which you filled out on the 10th of January, 1942, which was two or three months after your assignment, and you stated in that personnel questionnaire, and you confirmed to the best of your knowledge, at that time that you were chief of Einsatzgruppe B, from 1 November on. Why didn't you qualify it there and point out that you only were chief from 30 November on? when I was asked one of the first questions by my defense counsel, that there was a mistake in the document book, and it was not on the 10th of January 1942, but on the 10th of January, 1943, that therefore, the questionnaire does not contain a difference of two or three months but a difference of one year. But that does not make any difference really. I have put the date of my transfer at the time, which was correct at the time. Of course, 1 had no idea at that time, that I would have to use this date or I would have to answer for that date at any time here. Had I known that then I am quite sure that I would have written a different thing, namely the transfer order or transfer on that date, and actually taken over service on another date. to this, that he reported to you in the middle of November, would you say that he was lying or mistaken? Reshev at the end of November, would that also be incorrect?
with Sturmbannfuehrer Klingelhoefer, and I went to Vyasma, and from Vyasma I went to Chatsk and from Chatsk back to Vyasma, and from Vyasma I went to Rshev and Kalinin; from that can be seen that I was present in Rshev only a few days after taking over my assignment. inspect his position toward the end of November?
A It could not have been towards the end of November. It must have been early in December. did you receive specifically?
A I didn't understand the question. Would you repeat please? specifically what orders did you receive? and my departure on the 20th or on the 21st, I was ordered to Heydrich and I received clear orders from him for Russia. Now, first of all I received the Fuehrer order concerning the killing of Jews, gypsies and Soviet officials. No. 2, I received a general order for the Einsatzgruppen and for the Einsatzkommandos to maintain order and security in the rear area of the combating forces. function was to kill defenseless people, is that correct? that there was a Fuehrer order, and according to that Fuehrer order all Jews, gypsies and Soviet officials were to be killed.
Q Did he tell you that women and children were to be killed too?
Q What was your reaction? the first time used a sentence that all the Jews were to be shot and all gypsies and all Soviet officials, I asked him clearly that this only dealt with human beings who had done something criminal and which fact could be proved.
Whereupon Heydrich interrupted me quickly and said, "That is a clear Fuehrer order. This Fuehrer order has been issued for the security of the rear of the combating forces and of the entire Army area. There is no discussion whatsoever about this Fuehrer order. It can only be understood in one way, and it has to be carried out accordingly. All Jews, both male and female, all gypsies, and all Communist officials fall under the Fuehrer order." He repeated, "There is no discussion. The order must be carried out. The Fuehrer issued the order for reasons of security of the Army areas."
Q Do I understand then that you did not pretext this order? as it had been issued, and I took it, as an order of my supreme commander and of the head of the state, and, of course, I also took knowledge of the fact there was not discussion about it. B in any way or to improve their operations?
A Would you repeat, please? Einsatzgruppe B in any way or to improve their operations?
A That I had to improve my operations? about to take over. it in any way? No, no, I knew nothing about it.
Q To change them or improve them? Einsatzgruppe-B? I was told that Gruppenfuehrer Nebe, at the time, was in charge of the Einsatzgruppe, and that Gruppenfuehrer Nebe and the Kommando leaders had exactly the same orders as those issued to me, and that Einsatzgruppe B and their kommandos had to act according to those orders; furthermore, that I would have to receive certain instructions from Nebe.
knew that units of Einsatzgruppe B were killing defenseless people, is that correct? had to assume that people were being killed, and I had that confirmed by Nebe
Q So your answer to the question is yes? tinue killing defenseless people after you took command? received those orders in Schmideberg Ant Thueben or Pretsch and the leadership of Einsatzgruppe B could not possibly change anything in the orders or in the execution of those orders.
Q Would you answer my question, please? I will repeat it. Did you know that units of Einsatzgruppe B were going to continue killing defenseless people after you took command, yes or no?
A I believe that my answers exactly your question. Of course, I didn't say yes or no, but I went into details.
Q But your answer then is yes, with an explanation? Sonderkommandos, based on the orders which they had received, would continue their activities as they had done so far, and therefore they had to act according to those orders and continue their activity, your units. Did you read these? and I read part of them. Of course, I didn't read all of them, I don't believe, because they arrived sometimes in large bundles, and apart from that I wasn't present all the time, but as I stated yesterday, during the first six weeks I was traveling all the time in order to gain some sort of an impression about the areas of my assignment, about the units at my disposal, etc.
, etc. what did you discuss with then? the sub-kommandos we discussed all sorts of things. I know you want to know whether we spoke about the execution of the Fuehrer-order, the execution orders. I shall give you that answer before you are going to put it to me directly. Of course I spoke with the kommando leaders and the sub-kommando leaders about it, for the very simple reason because the kommando leaders, should I not have started to speak about it, would have addressed me about it, because this order was very harsh, terribly harsh for the Einsatz Kommandos and others who were involved in it. Everyone knew that it was not pleasant but was very much against one's inner feelings.
and its terrible burden when executing it who had something to do with it directly or indirectly were confronted, on the the other hand, however, with another discussion namely that this order had been issued by the Fuehrer, that is to say, by the man in supreme command, the supreme head of the State. We were now faced with the problem of our personal feelings and this order. Each one of us had to make up his mind whether during the war we had to decide according to our own personal feelings or whether we had to obey an order which was issued during the war by the Supreme Commander of the State. The decision was for us, as obedient soldiers, not easy, but it was clear we had to carry out the order, for the very simple reason that the soldier during the war has to carry our orders. If every soldier would only carry out an order after having considered whether as likes it or not, then there would be no more soldiers.
Q: Did you discuss it with any of these defendants?
A: I surely spoke about it with Steimle. I surely also spoke about it with Out. I also discussed it with my codefendant. Whether I spoke about or discussed those things with him I don't know. It is possible. I am not quite sure Defendant Klingelhoefer had nothing to do with the execution of those orders and noon of the other defendants here were with me at the time.
Q: When you discussed it with these defendants did you impress upon them the fact that it was a Fuehrer Order and had to be carried out by them without question?
A: That was known to the Kommando leaders as well as to me by the order. It was known and there was no need to point it out again, because the Kommando leaders would not have acted if they had not known the Fuehrer Order.
Q: Did any defendant ever come to you and say he couldn't or wouldn't, or didn't want to carry out the execution of defenseless people?
A: Nobody approached me in that form. No, nobody spoke to me about that.
Q: As Chief of Einsatzgruppe B, what would you have done to any defendant who refused to carry out the Fuehrer order?
DR. GAWLIK (Attorney for the Defendant Naumann): Your Honor, I have to object to this question. The witness can only be questioned about what he did, what he heard, and what he saw. However, beyond that he cannot be asked what he would have done, because it is nothing but an assumption. It is a hypothetical question. It is furthermore to be considered here that we would receive possibly a wrong reply which would lead to a wrong conclusion, for the witness possibly at the time would not have had time to think it over, because the circumstances were severe -- but anyway, this is not a question to put to a witness anyway.
THE PRESIDENT: What did you intend to establish by this question, Mr. Ferencz?
MR. FERENCZ: I intend to establish, Your Honor, that the defendant did, in fact, Enforce the Fuehrer Order and that, had any defendant discussed it with him, he would have ordered them shot or he would have let them go and that his position either coerced other defendants or did not coerce the defendants. The plea of superior orders is an important defense in this case and each defendant says he received the order from a superior. I would like to establish whether he could have evaded that order by going to his immediate superior and stating that he objected to the killing of defenseless people. I would like to know what this defendant would have done either to enforce that order or to allow his subordinates to evade the order.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection i s overruled.
Q: (By Mr. Ferencz): Would you answer the question, please, Naumann. What would you have done as Chief of Einsatzgruppe B to any defendant who refused to carry out the order?
A: I have stated before that nobody had come, but had someone come to see me, then, first of all, I amy trying to place myself back in that time -- I would have thought about the objection of that respective man then I would have made my decision. The decision would have been unmistakable; if it was a simple refusal to obey an order, I would immediately have had to report him to my superior officers.
Q: You said in you direct testimony that your units worked very independently, is that correct?
A: Yes, I said, "independently", yes.
Q: Does that mean that they could have failed to execute Jews and gypsies and others and no one would have been the wiser?
A: I know of no such thing. That Komandofuehrer acted thus
Q: I am asking you would it have been possible, because of their independence to do that without having any disciplinary action brought against them?
A: I told you that nothing of the kind came to me, nor nothing of the sort had happened -- that a kommando leader had done what you said.
Q: Could he have done it because of his distance from Smolensk or because of the independence of the kommandos, could they have avoided the killings of Jews without that coming to your attention?
A: Theoretically speaking, that might have been possible.
DR. HOFFMAN (Attorney for the Defendant Nosske): Your Honors, the defendant already stated that he knew nothing at all about it.
With that he pointed out that he knew nothing correct about certain facts and the question whether hypothetical things could be possible according to my opinion prejudices the defense of the other defendants and I would appreciate it if this question would not be admitted, as I believe that each defendant himself would have to answer this.
THE PRESIDENT: The fault lies in the very question itself. The question is could anything have happened without the defendant having known about it. It is very obvious that anything could have happened without the defendant knowing about it, so therefore, the objection is sustained.
MR. FERENCZ: I will rephrase the question, Your Honor.
Q: (By Mr. Ferencz): Because of the independence of these units and their distance from Einsatzgruppe B, were you able to control their acts so closely that the failure to kill Jews would have become apparent to you?
A: Due to the distances of that area, should it have happened, it would have hardly been possible, but still I would like to repeat that I know of no such case.
THE PRESIDENT: The question, Witness, is whether you had direct control over these inferior commands and whether your line of communication was such that you were currently informed of what was taking place in the field. Did you keep a check on them, in other words.
THE WITNESS: The connections between the Kommando leaders and myself was the following: The commandos reported every two weeks to me or to the staff of Einsatzgruppe concerning what incidents we controlled, that is to say, administrative, personnel, executive, and other measures. Apart from that once in a while the Kommando leaders would come to see me if they had some sort of a reason to do so and if they had a reason to discuss certain matters with me or then to discuss certain things with members of the staff of Einsatzgruppe B. Furthermore, until the month of April 1942 I would drive out currently to the kommandos and sub-kommandos and I would visit them, That meant, of course, that I went to see a kommando very seldom, because according to my recollection in 1942 there were approximately 24 garrisons of the Security Service Police and so within my area.
From the month of April, 1942, I had a plane at my disposal. Then, of course, I no longer drove to those kommandos but I flew there. That is what the direct contact was like between the kommando leaders and myself.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is a full answer to your question, Mr. Ferencz.
Q: (By Mr. Ferencz): Yesterday you examined Document Book II-B, page 15, which was Document NO-2825 and this reported the killing by Einsatzgruppe B and its units of over 45,000 people in four or five months. This was before you took command. What is your best estimate of the number of persons killed by Einsatzgruppe B during the 15 months that you were in command?
A: I was already asked about that figure during my examination by Herr Wartenberg. Mr. Wartenberg for two hours wanted me to tell him the exact figure. He made all sorts of proposals to me. He started with 1,000 and then went up to half a million. I should name a definite figure. I told him that I could not mention any figure, because any figure I mentioned would be wrong.
Q: In Exhibits USSR 48 and 56 before the International Military Tribunal it was reported by a commission investigating atrocities in the Smolensk area that during the German occupation there and it was your area over 135,000 peaceful citizens were killed. Do you think that figure is too high or is it too low?
A: What document did you say this came from, Hr. Ferencz?
Q: Those were exhibits in the International Military Tribunal.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I would appreciate it if when the prosecution refers to certain documents that the witness be shown that document as it is the custom in all trials. At least if he would be shown the document he can state something about it. After all, he can't make any statements if he doesn't know the document.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the question concerns the figure of 135,000 people killed in the Smolensk area. It is very simple and I am asking the defendant if that figure is too high or too low.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know who made the statement before the IMT. No.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, I have it in a exhibit USSR 48 and 56. I don't know and I don't have the document with me. I have one of our staff analyses of the documents giving that figure.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution, Dr. Gawlik, would be within its proper rights to ask him that question independent of any document.
He merely asks him if that many people were killed in his area. Now the witness can reply the number is too high, is too low, or he doesn't know. The whole field of response, in open to the witness. There is no undue advantage taken of him by the question.
DR. GAWLIK: I agree with your Honors. If the prosecution would ask, please comment on this figure, if that is the way the question is put, I have no objection whatsoever, however if reference made to any documents in the question then, of course, I would like to ask that the document be shown to the witness, or, that the question be asked without referring to the document.
MR. FERENCZ: I will rephrase my question, Your Honors.
Q (By Mr. Ferenz) Based upon your judgment as Commanding Officer of Einsatzgruppe B and based upon your knowledge of the reports sent to you, do you say that 135,000 people killed by Einsatzgruppe B is an excessive figure?
A This figure is so large that it couldn't possibly be debated.
Q Your answer, then, is that it is excessive?
Q What is your minimum estimate of the numbers killed? Wartenberg wanted me to tell him about that end he asked me for two hours and I couldn't give me any information whatsoever. If you ask me about 135,000 people, then I have to tell you that this figure is a definite overstatement of what had been done by Einsatzgruppe B.
them. You were Commanding Officer of Einsatzgruppe B for 15 months. You have told us that the officers of Einsatzgruppe B came to you and that you discussed the execution of defenseless people with them. You have also told us that for two hours you have refused the question, as to the minimum number executed while you were in command. And do I understand you now still refuse to answer the question?
A I did not refuse to quote a minimum. All I said was, I simply cannot give a figure because I do not have the information necessary to calculate, such a figure. If I did it was a total figure for a period of over 15 months. That takes in thirty monthly reports from six kommandos, which means 18 reports. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for me to give you a correct figure which was never added up, which, however, is contained in those 180 reports, but as much as hard as I may try I simply cannot give you an exact figure.
Q Very well. You stated yesterday that it was not the mission of the Einsatzgruppe staff to carry out executions and that you were only concerned with administrative and organizational matters, is that correct? further than that. I didn't say only administrative and organizational matters. Am I to repeat what I said yesterday, Mr. Prosecutor? the personnel, administrative matters and also with organizational matters; furthermore, that the staff had to see to it that certain questions of billeting, feeding, and also of transportation, of gasoline and similar matters were taken care of; furthermore, that the staff had the task to receive the reports from the commandos and to compile the reports which were then sent to the RSHA in Berlin and other agencies.
the executions? the staff. and I ask you to explain why it says in this report that the staff and the Vorkommando Moscow killed almost 2 1/2 thousand people.
A We already discussed this report yesterday. We read all the dates in this document and I shall read them again, 11 October, 14 October, 18 October, and the 20th of October, and the latest date is the 23rd of October.
It could be seen very clearly yesterday that at that time Nebe was in charge. What Nebe did in detail I don't know and there is something else to be added to that, namely, that at that time in October the Army still advancing. Einsatzgruppe B also was moving and I ran the group when the so-called activity had begun and the front lines had been stabilized. by saying that it may be true that the staff killed people before you arrived, but when you came there the Staff no longer killed people?
A I don't know whether the staff carried out any killings at any time. The staff was already in Smolensk and part from that, the personnel strength was so small that only those men were there who were actually used and needed for staff work. this sentence, and I quote, "Staff and Vorkommando Moscow, 2,457," under the report of liquidations to mean that the staff killed 2,457 people with the help of Vorkommando Moscow.
A I don't know. I couldn't know how things were before my arrival because I symply took over the Einsatzgruppe when it was busy in a stationary manner. How it was during the advance, I really can't tell you at this time. I don't know.
Q How many gas vans did Einsatzgruppe B have? three gas vans.
Q What were they supposed to be used for?
A That was mentioned before. They were to be used to exterminate human beings.
Q Were they in fact used for that by your unit?
Q Didn't you ever discuss with your kommando leaders the killing of women and children? trips to the kommando leaders and I mentioned that before that I spoke with them about this Fuehrer Order. women and children? were no gans vans. Einsatzgruppe B. is that correct?
A Yes, there were gas vans during my time. Of course I could be wrong about the date, but it must have been in June, June 1942.
Q As Commanding Officer of Einsatzgruppe B, didn't you ever inquire how these vans were being used?
A No, and please don't foget, Mr. Prosecutor, that at that time, in other words in 1942, June 1942, the executing of Jews were over.
Q Who sent you the gas vans?
Q Do you know specifically who?
A No, I don't
Q Where did the gas vans go when they left your unit?
the RSHA. Where they were brought to, I really don't know. I stated in my affidavit at the time that I assumed that they were sent to one of the Einsatzgruppen in the south. That could have been C or D. From disgas vans were sent to D.
Q In other words, you say that you don't know specifically who sent the gas vans nor do you know where they went and you do not know what they were used for, is that correct?
A I have stated that they came from the RSHA. Who sent them, of course I don't know. I furthermore stated that I don't know whether they were used and I also stated that I knew that their purpose was to exterminate human brings and, finally, I stated that day they were picked up by a representative of the RSHA and I don't know where they were brought to. carrying wood. What was your reaction at that time?
A I saw a gas van for the first time after they had arrived. The man in charge of the motor pool came to see me and when I went through the garage I looked at the gas van. Do you want me to describe it?
A On a second occasion I saw that gas van which? was always in the garage in Einsatzgruppe B had been loaded up with wood and, of course, we had to have stocks of wood for the winter. That was one of the problems of an Einsatzgruppe leader, too. its kommandes, were you not?
Q You had the power to command, did you not? command or who reported totake charge of a unit under your command?
and normally speaking they would stay there for three or four days with the staff of Einsatzgruppe B in order to gather information concerning everything from the administration to police activity. After that, they drove to their kommandos and they took charge of the konmando. They stayed there for approximately three to four weeks with their predecessor, and at the end of that time I went to their garrison and I relieved the man who had been in charge so far of his duties and I introduced the new leader to his men.
Q. You didn't give him any orders or instructions as to what his task would be, or how he should perform his task?
A. So that the new Commando leader or the Sonderkommando leader could get well acquainted with those orders he was to work along with the former Commando leader until he got into the swing of affairs, and that is why I issued no new orders about all those things which had been ordered before, this is not customary in the military.
Q. You just then took him and introduced him to his predecessor, and didn't give him any orders -- just turned him over and said, here you instruct him. Is that correct?
A. I understood from the translation that I took him along to my commander. Is that what you said?
Q. No, no. I understand from your answers that when a new officer reported you didn't give him any new orders or instructions but turned him over to the officer he was supposed to relieve, and that officer explained the function of the Commando to him and instructed him in what he was supposed to do, is that correct?
A. Orders are not issued to individual persons, but to a unit, and when those orders already exist for a unit, then they are executed by the unit. When a now man takes over he has to carry out the old orders; so that there would be no gap, and so that the work would not be interrupted, I decreed in all cases that the new Commando leaders had to work along with the old Commando leaders for three or four weeks.
Q. I am trying to find out what happened when a new officer reported, who gave him the order to do anything - whether it was a lieutenant or a major or even a non-commissioned officer.
A. I know exactly what you want me to tell you, Mr. Prosecutor. You want me to tell you the new Commando leader came, and I said Here are the 36 or 40 orders which were issued during that time, and I will give them to you all over again. However, it was not that way. The Commando leader went to the new Commando and took it over along with the orders that had been issued to the Commando previously.
A new chain of orders is not customary in military life. If a unit has certain orders, they stand and if a new Commando leader comes, he has to execute all these old orders - he has to carry thorn out. Orders are not given to individuals, but to units.
Q. They are just passed on existing orders by which you mean the order from Hitler and nobody else in between gave any new orders, is that correct?
A. Of course, you are referring to the Fuehrer Order. The Fuehrer Order was given to the Commandos and Einsatzgruppe; therefore, the Commandos and the Einsatzgruppe had this order from the beginning. Now, if a new leader, came in - then the task of the Einsatzgruppe and Einsatzkommando remained exactly the same, regardless of whether there was a change in leader or not -- it just didn't make any difference. A new leader had to comply with the orders which had been issued to that unit and carry them out in the same manner as they had been carried out so far. And that applies to every military unit, every agency, even in the homeland.
Q. Who told him about the old orders?
A. Probably the old Commando leader.
Q. You have seen the affidavit of the defendant Ott where he swore that you ordered valuables to be collected from the executed people, and to have them sent to you in Einsatzgruppe B, have you not?
A. Would you please show me that?
Q. Yesterday we discussed the Ott affidavit in which the defendant Ott said that you had ordered the collection of valuables. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Did you issue any other instructions concerning other aspects of the executions, such as the distance from the city, the size of the squad, the manner of execution, the killing of children, or any similar methods? (Interruption)
A. Do you mean the executions or the valuables?
Q. I repeat my question. Did you issue any other instructions concerning other aspects of the executions, such as the distance from the city, the size of the squad, the manner of execution, or similar things?
A. No, that was not necessary. Those orders had been issued before.
Q. In other words, every detail was covered by pre-existing orders, and no questions were ever raised to you?
A. Well, of course, there were questions once in a while.
Q. What sort of questions?
A. I stated before that the Fuehrer Order was discussed between my Commando leaders and myself. We had two feelings...first of all, our own inner feelings against this order, and on the other hand we had the order, and then, of course, the decision was made that for obedient soldiers all orders had to be carried out.
Q. Did you control whether the executions were done in a humane and military manner, such as the defendant Ohlendorf has told us he did in regard to Einsatzgruppe D?
A. During my visits the Commando leaders told mo how executions had been carried out in the past. During my time, and I am now speaking about the chronological development, only a few or rather, fewer, executions were carried out than before. As a result of this, and as these were distributed over a larger area and a larger period of time, and as I was not instructed in advance about them, this was not negligence on the part of the Commando leaders but it was within the independence which they had in their activities. I could not possibly have issued instructions before the execution of those orders. Apart from that, the Einsatzcommando leaders during the months of July -- (Interruption) behind them, and, therefore, it would not be necessary for me to issue individual orders in individual bases.