of the English text, Your Honor -I am sorry, it is page 78 in the English document book. BY DR. LINCK: detachment of the commando that was in a place in the locality, the name of which I do not remember. In order to clarify the murder of German airmen. After these men who had been assigned to this place returned, I heard the following. Shortly after the outbreak of the war in this locality which in those days was in Russian hands, as far as I remember, two wounded German airmen had made a forced landing and had been captured by the Russians. When those people were led into the prison the Jewish population had collected and ill-treated these prisoners during the transport to the prison, but the Russian guards had managed to take these German airman into prison. There, however, shortly after this, another turmoil had started and riots had broken out and the Jews had asked for these two German airmen or at least that is what is supposed to have happened. Finally, the Jews had managed to break into the prison, had taken these German prisoners into the streets and had beaten them to death in the most bestial manner. This state of affairs and the perpetrators had been established by extensive investigations and interrogation in collaboration with Rumanian and Hungarian army agencies, the perpetrators had been shot. As far as I remember, in this connection, a number of 20 to 30 people to be executed was named. way in the investigation or the interrogation?
cannot answer this question at all. the case?
A No. As I say, I only know it from hearsay. The stories that people told after they returned, they were still very much excited about the fact they had established there. executions which had been carried out in other places during your stay in Chernowitz, you said "No", with the exception of this particular incident which you know from hearsay, is that correct?
Q Now, I want to put something else to you. In the report of the 14th of July, Volume IID, English page 43, it is Document 4135, Exhibit 91, it is stated, I quote, "In Hodin 10b carried out a number of tasks, Members of the Russian intelligentsia, in party and state, Jewish agents, teachers, lawyers, rabbies, were arrested in a number of raids with the help of Ukrainians and were treated accordingly". In the same document in the final report of the first of August, English page 39, document 2950, Exhibit 90, the same operation is being reported about again. I quote, "In the vicinity of Chernowitz, Hodin had been passed whereby 150 Jews and Communists have been liquidated". Will you comment on this, please? in Nuernberg -- that is, I never visited Hodin nor do I remember ever having heard that a detachment of our commando had ever been assigned to this place, therefore, I am unable to give any information as to whether this report is correct and in agreement with the facts. 14th of July where it says, I quote, "The following directives were passed on to 10b, influence the Rumanians to be more severe concerning Jewish questions.
Jewish meetings must be interrupted and polots must be found out in order to influence Rumanian procedure against Jewish intelligentsia and in order to take up our own positions against it." Can you comment on this? commander because only he could carry out such orders. I myself was never informed about this order, and I see no reason why I, as an administrative officer and obersturmfuehrer could in any way have influenced the Rumanian police or the Rumanian Wehrmacht. I never heard anything about the fact that the commando really raided Jewish meetings. I can only say from my own observation that the commander had a number of Jewish liaison men with whom he apparently cooperated extremely well.
Q How long did you remain in Chernowitz? August or thereabout. After, a few days before that, detachments of our commando had moved to Kamnitz Podolsk and Mogilew-Podolsk, the departmental expert of Department 3 and I received the order to go to Mogilew with the technical personnel of our commando. Mogilew had been named as the next garrison of our commando. There we arrived two days later. We were billeted in the unit which had already been stationed there, and there we took up our usual assignments. but a little more in detail. I want to point out again that it is Book IIID, the English page 76. According to this, you came in contact with a problem in Mogilew which in itself had nothing to do with the tasks of an administrative leader. By this I mean the retransfer of Jews who had been taken to German territory by the Rumanians and were not to be transported back to Rumanian territory. How did you learn about this fact, Witness?
the Prut and the Dniestr rivers we came upon a long line of civilian population who seemed to me to consist mainly of Jews, and which was escorted by Rumanian army units. Then, upon my arrival in Mogilew I questioned the officer who was already stationed there concerning this, he informed me that the Rumanians had transported a number of Jews across the Dniestr river and had left them there to their fate helplessly in German operational territory. He had, of course, prevented further deportation of Jews to German territory, but the Jews who had been deported before were the subject of considerable worry to him because, as they were completely helpless, they were roaming the country stealing and begging and thus were a danger to the security and orderliness of the rear army territory and, of course, there were therefore current actions between them and the Ukranian population. Furthermore, there was the danger of epidemics and diseases as there were neither hospitals nor physicians nor drugs. Therefore, he had informed the commander of the state of affairs. commando in Podolsk?
A Yes. That is what he told me. any measures to be taken?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me get this picture straight. Now, he was on his way from Czernowitz to Mogilew-Podolsk and he enountered a transport. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Now, how many were in this transport?
A That is very difficult to estimate, Your Honor. They were actually walking. They had little vehicles, but it would be a very rough estimate which I could not take any guarantee on.
Q Were they mostly on foot?
A Yes. The larger part was.
Q Were they of all ages, men and women as well as children? it were. If I could give an estimate, I should say there must have been about a thousand, but that may have been over-estimated because the line did not actually march in a military formation, so that an estimate would have been easy.
Q And how many were in the accompanying Rumanian troops? column by car. I saw soldiers with their rifles who escorted this column in certain distances.
Q Were they on foot also, or were they riding?
Q I see. What is the distance between Czernowitz and this other town, Mogilew-Podolsk?
AAgain I would like to establish this on a map. I don't remember, Your Honor. It is quite a distance. you to estimate the distance?
Q Was this a matter of a day's journey or several hours? We just want an approximation.
Q Then when this group of refugees were joined to the others, who were already in German territory, the total number was around 12 to 15 thousand people, is that the picture? figure, 12 to 15 thousand persons. and I seemed to remember that this was the approximate number of those who actually came over, who were actually in this vicinity of Mogilew as foreign Jews whose actual home was in Rumania.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that makes it very clear to us. You may proceed. BY DR. LINCK: in Mogilew-Podolsk when the commander explained to you the situation. Will you again tell the Tribunal whether you did anything or not?
A No. There was no cause for me to interest myself in this matter. Competent in this case was until up to the arrival of the commander in this sector the leader, the officer who had been appointed, who was not subordinated to me in any way but who received his orders from the commander immediately. He had informed, as he told me, the commander so that there was neither the cause nor the possibility for me to do anything. 77, "I tried to get these people together at Mogilew-Podolsk in order to take them back in a group transport", but there is an inconsistency, or is it not an inconsistency with what you have said just now. If you tried something, then you must have been active in some way or another or is the present formulation inaccurate? point out again that this was not worded by myself but it was worded by Mr. Wartenberg, and that it is just as misleading as a number of other wordings which I shall come to later on.
Q Herr Ruehl, we do not want to go into details about this. I would like to interpolate here and made a small remark. It is probably remembered by the Tribunal that there was a short crossexamination when Mr. Wartenberg was at the disposal of the defense, and at this occasion it was established that a second affidavit was made out after the first had been made out and that apparently in the first affidavit the wording was not so that the witness wanted to sign it, therefore, I did not pursue this matter then, after the Tribunal had stated that each defendant is permitted to correct any false or misleading passages during the presentation of his case, but I must ask you, Herr Ruehl, whether you did not draw Mr. Wartenberg's attention to the fact at the time that such wording could lead to contradictions and to misunderstandings sooner or later?
A I should like to say the following, I told Mr. Wartenberg even when I saw the first draft of the affidavit which he gave me on the 24th of June that this draft did not only contain sentences which were the cause for mistakes - for misunderstandings, but all remarks which would not at all correspond to the facts. I asked him that these passages should be changed. Mr. Wartenberg thereupon said that the sentences which I found fault with meant what I actually had meant to say. In spite of this, I requested so many corrections, and I finally dictated a whole paragraph myself as Mr. Wartenberg constantly tried to dictated something else which was different from what I had said. And so Mr. Wartenberg finally stated the whole affidavit had to be reissued. This new affidavit was shown to me two days later. Unfortunately, I had to establish that this affidavit again contained passages and wordings which gave cause to errors and misunderstandings, and again I told him that. But the reply I received was that I would have enough opportunity to clarify mistakes even during the trial in case such errors would actually crop up.
I trusted this affirmation and as I was tired of the constant quarrels we had, I signed the affidavit especially as these misunderstandings concerned myself exclusively or at least the part that I took in these incidents.
Q What do you want to express with what you said last by "especially as it only concerned myself" and your part? interpreted from this affidavit could only concern myself, in which case I would have the opportunity to express myself accordingly and make corrections, and that is what Mr. Wartenberg affirmed me.
Q Would you like to go on? this affidavit - would be used against you as evidence without any further interrogation taking place?
A No. If I had known this, I would have made the necessary corrections and I would have insisted on them.
Q We don't have to deal with details at this point, Herr Ruehl, but I want to know the further cause of matters in Mogilew-Podolsk. What happened to these Jews?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Linck, you are now just about to begin an episode in some detail. Suppose that we have our recess at this time.
DR. LINCK: Yes, Your Honor.
DR. DICK: Dr. Dick for my colleague, Dr. Fritz. Your Honor, I was asked by Dr. Fritz to ask whether the defendant, Fendler, could be excused this afternoon from the proceedings. He has the opportunity to speak to his wife apparently. I would, therefore, like the defendant, Fendler, to be taken to Room 57 in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: We will gladly excuse Fendler for that purpose, and we will announce, so that the marshal will be informed, that all arrangements will be made so that there will be no difficulty about Mrs. Fendler seeing her husband this afternoon in Room 57. The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 18 December 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. LINCK (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT RUEHL): Thank you, Your Honor. BY DR. LINCK (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT RUEHL: briefly about this large number of Jews who had been driven across into the German-occupied territory by the Rumanians. You have already told us about the stories which you heard when you arrived in Mogilew and you have told us that the kommando leader there had reported to your commander, Pesterer, about it. How did this matter develop further and what was your part in it? taken place there previously, had been destroyed, and the Russians had taken with them most of the supplies, especially the majority of the cattle. Thus, of course, the situation of the alien homeless Jews got so bad that Pesterer decided to go to see the group chief and to get his decision on the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one word we didn't catch, it sounded, which of course, can't possibly be true, like "Aryan homeless Jews." Oh, "alien".
Q (By Dr. Linck) Please continue. because of this situation he would go to see the group chief and to see what he decided on this. He wanted to tell him that these Jews who came from the Rumanian territory should be brought back into that area.
Since he himself, meaning Persterer, did not want to return immediately to Mogilew, because he had other business; he ordered me to accompany him in order to take care of my economic and administrative matters at the group headquarters and also to hear what the decision of the group chief was in this matter and to bring this decision back to Mogilew. When Persterer reported to the group chief, the latter decided that the Rumanian Jews should be brought back to their home area. I then brought this decision back to Mogilew on the order of Persterer and I gave this message to the officer who was in charge of bringing these Jews back. Then in his own competence this officer carried out this retransport. you mention in your affidavit. to correct something. I made a mistake about the name and I would like to correct this. The name of the man is not "Lippert," but "Lipps." As far as -
Q Litz?
A Lipps, as far as I remember, L-i-p -- possibly "p"-s.
Q And this retransport took place as ordered? because of the resistance of the Rumanians, who even threatened that on the other side of the river where they had artillery they would open fire, if despite their objection any attempt would be made to bring these Jews back. without success, the competent officer, whose order it was to take care of this matter took the Jews back again and for the time being he housed them in a barracks at the edge of the city, but this was only a very brief emergency measure, because there were no facilities there and it was hardly possible to supply thousands of people for any length of time.
Therefore it was necessary as quickly as possible to get another decision. Of course, only the group chief himself could decide what to do next. Since the commander had, however, not yet returned and 1st Lt. Lipps was tied to this place with his local assignments there, I felt obligated as the man who had passed on this order, which could not be carried out, to inform the group chief of this new situation immediately and to ask him to make a new decision. The group chief then ordered that the Jews be transported back by way of a bridge near Jampol, that is, they were to be marched there and the Kommando 12 was to take care of taking them across this bridge.
Q Did you again inform Lt. Lipps of this new decision and did you give him the order to carry out the retransport via this new bridge? chief; to use the word "order" would be misleading, because this is not an order which I gave him, but I brought him the order of the group chief and that finished the matter, as far as I was concerned.
Q Didn't you concern yourself any more about the retransport of the Jews after Lipps knew what he had to do?
A No, that was not my job. That was not necessary.
Q You did not accompany this transport?
A No, I didn't even see it, much less accompany it.
were supposed to have been shot?
Q Why? the Group Chief only said to send the Jews back into their homeland. Of executions nothing was said. estimate, of the number of Jews who were then sent back? sent back, because I said I did not see the transport. I only remember that they frequently spoke of 12,000 to a maximum of 15,000 Jews. Thus, generally, I had assumed that all these Jews were actually sent back and I mentioned these figures to Mr. Wartenberg accordingly. I told him that as far as I can judge, there were 12,000 to 15,000 human beings who were concerned in this retransport.
Q Well, now I must show you the following. In the prosecution documents there are two reports which mentioned these Jewish transports. Please look at Document Book III-D. This is page 24 of the English, page 46 in the German, and it is a report of the 26th of August,1941, NO-2840, Exhibit 154. Here something is mentioned of bringing back 6,000 Jews which was carried out despite protests of the Rumanian officer in command of the bridge. That is one thing. The other one is the report in Volume II-B, English page 11, page 8 in the German. This is the report of the 29th of August, 1941, NO-2837, Exhibit 58. Here something is mentioned about bringing back 27,500 people, with the remark that 1,200, partly younger Jews, were shot. Can you say, Witness, which of these reports, in your opinion, is concerned with this particular retransport which you have mentioned here?
A I really can hardly clarify this. As I have already said, I did not see the convoy and I did not make out any report about this retransport nor did I see any. Therefore, I can say nothing about how many were actually brought back. I can only say with certainty that neither in Mogilew nor during the discussion with the Group Chief was anything over said about a figure of 27,500. Therefore, this figure seems to me to be incorrect under all circumstances. More probable, it seems to me, is the figure 12,000 to 15,000 which I still remember and which represents the total number of homeless Jews in Mogilew and vicinity. The report of the 26th refers to about 13,000. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q May I ask a question here, please. Witness, since you correct this figure in Document 2837, indicating that 27,500 is a much larger number than you remember the number to have been, do you also correct the number referring to those executed? 27,500 Jews were driven back to Rumanian territory. You say this number is incorrect and that there were only about 12,000 to 15,000. Is that correct? Is that what you told us? know. May I say, there are two reports here about a retransport; one time 6,000 were supposed to have been brought back and once 27,500.