Then as long as or until Gottberg arrived, we didn't carry out any single action unless the partisan operations were carried out, and that in these partisan fights Jews were also caught and executed during the fights in the woods. Well, more than that I can't tell you.
Q And when did Gottberg arrive? something like that, no November.
Q 1942?
Q Then it isn't right that you discussed the Jewish liquidation with Kube? it. That is why I say that this letter that was written around that time is a lie. would be from about the middle of May until the end of July, you had liquidated 55,000 Jews. figures. He took the earlier results, or rather he invented the earlier results. He made them up somehow. Then he sent them to Berlin and to Himmler in order to show-- Well, Heydrich put pressure upon him and somehow he had to get around it, and thus he put these figures into the report by emphasizing my own person, even though he didn't even like me at all, and at the same time he wrote to Rosenberg an uncomplimentary letter about myself, and he was glad that nothing was done by us, and he was even more happy when Heydrich came.
the figures were not invented by Kube but that these executions took place at a period which was before your time?
A Well, somehow they took place somewhere. I don't even know whether they did take place, but they always spoke of these figures, and Kube arbitrarily moved them into the latter period, yes. were liquidated around this period?
A No, I know nothing about that. When was that supposed to have been?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gick, the letter states that the executions occurred on July 28th and 29th.
Q (By Dr. Gick) Yes, Herr Strauch, the specific date which is given in this letter is the 28th and 29th of July. On the 28th and 29th of July 10,000 Jews are supposed to have been liquidated in Minsk.
A No, I know nothing about that. Where? You mean in the Kube letter? like that.
AAnd where does it say, and in what passage does it say that? I read this letter thoroughly. Where does it say that?
Q I will show you the document. Right here, this passage (indicating).
A Well, that was not in Minsk. I can't say. I never knew about the Kube letter. I only saw this here in orison, and this fact certainly isn't known to me at all. executions in Libau or Slonin?
A Well, I would have to have the newspapers. Executions took place shortly before I arrived, just shortly before I arrived.
told us. These liquidations were supposed to have taken place afterwards in May, middle of May until end of July. taken place?.
A Yes, that would have to be. My deputy, of course, informed me about all the various things which happened. thing about such liquidations? such liquidations, whereas the other comrades made reports and I made none at all would have taken place? all the others did.
in White Ruthenia, do you know anything about that? they were already there when I arrived. Five or six, I said and four of those, four of there transports were destined for liquidation, and the others I - for the other I set up a large estate, farm, and the Jewish inhabitants were in there and they were housed in barns - well, they were housed in some sort of a structure, and since they were amply equipped with their own things, they were very well taken care of. They cooked their own meals, they raised their own cows, they had their food, and there was a hospital on this estate, and they were perfectly well taken care of Everyone whom I took there was surprised. say? Well, on Page 47 of this documents Kube, however, reports that you yourself were indignant that such a transport had arrived, and that during the night you had indignantly reported this to Kube, is that correct?
A Well, I don't know anything about his letter. I heard about it, and if this had roused me so much I would have reported it to the Air District Commander, but I wasn't so indignant about it if a thousand Jews came. letter says? such friendly to the Jews, that he had to try to make himself popular with Himmer and to pretend as if he was the best man, and, of couse, would do everything the way it should be done, in order to show himself up to be a good man. Brigadier-General Zinner had the same impression.
Q Herr Strauch, let's now discuss those documents which the prosecution has charged you with. First of all that would be Document 3279 in document Book I, Exhibit 21, German Page 100. It says here, on the German Page 116, "In White Ruthenia the cleaning process is proceeding.
The number of Jews in the area handed over to the civil administration amounts at the time to about 139,000. Einsatzgruppe A, after it took over the agency, White Rutenia, shot 33,210 Jews so far." Did you have anything to do with those facts here?
A How could I have had anything to do with them? During the first part I was still in Riga and was in charge Department 3, and in the middle, beginning in the middle these things were carried out, and then I left for White Ruthenia, and I spoke enough about that, namely, so that for the time beingI had nothing to do with these matters.
Q The report is dated 14 January '42. You say you weren't in White Ruthenia at that time yet, is that correct?
DR. GICK: Your Honor, I may point out that on Page 110 of this document it is expressly noted that SS Major Hoffman was deputizing for Strauch at that time.
Q (By Dr. Gick) Another document in Document Book III-A. German Page 65," Exhibit 107 of the prosecution, Document No. 4533. It says here on the German Page 69," in Minsk between the 1st and 4th of February '42 altogether 123 persons were arrested among them 80 people for refusing to work.
A When was this dated?
Q From the 1st of April '42 - oh, no. correction, from the 1st to the 4th of February '42.
A Well, I really have nothing to say about that. I wasn't even there yet.
Q Even at that time you were not in White Ruthenia yet? shouldn't people have been arrested in White Ruthenia, people who were unemployed, when now they are arrested everywhere in Germany. It was quite useful and realistic.
DR. GICK: Your Honor, may I point out the receip date of this document? On German Page 64, Herr Strauch is listed as having Hoffmann as his deputy.
Q (By Dr. Gick) In the same document, Herr Strauch, it is mentioned that on 4th February 1942 in Rakow about 100 persons were liquidated in the ghetto. What is your comment on this? office at that time. That is right, isn't it? I don't want to say anything that is wrong here. That is right. I wasn't there yet, but to be sure Dr. Hoffmann reported it to me, and he said that he had liquidated Rakow, and that was this Rakow which is on the road from - well, let me see, west, from Koenigsberg just before, before Minsk. And if he had liquidated these 120 Jews no man could be living there any more. I don't remember I saw anyone there.
Q Rakow, was that a small place? said he had liquidated the entire ghetto then, of course, he liquidated the whole place. prosecution's Exhibit 108, Document No. 3234, German Page 181 of this document. I don't know the English Page number, your Honor, but I suppose you have it. I just hear it, 66. English Page 66 - 60, Page 60, I beg your pardon. During the period from the 5th to the 28th of February, it says here, the main agency at Wilajka killed 29 Jews, 4 Communists, 5 partisans, 5 asocial people, and 4 people because of sabotage. Did you have anything to do these executions?
A Oh, well, I couldn't have been there then. That is out of the question. On the 22nd or 23rd I arrived in Minsk, and so I couldn't have been in Minsk in February. Document 3236, it says there on Page 95, on the English Page 70, other large scale Jewish executions have been carried out, for example in Tscherwen and Rakow.
In Tscherwen 15,000 Jews were shot, and this gives the white Ruthenia population a feeling of insecurity and a certain fear. In the more educated circles it was said that they were not used to such a procedure during the Soviet regime and that it was impossible to estimate the consequences of such measures. The document is dated the 27th of March, 1942. Did you participate in this operation? did not belong to my area, and that to my knowledge - well, that I don't know anything of such a thing. Rakow, as for that place it was reported that this ghetto, which consisted of 120 people in Rakow, was completely destroyed because it had offered resistance. That is why it is no longer there. Then at another place it says, I think it has been quoted here, that 30,000 were liquidated there. Well, now, I don't know what actually is meant. Rakow does not belong to me, but they ascribe it to me.
Q Oh, you mean Tscherwen? this ghetto in Rakow was completely destroyed because it offered resistance, and at another place it says about Rakow that 12,000 or 15,000 were liquidated. Furthermore, in Russia, and I could show you this on the map, there are many town with the same figures or if you would like any confirmation of this, or there are many of Lenins, and well, I can't go into all this. I could have given you plenty of names before, and I could give you proof that there were figures of all types. That is the time when you were already in Minsk and here the following question arises, because this incident which is reported here between the 22nd - can it have taken place between the 22nd and 27th of March?
A Well, Dr. Gick, that is possible in all things, whether active in marching or whatever happened, we cannot prove. With the best will I tried to describe these things to you.
I tried to describe it to a lot of people, but on the 31st or 35th I arrived there, so it probably happened just shortly before.
Q You mean before your arrival?
A Yes. Well, it can also be that this man there, that he carried it out.
Q But I must correct you. Were these reports sent to Berlin and edited there and compiled there, and then they bear the name of the person who worked on it? Well, how long did this take?
A Well, that varied. One cannot give any time for its. Sometimes you can prove that the dates are much earlier than these which are listed in the reports. days?
A Oh yes, quite certainly longer than five days. I think all my comrades can confirm that this was so. German, page 130, Exhibit 53, Document Number 3261. I quote from page 135, Book IIA. English page 120, "On the 2nd and 3rd of March a partisan column of 7 Banjo sleighs was destroyed. The partisans were not only armed and had a lot of ammunition with them, but they were also amply equipped with food." That was an action of the 2nd and 3rd of March. How about this, did you participate in this?
A I could not have participated because I don't suddenly catch partisans on the way with a driver. Were you already in White Ruthenia on the 2nd and 3rd? with my brother and on the 23rd of March I arrived.
Q So on the 2nd and 3rd you were not there yet?
Q But on the next page it says that. "On the 2nd end and 3rd an anti-Jewish action was carried on in Minsk involving 3,412 Jews in Minsk and 302 in Vileika and -- 2207 in Baranowitschi" -- well altogether 5721.
A Well, yes, that is right. My predecessor did that, and I already described this yesterday, that shortly before I arrived there, 7,000 people altogether. in the German, Exhibit 110, No. 3372. English page 10. Your Honor. Here your co-defendant. Sandberger, says that you had participated in Jewish persecutions in Minsk.
A Me having participated in Jewish persecutions? Well, that is always the thing with Jeckeln in Minsk. There was only one operation, and that is the one which is well-known, and which I always called the "Jeckeln action".
Q But you say the Jeckeln action took place in Riga?
Q But we are speaking of Minsk. In Minsk you are supposed to have participated in Jewish persecutions, is that right? repudiated it. I don't know that that is right.
Q Well, what is your comment on it?
A Well, that is completely correct. I didn't take part in any Jewish action in Minsk, and I only participated in it after the arrival of Gottberg. activity in Minsk or White Ruthenia.
A No. He was never with me, and only seldom was anybody ever with me, only Heydrich was with me, otherwise, I don't even know anyone. prosecution and which I have discussed with you. Now Herr Strauch, I ask you to give the Tribunal a brief description about what activity you carried out while Gottberg was there.
A Well, I described that yesterday in detail. I was the G-2 of Gottberg and I was very seldom in Minsk, but if I was there, I took care of the office there which I have described yesterday.
And then the new order came, "go to Slusk", or some other place, God knows where, and so I had to go away again with a few people, and I had to carry out reconnaisance right there wherever the pressure of the partisans was applied.
You can't even imagine what that was like. In a month we lost more than 30 people. That is more than what happened altogether on the front as far as losses are concerned. Well, I am just giving you these figures because I know them or maybe there are a few more. There were locomotives lost in while Ruthenia -- more than were built in the German factories, without one being able to defend oneself, etc., etc. That was the partisan situation, so we had to do everything to fight this situation and, of course, we just couldn't give them candy as German troops--these partisans, we had to fight them. There was no other way out. We had to fire all right. There was no other choice. More than that I couldn't tell you.
Q I thought you were G-" during those fights against the partisans
A Yes, I was Gottberg's G-2. Gottberg commanded the Einsatzgroup against partisans, and I was his G-2, and even though I was always reproached from Berlin, that is, that I was ambitious as a soldier, that I wanted to win decorations, ribbons, etc., but you couldn't do anything else. We had to guard the railroad tracks. We had to try to carry out reconnaisance and there was no other choice.
Q What special activity did you carry out as G-2? areas where the partisans probably were ensconced, and with my few men we went into this area and tried just like other armies do it, just as the police do it, or anybody else, we tried to determine where the enemy was sitting, and that is how I did it with my few little men, and as soon as "This is my report; that is where they are; the partisans were found there and when we arrived there I have to give him a report about what was going on, and I made that report to his officers and I reported to him and his officers, and he told me, "Go ahead, go ahead, advance; as soon as you establish contact, we will come after you and we will have a conference to discuss the situation", and then I left again. actions?
A Yes. I have already said that once a camp of about 300 Jews was found on the way during this operation and that they were killed.
Q Did you immediately participate in Jewish executions?
A No. I was only present once in Slusk. I looked at it, and I told the Brigadier General, "Listen, General, I have got to get away again, I have to proceed", and so I said "Goodbye" to him and went on, and that was the end of that, as far as I am concerned.
Q Who was in charge of the executions? Up to a division--an army division and the police didn't have so many troops. They took part to a smaller extent. described? from White Ruthenia as far as I know. That was the last large scale operation which I experienced. This was out East, it was an action by the Wehrmacht, in Lepel where we were suddenly surrounded and suddenly there were battle lines, and from there I left.
Q What time was that? these dates, perhaps the other fellows here knew when this Lepel action took place.
Q What do you know approximately when?
Q You mean'43?
Q And what activity did you carry out then? Fouerbach.
Q Herr Strauch, when did you become a member of the SS?
A Well, I have to repeat it once more so that you don't get it wrong again. On the first of August 1931 I became a member of the SA.
Then on the 1st of August '31 I became a member of the SS. Well, in '31 I became -- No, No--after the Roehm-coup I became a member of the SD, and then on the 1st of August 1931 I became a member of the Party. on the date. Before, you told us that they were all different dates.
A No, No. First of August '31, SA.
Q And when to the SS?
A On the 1st of August '31 I got into the Party.
Q On the same day?
A well, no, not the same day, '31, '32, '33. I entered '31 into the SA, '31 in the SA, and '33--'32 into the SA, '33 into the SS. Is it clear now.
Q No, no it isn't.
A 31 into the SA, 32 into the Party, and 33 into the SS. Well, that's the way it must be.
Q I think in 1932 you got into the SS, is that right?
A Well it could have been 31. I don't know. in the SD on a full time basis.
A Yes, that's right. I have repudiated that fact that I was there on a full time basis, because I was a Senior Government Counsellor. No, no - well, what do you call that thing.? Senior assessor, the Government Counsellor, Government Assessor, Senior Government Counsellor, that's all. basis and as an honorary member of the SD?
Q Then the entry in your personnel file is wrong?
A Yes, certainly, yes. I have already said that. That is wrong because it only showed Counsellor, Government Counsellor, Senior Government Counsellor, etc. But, in reality the Party was right because actually I was an SD man. But I never was it in a full time capacity. direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now take a recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the Defense Counsel desire to put any questions to the witness Strauch? Apparently not. Does the Prosecution intend to cross examine?
MR. GLANCY: If it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution has no questions. However, Sir, in lieu of cross examination we will submit documents in rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Gick, if you have no further questions, we can now release the defendant.
DR. GICK: I have no further questions for the moment. I agree to having the defendant released.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The defendant Eduard Strauch may now be taken back to his present lodging place. I don't know where it is-whether it is in the hospital or in the prison itself.
Who is now ready with further document books?
DR. LEMMERT (for Seibert): Your Honor, I have only the first document book of Seibert and its translation, while Document Book II and the supplement have not been translated yet. But I am of course prepared to submit the documents in the first document book at the present time.
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution also announces itself ready on Document Book I.
THE PRESIDENT: You will please proceed.
DR. LEMMERT: First of all, I want to submit a number of documents confirming the activity of Seibert in the Russian Campaign, in order to prove the fact that Seibert was merely the Departmental Chief of office 3 in the staff of Einsatzgruppe D, that he was not Ohlendorf's deputy, and that especially he carried out no executive tasks. For this purpose, I now submit Document Seibert 19, on page 27 of the document book, and I submit it as Exhibit No. 2. I would like to say here that Document No. I has already been submitted and introduced as Exhibit No. 1. This Document Seibert No. 19 is an affidavit of Dr. Ehlich. In paragraph 1 of this affidavit, the personality of Ehlich shown, especially that he had the necessary knowledge concerning Siebert's assignment in Russia. Furthermore, it becomes evident from paragraph I that Siebert did not volunteer for assignment in Einsatzgruppe D but that he was transferred to the Group Staff as a result of an order from office 3. From this paragraph I, it also becomes evident that Seibert was not assigned in this job as Ohlendorf's deputy. The statements under paragraph 1 prove that Seibert was not Ohlendorf's deputy in the group staff of Einsatzgruppe D. Chief 3, never had a deputy and that this manner of working was kept up even in Ohlendorf's absence as Chief of the Einsatzgruppe D in Russia. Furthermore, it becomes evident, from paragraph 2, that the signature "I.V." meaning "for", does not mean that Seibert was the deputy of Ohlendorf.
From the last paragraph Seibert's activity in the group staff becomes evident especially the kind of reports that Seibert issued as Department Chief 3.
The next document which I submit is Document Seibert No. 20. It is on page 29 of the document book. I offer it as Exhibit No. 3, Seibert No. 3, It is an affidavit by one Karl Hennicke. From paragraph I it becomes evident that Seibert was merely Department Chief 3 within the staff of the Einsatzgruppe.
Paragraph 1, furthermore, contains statements concerning the tasks and activities of Departmental Chief 3. kommandos, especially it says that the activity of Seibert with kommandos had nothing to do with any executive measures. volunteer for assignment in the east but that as Departmental Chief 3 he had been detailed to the Einsatzgruppe. Document Seibert No. 21. I offer it as Exhibit No. 4. This is an affidavit by one Kellner. This affidavit refers to Document NO-3035, Exhibit 28 of the Prosecution, which is contained in Volume I, 141 German and 108 English, the affidavit of Schubert, of the 24th of February 1947. This affidavit by Kellner is submitted in order to support the statements that Schubert and Seibert made, namely for the fact that it was not Seibert who gave the order for executions in Sinferopol in December 1941. And furthermore it becomes evident from this affidavit that Seibert was at the time on leave in Berlin. We can furthermore see from this affidavit Seibert's general behavior and attitude towards the Jews. Document Seibert 22, as Exhibit No. 5. This is an affidavit by one Kaston. In this affidavit, Schubert's and Seibert's and Kellner's statements are supported by this affidavit. It also shows that Seibert, in the end of 1941, was in Berlin. activities Seibert indulged in the S.D., in Department 3-D until May 1945. During Seibert's examination in the witness stand, I have already submitted Document No. 1 as Exhibit No. 1. I now offer Document Seibert No. 2, which is on page 1 of the document book, I submit it as Exhibit No. 6. It is an affidavit by one Borst. The affiant was a director and plant leader of the Sueddeutsche Zellwolle A.G. in the Kellheim.
He knows Seibert's activities from discussions with representatives of the economic agencies in Berlin, Borst gave expert advice and information to Seibert concerning questions of the textile industry. From the affidavit, the tasks and activities of Seibert become evident, when he was in Office No. 3, and it also shows that Office 3 was not a prime medium of the State or the Party in order to carry out any measures that might not be in agreement with the law, Seibert's task was to report about the actual economic situation and the effects of decrees and laws, objectively. For this purpose, I quote from this document the following passage, I could convince myself that Herr Seibert was not trying to propagate any Party political aims or doctrines, that he tried to describe objectively the factual position in the industry and economy, and effects of orders and regulations. In this I often had the opportunity to appreciate the critical openness of Seibert and his criticism of bad conditions and mis-developments concerning industry or the population." Document Seibert No. 3. I offer it as Exhibit No. 7. It is an affidavit of Dr. Beyer, also describing the manner of working of the economic group between 1941 and 1945 and concerning especially the tasks of Seibert within this group. Seibert No. 4, as Exhibit No. 8. It is an affidavit by one Riecke. Riecke was Under Secretary of State in the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture. He knows Seibert's activities in Office 3 from reports of Group 3-D which were submitted to the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
and especially the fact that these reports did not deal with any individual activities of individual people but with general questions of economy and that the purpose of these reports was, as there was no open pulic criticism, to ascertain the opinion of the population about decrees and incidents in the agricultural sphere and about supply objectively. The reporting service of Office III-D to the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture had been determined by a written agreement. Document Seibert No. 5 as Exhibit No. 9, affidavit by one Bommerich giving a cross-section, a cross-view of the activities of Office III-D economics. Bommerich was a departmental expert for questions of economy in various sectors of the SD.
From Paragraph 1 the tasks and activities of Office III-D become evident especially the fact that reports that were made out by Seibert had the purpose to determine the effects of various laws and decrees on the population. The manner of reporting is shown from the examples which are cited in this affidavit. These examples show that Seibert's acitivity in Office III was not by any means criminal and was certainly not crimes against humanity. Document Seibert No. 6 as Exhibit No. 10. It is an affidavit by one Kroeger, which informs us about the work of the financial Economy Department and shows the influence that Seibert had on this particular work. Kroeger was, from 1936 to 1940, the chief of the department Financial Economy in Group III-D. Later he was the chief of the SD sector in Bremen. The address given in the affidavit: Eselheide Internment Camps, is no longer correct.