BY MR. WALTON:
Q. Witness, does the date of this document correspond with the events mentioned in paragraph three of your affidavit, which is Document Book III-D, page 76 of the English, Document NO 4149, and Prosecution's Exhibit 169. Does the date of this report, witness, correspond to the events mentioned in this paragraph three of your affidavit? I am sorry. Witness, on page 29 of the original a report is given from Einsatzgruppe-D, page 11, Your Honors, and it is about this paragraph that I asked you the question in connection with this paragraph three of your affidavit. Does the date of this report correspond to the events mentioned in this paragraph 3 of your affidavit?
A. May I ask, does the paragraph three concern the leading back of these people. I have not got it before me at the moment, I know -pardon me -- no, I don't think I have it. I only want to make certain. I'll also answer this question. I would doubt that as I have already said, the taking back of these people via taranpol in the numbers mentioned , the figure mentioned is 27,500, such figure I never heard about, neither in Mogilew, nor in discussions with the group-chief, and I would assume rather that the figure was the one I recall, namely from 12,000-15,000 people, and that the reference to this is in the report of the 26th.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, Mr. Walton only asked you if the dates corresponded. He wasn't referring to the figures - the dates. Put the question again, Mr. Walton, please. BY MR. WALTON: Document Book III-D, page 121 of the German. Do you have paragraph 3 of your affidavit before you now? which is on page 11 of the English text of Document Book II-B, and the events which you relate in paragraph 3 of your own affidavit correspond? dates.
Q Yesterday in answer to the President's question pointing out to you the inconsistencies in your direct testimony that "there was no cause for me to interest myself in this matter because the man competent in this case was, until the arrival of the Kommando in this sector, the Fuehrer who had been appointed who was not subordinate to me in any way" with your statement in your affidavit and I quote: "I tried to get these people together in Mogilew-Podolsk in order to take them back in a group transport", you stated that the affidavit was worded by Mr. Wartenberg and was misleading, is this true? you made the following statements about this event.
1. Persterer ordered me to accompany him to the Group Headquarters to hear what the decision of the Group Chief was in this matter and bring this decision back to Mogilew. Did you make that statement yesterday?
Q Second: I gave this message, that is Ohlendorf's decision, to the officer in charge of bringing these Jews back. Is that correct?
Q Then you made a third statement in this connection when you said: Then in his own competence this officer carried out this re-transport. Did you make that statement? ce. With that I want to say that he was responsible for the carrying out of this order and he carried it out by himself. "I cannot say with certainty how many were actually sent back because I did not see the transport." Did you make that statement?
Q Do you remember your first interrogation by Mr. Wartenberg?
Q Was there a stenographer present?
A You mean a stenographer? Yes, a female stenographer.
Q Did she take down questions and your answers in shorthand? she tried to do so. of May 8, 1947, would you recognize them? on it in detail I would doubt because we were both rather excited and quite some time has passed since then. tion. "Q. There were about 50,000 Jews in Mogilew-Podolsk who were taken over the Rumanian border?
"A. No, it was this way. I came from Czernowitz there then to install a Kommando in Mogilew-Podolsk. On the way I overtook a train which I was able to identify as an exile train which was escorted by Rumanian soldiers." Did you make that statement?
A Yes, but I want to correct this first sentence. I did not say that I arrived there in order to install a Kommando. I don't know how you read it but that is how it came through on the translation but I was sent there to prepare billets for the whole Kommando which was to be transferred there.
Q I skip a few sentences which are not particularly important. "I have thought a good deal about what could have been done since it was not possible to take care of them (referring to this transport of Jews again). I thereupon herded the Jewish people together in Mogilew-Podolsk with the idea of bringing them back. I tried it and went to Ohlendorf and asked him about it and explained the situation to him. I told him that the situation was impossible and I wanted to advise him that the people should be taken back. He agreed with me. I ordered them to collect and told them that I would take them back over the bridge." Did you make that statement in the interrogation?
A Yes, but, Mr. Walton, the wording which you have read does not make very much sense and I don't think I have to say much to this point. May I just take out one particular point, that I myself should have gone to see Ohlendorf, to suggest this to Ohlendorf and to cause him to tellme to lead these people back? That in itself is so peculiar and I think Ohlendorf has already given testimony concerning this point and, of course, he will confirm how it actually happened and who was to report to him about it. those statements in your interrogation to Mr. Wartenberg?
A Certainly not in this form. I have discussed this matter with Mr. Wartenberg and he said "this is what you told me", and I said, "it is quite impossible because it did not correspond to the fact. Therefore, how could I have told you such a story". I really discussed this quite some time with Wartenberg, the matter concerning these two affidavits.
A This is not an affidavit. This is the stenographic transcript of your interrogation and I am asking you if you made these statements. Let's read further. After you relate about your negotiations with the Rumanian Colonel at the bridge and his refusal to allow this transport over the bridge you state, and I quote: "Then I went back to Ohlendorf and told him that there was still one bridge that was German across the river. The people could go back over this. He also approved this" and then you said, "I call the train together and we march back to the borders of our Kommando and there, according to orders, changed and turned the train over to our neighbor Kommando 12. This train was then also taken over." Did you make that statement? you now about statements that you made on 8 May and you are positive that you never made this statement that I have just read.
A What I say is that I did not do it in this manner. I told him that the first attempt of these transports did not take place. As I was going to report to him about it. Lipps asked me to come to see him at the Rumanian Commanding Officer's Headquarters to tell him again that it was the decision of the Group Chief, that he heard himself that this was with the agreement of the German Army. On this occasion we went to see the Rumanian commanding officer and we discussed the matter again but he refused. On the next day I went to see the Group chief because the situation was untenable, or at least I regarded it as such, and after I had passed on the order I regarded it as my duty as an officer to notify the Group Chief immediately and to tell him that his order could not be carried out, that this and that situation had arisen, and I had decided to ask him for a new decision. It is quite possible that on this occasion I mentioned that down the river there was another bridge - that is quite possible.
Q Let's go on a little further. The question was then asked you by Mr. Wartenberg, "Who headed Kommando 12?"
And your answer: "Noske. He took the people as far as Jampol and there they went over the bridge happily". Did you make that statement?
AAgain not in this manner because I couldn't have said that, at least, as this was actually said in this particular wording doesn't mean that he himself was personally able to say this. By this it is only meant that he took charge of this in his capacity as Kommando chief, as people of his Kommando were concerned. I can only say again I did not go with this particular transport for one step. As far as I am informed, and I remember Lipps sent a few people with this column and I was of the opinion that these men escorted this column up to the border of our Kommando sector but as far as actual knowledge goes I have not been concerned with this incident.
and your statements made here disagree, which do you stand on, your statements made here or your interrogation and your affidavit?
A I may say the following here. The affidavit is the result of these alleged records.
Q Just a minute. Let me get an answer to my question. As between your statements made here and your interrogation and this affidavit, which do you stand on now, your statements made here or your affidavit and interrogation? witness stand. transport to the area of Einsatzkommando 12. Did he report to you after he accomplished his task?
A I do not know - not to me because that wasn't necessary.
Q Well, since you had taken such interest in these Jews, weren't you at least curious to find out what happened to them?
A Well, obviously when he returned he would have told me "Here I am again. The thing has been managed." But this would have been a comradely act but not a report, or whatever you want to call it.
Q All right. Did he tell you he had delivered the Jews as he had been ordered?
A I don't remember any details. He told me he only - he stated the transport had actually been carried out.
Q Did he say to whom he had delivered these Jews? these Jews and before he started back to his own unit?
A I don't understand the question.
Q All right. When he delivered these Jews to some one in the area of Einsatzkommando 12 he certainly didn't break down into a dead run and leave immediately to report back to his unit.
I am asking you now, did he ever tell you of any events in connection with this transport that happened after he turned over the Jewish transport and before he had started his journey back to his own unit?
A You presuppose, Mr. Walton, that Lipps accompanied and escorted this column to the border. I couldn't tell you that. you of any events that took place after he delivered the Jews and started back to his own unit - your answer is in the negative, is that correct?
A Yes. I never thought anything about it. transport of Jews?
A No. I regard this as quite impossible. He never told me anything about it either. I don't see any reason why he should have done that. and other places, isn't it a fact that you were convinced in your own mind that you sent these Rumanian Jews across the river you were sending then to their deaths?
A No, no, that is not so. Because that one would send a whole population to their death by shooting I never imagined that kind of thing would happen and I do not see from what you conclude this. I neither heard anything about it nor ever saw anything in the documents, and if you ask me about the picture in my mind which I have of this, I assumed that the group chief, who dealt with such important things after discussion between the Wehrmacht, also informed the Wehrmacht about it, and that there are discussions to this effect with the Rumanian Wehrmacht authorities.
Q Well, did you not know the anti-semitic attitude of the Rumanians?
anti-semitism as far as Rumanians are concerned. I would say I didn't use this expression. They were different attitudes. the Germans at this particular time? do they not?
A I would like to doubt that. I know of sufficient examples that this is not so. I mentioned the difference between the Rumanians and Germans.
Q Well, I will prove to you that your doubt is ill-founded. Both of you were fighting the Russians, were you not. Russians? of the Rumanians and Germans was the same. Now I am asking you, was not anti-semitism a basic policy of both the Rumanians and the Germans?
A You see here we do not understand each other, Mr. Walton. You were speaking of the war aims and you say that the basis of this war aim are common political opinions and convictions. In my opinion they are not necessarily a part of it. For instance, I may point out here an example you mentioned. The Allies - I do not think their political aims were the same yet they would have the same war aims.
Q Well, I will ask you this. Was it not one of their war aims to get rid of the Jews?
Q Wasn't that a common war aim between Rumanians and Germans?
Q As Allies didn't the Third Reich encourage the anti-semitic policy of the Rumanians?
A I don't know,
Q All right. Did you know when you sent these Jews to the area of Einsatzkommando 12 what Einsatzkommando 12 would do with them? chief that it was the task of the Kommando to lead these people back across the bridge and that discussion would have teen held with the Rumanians so that they would not run into the same difficulty. they got them, didn't you? back into the territory of the people that had expelled them, you knew that when you sent them hack, didn't you? was aware. I was of the opinion though, and I still am today, that it was less bad for these people not to be very well regarded in their own country or sector or position, than to be helpless in destroyed territory suffering hunger and being crowded. to the conclusion that if you sent these Jews back, some of them were very liable to be killed, weren't they?
A No. I don't see what reason I should have had to think so. I had not heard by then of any Jews being killed. Therefore, I had no conclusions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will begin recess 15 minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HOFFMANN: Hoffmann for Nosske. the Tribunal. My request is that the Defendant Nosske be excused from attendance in court this afternoon in order to prepare his document book. Your Honor, my question is the following: The Tribunal will remember the event in Jampol when the Jews were brought into the Rumanian territory. The bridge commander, whose name was Horsch, was to be interrogated, investigated. According to instructions by the Tribunal, by submitting the record, I asked Major Schaeffer in the Defense Center to bring this witness here. I assumed that the Tribunal would have a session tomorrow, Saturday, but there are rumors, I say rumors, your Honor, that there will be no session tomorrow, and in order to avoid that the witness comes here in vain, I would like to ask or inquire whether there is any truth in those rumors, whether the witness should be told not to come.
THE PRESIDENT: Is he available to you by telegram?
DR. HOFFMAN: I would have to go quickly to the information center and ask Major Schaeffer about this. I think he summoned him for tomorrow, but we can also tell him not to come.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Just a moment, please. Dr. Hoffmann, are you certain that by telegraph you could stop this witness from starting on his journey?
DR. HOFFMANN: I am sure of that.
THE PRESIDENT: Because we would not want him to make this trip unnecessarily. I tell you what you might do, Dr. Hoffmann, if I can burden you with it, to find out from the information center if by sending a telegram they can prevent his starting on the trip. If they cannot do that and the man is on his way or will be on his way then we should meet long enough to hear him tomorrow morning, at least for that, because it wouldn't be fair to have him make this trip and have him make it again.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, immediately, I shall -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think we should have a definite statement either by a report from him or from someone who would know whether he is gone or not. why don't you do that, please, Dr. Hoffmann and then let us know and then we will make our decision.
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes, I shall be back in a few minutes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Very well.
Q. (By Mr. Walton) Witness, before the morning recess, we were talking about the transport of thousands of Jaws which you were instrumental in delivering to Einsatzkommando 12 for further accompanyment into the Rumanian territory. Did any of this transport refuse to go with Lt. Lipps?
A. May I first correct something. In the introductory sentence I think you made a few slight errors, as to my participation in the retransport; in order to clarify this again, in order to avoid further misunderstandings, I was the one who handed on the order. I did not conduct the transport back. From my own knowledge, I cannot say whether the Kommando 12 sent any men to assist. I concluded this from the fact that they did sand people, because we also did this. Now, in order to answer this question, I would lime to say that Lipps did not tell us anything about the fact that people were shot, I think that was the question, was it not?
Q. Did some of these Jews escape and refuse to go with the transport conducted by Lt. Lipps?
A. I did not hear anything about that.
Q. Did you interview any of these Jews when you came upon them on the road to Mogilew-Podolsk.
A. On which road, please?
Q. Chernowitz to Mogilew Podolsk, where you first found them, Did you interview any of them? Did you talk to them?
A. No.
Q. How did you know why they were in this area?
A. I don't understand quite how this is connected with what we are talking about, in order to clarify this.
Q. All right, let me rephrase the question. You have stated that you were advancing from Chernowitz to Mogilew. You came upon a transport of Jews of several thousands. Are we agreed on that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now I ask you whether when you first found this transport, when you first knew of it, did you stop and talk to any of these people?
A. No, this transport was travelling and I overtook them with my car.
Q. How did you know what it was?
A. I saw the people. I passed them and seeing that the roads were bad, one had to travel slowly.
Q. How did you know from whence they came?
A. I never said that I knew from where they came. I do not know that even now, from where they come. I assume from their territory itself.
Q. Well, why did you go to Ohlendorf with the suggestion that they be sent back across the river into Rumanian territory, if you don't know whether they came from there or not?
A. That was an entirely different group. Mr. Prosecutor, this transport I saw on my way from Chernowitz to Mogilew. I overtook them. When I came to Chernowitz I heard there from Lt. Lipps when I discussed this matter with him and after all, it was something special, something unusual, that I observed this during the journey that thousands of Jews from the Rumanian territory existed and that he had received instructions to prevent such Rumanian Jews from going back to the German operational territory.
This transport that I saw, to where they brought these people, I don't know at all. I don't think they even crossed the bridge and those people who were on the other side already told me at that time that the Jews came from the Rumanian territory and that seemed to be something similar.
Q. Then you found out from other people then, not the Jews themselves, where they were from, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, and you never stopped your car even to speak to these Jews to question them in any way. You just rode on by?
A. Well, I told you this transport passed through the Rumanian occupied territory and was accompanied by Rumanian military personnel and I had no reason to interfere.
Q. Did you talk to any of the Rumanian military personnel that were accompanying these Jews when you found them?
A. At that time I did not know what was going on.
Q. And the information that you got that they were from Rumanian territory you got from Lt. Lipps and others?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let's go back to Document Book II-3, page 11 of the English text and page 29 of the original in the German text, which is Document 2837 and is Prosecution Exhibit 58. Now this report shows on its face that it was issued from Berlin, does it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And where did Berlin get these facts which they have related here?
A. From the Einsatzgruppen, of course.
Q. And where do you suppose the group Headquarters got the facts?
A. Normally from the Einsatzkommandos.
Q. Didn't they got these facts from Sonderkommando 10-B that are related in this report?
A. No, this could not be a report from Kommando 10-B, because it is a summary report, or a general report.
Q. Did they get it from Einsatzkommando 12?
A. According to the information, as far as I can see it at the moment, this is a total report of the group, but I cannot see here whether the group made any special report in that case or whether they rearranged it in Berlin or even compiled it out of various reports.
Q. Well, there is no point of Berlin charging certain activities to other groups than the one from which they received the report, is there?
A. It probably was not done on purpose. I assume that errors occurred.
Q. What proportion of the 3105 Jews and 34 Communists were executed by Sonderkommando 10-B?
A. I cannot tell you anything about this.
Q. Well, was Sonderkommando 10-B east the Dnjepr River at the date of this report, namely, the of August, 1941?
A. Yes.
Q. And since this is a summary report from all of the Einsatzkommandos and Sonderkommandos, isn't it reasonable to suppose that it included Sonderkommando 10-B?
A. That is quite possible.
Q. And if they say "all our kommandos shot 3,105 Jews and 34 Communists," it means that Sonderkommando 10-B shot part of them, doesn't it?
A. That is not bound to be like that.
Q. Now you have testified here that there is some doubt in your mind as to whether you know one Robert Barth, a former Hauptscharfuehrer in Sonderkommando 10-B. Would you recognize him if he was summoned as a witness, if you say him?
A. I think so.
Q. Do you ever remember giving a Robert Barth any orders?
A. I do not remember.
Q. Was he present when you were discussing this transport of Jews on the road from Chernowitz to Mogilew Podolsk.
A. I cannot say that either.
Q. It is possible that he was along, isn't it?
A. I cannot exclude the possibility.
Q. Do you remember whether or not he was detailed to go with Lt. Lipps to deliver the transport to the area of Einsatzkommando 12?
A. That order would have been given to him by Obersturmbannfuehrer Lupps. I do not know which people he appointed to this.
Q. Did you not route this transport through the Russian cities, Ananew, Nikilajew, Jampol, and Skajowsk? Isn't that the route that the transport took in order to get to the Rumanian bridge from where you saw them?
A. May I show you where Skadowsk is, Mr. Prosecutor?
(Witness indicating on map.)
Chernowitz is here. Here is is Mogilew Podolsk. Here is Jampol. Ananjew is here and Skadowsk is here. I hardly think that a transport went that route in order to get down here to this first point.
Q. What was the river which these Rumanians crossed? What was the name of the river that these Rumanian Jews corssed?
A. The Dnjestr River.
Q. The Dnjestr River?
A. Yes.
Q. About how many kilometres from where you found them to Rumanian territory was it?
A. I beg your pardon, I don't know what you are referring to now. Where did I find some -
Q. You said you passed this transport on a road from Chernowitz to Mogilew Podoslk. About how many kilometres from the point where you found them to where they crossed the Dnjestr River, was it?
A. That was in Rumanian Sovereign territory. That was between Prut and Dnjestr and whether this transport ever crossed the Dnjestr River I don't know and I doubt it.
on your second visit to him that they be conducted to another bridge. Was this other bridge on the Dnjestr River?
A I certainly did not suggest it to him. At the most, on that occasion I mentioned to him that a second bridge existed. A suggestion I could not make, because of the rank I held. I could not have done that at the time.
Q All right, where was this second bridge? On what river was this second bridge? Jampol. did they not? saw this transport of Jews, approximately how far was it?
A I don't Quite understand this connection. The two matters have nothing to do with each other. First in the first part of the sentence you seem to be talking about the retransport of the Jews who were already in Mogilew and then in the second part of the sentence you connect here, if I have not misunderstood you here, by finding me meeting this transport on the route from Chernowitz to Mogilew, that is, I was on this road where this transport was moving and I don't know why. That was still in Rumanian territory; because of that I cannot establish the distance. There is no point in giving you any distance.
Q Well, didn't you state that you took, or you were connected with plans to take these Jews in this transport which you found to the area of Einsatzkommando 12 and that Einsatzkommando 12 would then take them in Rumanian territory. Now were the two transports of Jews two separate events from the one you found and the one that you testified you spoke to Ohlendorf about and was finally taken across the river, the Dnjestr River. Were there two separate transports of Jews?
A Definitely, there were two different matters. I am trying to clarify this all the time, but perhaps I did not express myself quite clearly. May I repeat it? When I travelled to Mogilew I came across, or, overtook, in the territory between the Prut and Dnjestr rivers, a transport escorted by Rumanian military people. Where they went to, I do not know. That they crossed the bridge I doubt very much, because Lipps had already received the order to stop such illegal deportations. That was the one transport. bring the people back from Mogilew to Jampol to their homeland. That is an entirely different matter.
Q Why didn't you put both these instances in your affidavit?
A During the interrogation I told Mr. Wartenberg how I thought of this matter. The first thing I thought of was when touching upon such a question that I saw this transport and did not know what was going on and then when arriving in Mogilew I discussed the matter with Lipps and then he told me -
Q There is no point in going through that again. I asked you the question, why you didn't put it in your affidavit. I want to follow it up. When this affidavit was submitted to you to read before you signed it, why didn't you call Mr. Wartenberg's attention to it then?
A I don't know what I could have corrected on that occasion. I don't see anything that is not clear here.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, may I interrupt just a second, please?
MR. WALTON: Yes, sir. BY THE PRESIDENT: the road and then when you arrived at Mogilew Podolsk, you found out what this transport was all about and then you made efforts to have this transport sent back to Rumanian territory.