Q. Now, after these Jews crossed this bridge, did they camp on the bank of the river for two days?
A. They camped partly on the banks of the Dnjestr River and partly they went further up to the rather steep bank, dispersed, and they lay down to sleep. Partly they went to the next village Kusauti (Kusiutz), until they were collected apprehended by Rumanian armed constabulary.
Q. Did you see these Jews during the whole time they remained on the opposite bank? Were they in your sight?
A. More or less, yes.
Q. But you couldn't see the portion that went farther inland to the next village, could you?
A. They didn't go that far. They had marched for too long by then. Individual persons might have proceeded to go further inland -strong people -- but remained the mass more or less together.
Q. And the last that you yourself saw of this transport of Jews was when the armed Rumanian constabulary were marching them off from the Dnjestr River, is that correct?
A. Yes, that was the last I saw.
Q. And you don't know what happened to them after they marched out of your sight, do you?
A. Later on I went to Northern Rumania on a few occasions to Jassi and Jasch, in order to take money for supplies, and on these occasions I saw on my travels through Northern Bessarabia that meanwhile one or more Jewish concentration camps had been set up.
Q. But you don't know whether any of this Jewish transport was put in those camps, do you?
A. I presume so with a 100 percent certainty.
Q. But you don't know of your own knowledge; you just presume so?
A. I think it is so absolutely certain because according to my firm conviction none of these Jews went back to his own home -- locality.
Q. Did you see them put -- commit these Jews to these barbed wire enclosures?
A. I did not see them being put in but I saw them behind the barbed wire.
Q. Did you ever talk to any of these Jews behind the barbed wire and they told you that they had crossed your bridge?
A. No.
Q. So, so far as you know that as soon as they got out of sight or nearing of the bridge that the Rumanian constabulary could have executed them? Couldn't they, so far as you know?
A. What could the Rumanian gendarmerie have done?
Q. Executed -- shot them down.
A. That, I think, did not happen.
Q. You think did not happen?
A. Because I would have been informed about it at that time if such mass executions had already taken place.
Q. Who would have informed you?
A. Well, I think one would have heard about it.
Q. But so far as you know it could have happened? You just didn't hear about It?
A. I did not hear about it, but such event at that time would have been talked about, because at that time such mass executions had not happened. That only happened later on during the course of the further Russian campaign, and then, of course, one was being told about these things.
Q. Now, you did not know that so many Jews were in the German occupied territory until Nosske came and told you, is that correct?
A. I should like this question to be repeated. did not quite get it.
Q. Yes. The first you knew of a large Jewish transport, from ten to twenty thousand was when Nosske came to you at your post as commander of the bridge and asked you to let these Jewish people pass.
This is the first you knew of a large Jewish transport in the territory next to your bridge, is it not?
A. Yes, except for the fact that before in Bessarabian territory I had seen smaller columns of Jews which were escorted by Rumanian constabulary across the country.
Q. And, so far as you know, Nosske could have performed executions upon some of these transports of Jews before they ever got to your bridge, couldn't he?
A. But -- He could have done, but I did not hear anything about it, and I do not think that at that time executions took place.
Q. But you didn't hear whether he had or had not? He could have, but you just didn't hear it; is that correct?
A. I certainly did not hear. But when --
MR. HOFFMANN: This kind of hypothetical question, your Honor, I would like to object to. On the one hand, Mr. Walton confirms that the hypothesis which the witness states are in favor of the defendant are not valid and they must not be expressed; on the other hand, he tried to put up hypotheses which are unfavorable for the defendant to draw his conclusion. I think that a cross examination can be conducted thus to establish the credibility or incredibility, correctness or incorrectness of facts, but I don't think -it can only deal with hypotheses for half an hour.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if hypotheses are going to be presented naturally they must be presented in a way that the answers may express an observation which will illuminate the situation as exists, whether it be favorable to the prosecution or favorable to the defendant. Put your question again. BY MR. WALTON:
Q. I asked the witness that at some time before he knew this transport of Jews was in the area close to his bridge the defendant Nosske could have performed execution on a portion of it, so far as his knowledge was concerned. He has answered that it could have, even though he did not think that it did. Which is, to my mind -- is a responsive answer.
MR. HOFFMANN: I object also to this question, because Mr. Walton could with equal right ask whether Nosske during this time when the witness was not there whether he slept during that time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is a very natural conclusion. The probative value of that is for the Tribunal. If you ask a person whether he could have flown to the North Pole and he knows absolutely nothing about it, his answer must be, "Yes, he could have, if he had the necessary equipment" and so on. Whether there is enough in the substance to prove anything is something for the Tribunal to determine: but just merely out of a void presenting a hypothetical situation when the witness himself has no way of determining whether it can or can not be true does not help the court much from a probative value point of view. BY MR. WALTON:
Q. All you know is that Nosske did not mention the fact to you that executions had or had not occurred while these Jews were under his command. That is all that you know, is it not?
A. Yes, but I am firmly convinced that Nosske or his men would have told me about these executions if such had taken place.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, may I interrupt? One of the members of the Tribunal has suggested that the witness comment on whether he knows of executions of Jews on either side of the river.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q. Yes, Witness, how long were you in this area all together, whether you were the bridge commander or the bridge builder, or in any capacity, how long were you in this area where this bridge existed for two weeks? bridge until this bridge was destroyed by floods. I remained in Russia afterwards until the year 1943.
Q. Well, how many months were you in this area? Or, how many weeks were you in this area? From when to when?
A. From the beginning of the Russian campaign until the October when I went to join my unit.
Q. Approximately four months?
A. Well, three.
Q. Were there any executions performed by anyone in that area while you were there?
A. No, No, nothing was told at the time about executions, either,
Q. I don't mean whether anything was told; I mean, did you see or did anyone report officially to you an execution had taken place? Is your answer the same?
A. Yes. Yes, I have not heard, or seen anything.
Q. Were you ever stationed until 1943 near SS or SD units?
A. Later on I saw in several localities that SK detachments had taken up billets, of which it was said they were the detachments that had to deal with Anti-Jewish operations.
Q. By "dealing with anti-Jewish operations" you mean executions, do you not?
A. That was made known later. I did not observe anything. When I arrived in Russia in October I learned during the following months that from the Russian villages Jews had been expelled and had been killed, in tank ditches; but this was news to me, in Bessarabia and Ukraine during my time nothing of that kind ever happened, or at least I was not informed by any parties about such events having happened.
If such incidents had happened at that time one would have got to know about it.
Q. Do you know what German units performed these acts and executions that you heard of later?
A. No.
Q. Could you assume that they could have been either Security Police or SD or could they have been units of the Wehrmacht?
A. The Wehrmacht, as far as I could see, had nothing to do with this.
Q. So it must have been units of the police which followed behind the lines of the Wehrmacht?
A. Yes.
MR. WALTON: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Hoffmann, any further questions?
In view of the fact that Dr. Hoffmann, in effect, invited you to come to Nurnberg as a Tribunal witness, we thank you for having made the trip. day morning, January 5th which will then be a new year, 1948.
(Court in recess until Monday, 5 January 1948, at 0930 hours.)
of America; against Otto Ohlendorf, et al;,
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. as follows:
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Witness, will you raise your right hand and repeat this oath after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing. (The witness repeated the oath) You may be seated.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, before the Christmas Recess, during the testimony of the court witness Frieda Reich, the Tribunal ruled that certain exhibits which were put in by Dr. Riediger in the case or the defendant Haensch would be put at the disposal of both parties for investigation. As most of these documents, in fact, all of them with the exception of the affidavit which the court witness wrote in her own handwriting, and which is only for purposes of comparison, were put in by the defense, which were the guarantees for their genuineness by putting them before the Tribunal, we request at this time that we should have the possibility at this time of investigating these documents first.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal ruled at that time that you would have the right to obtain the documents, so that we are only repeating when we say that you may - -
MR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: -- get the documents and use them for the purposes indicated.
MR. HOCHWALD: May I then ask the General Secretary to be so advised about these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will turn over to the Prosecution the documents under discussion.
MR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, there are now in the hands of the Secretary-General some voluminous defense document books of the Defendant Ohlendorf. In view of the press of other business over the holidays, and the fact that I happened to be the only Prosecution Attorney present during that time, I confess that I have not thoroughly examined the document books. However, my examination does show that at least sofar as the Prosecution is concerned, there are some documents which are objectionable. If it is convenient for the Tribunal I should appreciate in view of the number of document books for the defendant Ohlendorf that an announcement be made by counsel at least twenty-four hours before he plans on introducing the document books in order to give me a chance to list the documents which I believe are objectionable for purposes of entering formal objections as they are formally introduced
THE PRESIDENT: The request is a very normal one, and, Dr. Aschenauer, do you have any objection to the request made by Mr. Walton?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, Your Honor, I have no ob jection.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Allright, you may now proceed.
DR. KOESSL: Dr. Koessl for the defendant Schubert. I would like to be permitted to examine the defendant Schubert in his own case.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. BY DR. KOESSL:
Q When and where were you born?
Q What schools did you attend?
Q First I went to grammar school for 4 years; the elementary school in Eisenberg, Thueringen, for 3 years, and Grammar School in Berlin for one year. After that for six years I attended the Realgymnasium (High School) in BerlinLichterfelde, and left school after the seventh class, that is, the Obersekunda, and was given a diploma. page 147, there appears your curriculum vitae. This is Document No. 3244, which is Exhibit No. 172. Does that give your correct date of your marriage? in this document here, is given here as "1 February 1940", but it should say, 21 December 1940.
Q Did your first wife die?
A Yes. My first wife and my child were victims of one of the first bombing attacks on Berlin.
Q Did you then remarry? 1943. I now have a boy three and one-half years old. files?
A Yes. On the second page of this document at the top the date of my joining the party is mentioned here as "1 May 1944" and it should say "1 May 1934." I presume that this must have been a typographical mistake which was made when the document was copied. On the next page of the same document under the heading "Party Activities" it shows "Speaker in the Gau Indoctrination Courses" in Berlin (Gauschulungsredner). I don't know how this entry got into the original, or into this document. I have never been a speaker in my life, and sofar as the Party is concerned I did not belong to the Berlin District, and, furthermore, I was never active in the political organization of the Party. I was only a nominal member of the Party. and when was that? myself, I was transferred into the Party from the Hitler Youth of which I had been a member since 1931. Of course, I never raised an objection against it, either. I was nineteen years old at the time, and at that time it was generally considered a token of recognition for members of the Hitler Youth to be transferred into the Party if they were regarded as qualified.
Q Were you a member of any formations of the Party? Youth.
Q Since when?
Q Didn't you say 1931 before?
A If I said that I must have made a mistake. I beg your pardon. I was a member since January 1932.
Q Did you hold any full-time office in the Hitler Youth?
A No, I held no full-time office. I did my service apart from my professional activities during my free evening hours, and during week-ends in my spare time.
Q Did you hold or achieve any rank in the Hitler Youth? of Scharfuehrer. non-commissioned officer? be no comparison with a military rank.
Q In any case it was the lowest rank, wasn't it? perform any function? least, in the organization of political leadership, the PO; I never held any office in this.
Q What professional traning did you have? administrative official in or become a candidate for the Interior Administration. At that time, that was the beginning of April 1931, all administrative agencies to which one could apply were filled up, and I could not find a job. Thereupon, on 1 April 1931, I entered a lawyer's office as an apprentice in Berlin. I was to take a training period of three years, but they exempted me from the third year so that after two years of training I became a Registrator in this same lawyer's office. This position I held until August inclusive, of 1933. At this period I had the possibility to get into administrative work, and I accepted a job as a candidate for the administrative service the Bremen Reich Deputy Office, the Representative of Bremen for the Reich.
That was the office of the representative of the free city of Bremen in the Reich Government. There I remained for thirteen months, and had prepared myself for the examination as an administrative secretary, which, however, I was not able to take, because this particular office had been dissolved by Reich Law at the time the Reich Council was dissolved, and I, as the youngest member of the staff, and as the one who had worked there the shortest time, had to leave first. That was within the course of events.
Q When and how did you join the SD? administrative service. I didn't suceed in this, despite the strong support of my former superiors. In the search for a new appointment, I happened to meet a former comrade of mine from the Hitler's Youth who at this time had joined the SD. He told me that the SD at this time had just been transferred from Munich to Berlin, and was urgent looking for men who had been trained in administrative work, and he suggested to me, as he was aware of the fact that I had lost my job, that I apply for a job in the SD. I accepted this offer, and I applied to the then SD Main Office in Berlin. That was on 10 October 1934. On this particular day I was taken into the SD as a member of the NSDAP.
Q Did you join the General-SS on this occasion? formation of the SS, but I never became a member of the socalled General (Allgemeine)-SS. Furthermore, I never served in this General-SS for even as much as one day.
SD and what did your activity consist of? 1936, and then again from the 1st of November 1938 until the beginning of August 1939 I was an auxiliary worker in the then SD Main Office. That was in the Department I/13, that was the registration office of the SD Main Office, and I dealt with the various branches of registration machinery and I dealt with all registrar work that came up. My main activity, however, was to keep a diary of all letters. That means to register the letters coming in and going out. At the beginning of August 1939 I was transferred to the Office I of the Reich Security Main Office. I must correct myself here. I had already been a member of Office I; I was transferred to the personnel department of the SD Main Office, again only as an auxiliary employee and I handled the filing of personnel directives according to instructions of my superiors. I corrected personnel documents and I kept personnel statistics up to date. That was my general activity as an auxiliary member of the personnel department. In the summer of 1940, after I had been promoted to Untersturmfuehrer in the SD, I received a T/O job in Office I - that was the first and the lowest T/O position to be held by an SD officer. I became a so-called Departmental expert in the Personnel Department of the SD. In this function I again worked on personnel directives for the special sector of this department, again according to instructions of my superiors. From October 1941 until September 1943 inclusive I held the position of an adjutant. I shall come back to that in detail at a later point. F rom October 1943 until November 1944 inclusive I held the job of an auxiliary departmental official in Group III-B of the Reich Security Main Office. In this office I dealt with personnel matters within Group III-B, that is, the internal personnel administration and, beyond that, internal organizational matters and the general supervision of the registration and files of this Group III-B. On the first of December 1944 I was detailed to the SD Sector Augsburg and I was entrusted with the leadership of Department III-B. In this department I only had to deal with the information service in the domestic sphere, ethnic Germans and public health for the Administrative District Suabia (Schwaben). This job I held until 26 April 1945.
On this day the office of this sector was dissolved. these jobs you held? had any power of independent decision. At no time whatsoever.
Q Where were you from 1936 to 1938? You omitted that time before. Armed Forces. I was a soldier from 15 October 1936 until 29 October 1938. I did active service at the time in the 38th Armored Reconnaissince Bn in Stahnsdorf near Berlin.
Q That was a Wehrmacht Unit, wasn't it?
Q What training did you get there? as an infantry soldier and as a radio operator. After this training for a year I was trained as a company clerk, that is, as a noncommissioned officer dealing with clerical jobs. During the last seven months of my service I commanded a signal detachment in an Armored Signal Bn.
Q What was your last military rank? charged. When I was released from active service in the Wehrmacht I was made a non-commissioned officer in the Reserves. 1939?
in the personnel department of the SD. That was Department I-A-4 of the Reich Security Main Office.
Q Were you called up for the Wehrmacht when war broke out?
A No, I was not. That wasn't even possible. I may explain that perhaps. As full-time member of the SD in July or August 1939 I received a so-called mobilization order. This mobilization order provided that the holder of this order in the case of a mobilization had to remain at the place where he worked. In addition to this, at the outbreak of the war, a special notification was put into my military papers. That was the order to the effect that I was essential for the SD, In addition to this, apart from the mobilization order which explicitly said that a voluntary enlistment for military service would be without avail in case of mobilization and, therefore, should not be done. In addition to this, from the outbreak of the war, members of the SD came under special jurisdiction of the Security Police and SD. A violation of all of these regulations and orders would have had as its consequence punishment according to this regulation of the SD and police jurisdiction. Apart from the fact that service in the SD from the beginning of the war had been declared a special war service, and therefore nobody had any reason whatsoever to leave this war service and to apply for service in the Wehrmacht. That was practically impossible and, therefore, nobody could apply for service in the Wehrmacht independently in order to be called up. never apply voluntarily for service in the Wehrmacht? just once, because I believed that I had a special reason which would guarantee success so that I could join the Wehrmacht. After I had lost my wife and child in a bomb attack in August 1941 I applied to the chief of the Security Police and SD asking that I be released to the Army and that my essential status in the SD be revoked.
I was convinced that this application would be approved, but I was most disappointed when the application was refused on the basis of existing regulations decreed by Heydrich and Himmler.
in the SD? Russian campaign? personnel decree was issued and this ordered the release of the candidates for the so-called leaders' service who at the time were active in the Russian campaign. Within the program of these releases I was chosen as relief in this action and I received a written order to join Einsatzgruppe D. Within two days I was to prepare myself to leave and had to start for the garrison of Einsatzgruppe D.
Q What did you at the time know concerning the Einsatzgruppen?
AActually not much more than the name. Of course, I had been told that during the Polish campaign so-called Einsatzgruppen had been set up. The same is also true, if I remember rightly, for other assignments, for instance, in Norway at the beginning these units were also called Einsatzgruppen. Of course, I also knew that at the beginning of the Russian campaign so-called Einsatzgruppen had been formed for that theater of operations also. Furthermore, from the orders of the Security Police and SD this order is the same as an administration gazette in other administrative offices, it might be called a circular. This circular contained lists of casualties from the beginning of the Russian campaign, members of the Security Police and SD who had been killed in the service of such Einsatzgruppen. That was essentially the knowledge that I had concerning the term Einsatzgruppen.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, I didn't quite follow that last answer. Would the witness please repeat it. I didn't quite catch the drift of just what he was aiming at in that answer.
DR. KOESSL: Please repeat very briefly what you knew about the Einsatzgruppen when you received this special order?
A I did know that Einsatzgruppen existed. I know the actual term Einsatzgruppen.
I knew that they had been active in Poland, Norway, and now also in Russia. Apart from that, however, I had concrete knowledge that they were also active in Russia - these so-called Einsatzgruppen. This knowledge I had received from the so-called gazettes from which I saw notices concerning men who had been killed in action - men who were members of the Security Police and SD and who served in these Einsatzgruppen.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. You are telling us that you saw reports indicating that men assigned to Einsatzgruppen had been killed. they were official circulars which went to all service organizations of the Security Police and SD.
DR. KOESSL: These were casualty reports, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: They were the usual casualty lists which appear in the newspapers during a war announcing those in the Armed Forces who had lost their lives?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that didn't give you much knowledge just what Einsatzgruppen meant, did it?
A No. I had no knowledge about that. BY DR. KOESSL:
Q To whom did you report in Berlin before you left? who was an officer holding the rank of Major, a Sturmbannfuehrer. missions of the Einsatzgruppen?
A No. On that occasion I was in no way informed about the task of the Einsatzgruppen, but I merely received my marching order to report to Einsatzgruppe D. I may add that at the time my superiors in this office could not even tell me where I could find Einsatzgruppe D. I first had to find out about the garrison of this unit which I was to join.
Q What did you imagine your job would be in this Einsatzgruppe? One was a purely military assignment. The second possibility was an administrative activity in this unit. I had the professional training for both of these possibilities.
Q Where and when did you report to Einsatzgruppe D in Russia? the southern Ukraine when I reported to the staff of Einsatzgruppe D. The chief of Einsatzgruppe D at the time was SS-Oberfuehrer Ohlendorf.
Q Wasn't he a Standartenfuehrer at the time?
A I don't know whether he was still Standartenfuehrer. Any way it was about the time that he was promoted from Standartenfuehrer to Oberfuehrer.
Q Had you known Ohlendorf previously?
A I had not known Ohlendorf personally before. Of course I was aware that he was chief of Office III of the Reich Security Main Office, but I think I can say with certainty that before this date I had never seen him consciously.
Q Were you alone when you reported there?
A No, I wasn't the only one. Apart from myself there were nine other officers, who had been detailed to Einsatzgruppe D as replacements who arrived together with myself at the office of the chief of Einsatzgruppe D. Einsatzgruppe D? of the Einsatzgruppe to the effect that it was the mission of the Einsatzgruppe to secure the rear Army territory and the operational area of the 11th Army. I think, but I am not sure, that on this occasion the so-called Barbarossa order was also mentioned. Furthermore, and this seemed to me of special importance to Ohlendorf, he carefully screened each one of these ten officers He went into great detail.
He asked about personal details. He asked for the curriculum vitae of each individual with special emphasis on the professional training, and special training in branches of Security Police and SD in order to be able to find out what special activity this particular officer would be best fitted for. It depended on this screening how each officer was to be employed.
Q Was the Fuehrer order mentioned on this occasion?
Q When and in what connection did you learn about the Fuehrer order? the first time at the end of October 1941. The circumstances were briefly the following. During the period in which Ohlendorf was on an official trip to Berlin I had started to work myself into the department to which I was assigned. I received the reports in this office which had been put at my disposal, the reports which the individual Kommandos had sent to the Einsatzgruppe and I received knowledge of the reports of the Einsatzgruppe to the Reich Security Main Office.
I can't say for certain today what was the occasion which made me think - which made me suspect - -