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.
DR. DURCHHOLZ (for the defendant Schulz): Your Honor, I am sorry that I have to interrupt. But the defendant Schulz has been suffering from a bladder ailment for some time. If possible, I would like him to be excused from the present court session at the present time.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the representation made by counsel, the defendant Schulz will be excused from attendance at the present moment. He will be secorted from the Court. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q. Have you finished your answer, Naumann?
A. Yes.
Q. Do I understand you correctly, the, to say it was not necessary for you to issue any instructions concerning the details of executions?
A. Yes, that is correct. I say that because the Commando leaders reported to me as to how they had carried out these executions so far, and I had no objections to that.
Q. Yesterday you pointed out that several Prosecution documents which listed killings by Einsatzgruppe B were inaccurate because it was before your time. I hand you now, from Document Book II-B, page 62, Document NO-3276. This reports thousands of liquidations by the units of Einsatzgruppe 3 between 6 and 30 March 1942, including the killing of thousands of Jews and Gypsies. Were you the commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe B and its units at that time?
A. During that period of time, yes.
Q. Did you personally ever order anyone to be executed?
A. No, not individually. As I stated before, orders already existed; they didn't have to be issued again.
Q. Did you ever order anyone to be "Sonderbehandeit" - or, to be given special treatment?
A. No.
Q. You are sure of that answer?
A. Yes, I am quite certain.
Q. Allow me, to refresh your memory. Did you ever hoar of the special Camp Wissokoje? W-i-s-s-o-k-o-j-e.
A. Yes, I know Wissokoje, indeed. There are several Wissokojes. I am assuming you are referring to the Estate of Einsatzgruppe B near Smolensk.
Q. I am asking you now if you have heard of the Camp Wissokoje.
A. Camp Wissokoje? There was no such thing as Camp Wissokoje.
Q. Did you ever order anyone executed near Wissokoje?
A. No.
Q. Were you in the vicinity of Wissokoje on the 5th of December 1942?
A. I don't know that. If you are referring to the Wissokoje I am referring to, then it was the Estate of Wissokoje, near Smolensk, approximately 17 kilometers east of Smolensk. Whether I was there on the 5th of December 1942, I really don't know, I was there quite often.
a man on it and ask you if that refreshes your recollection of having ordered an execution.
A What am I to know about this document? executions? connection with executions.
Q Then it does not refresh your recollection, is that correct?
AAgain I don't see what this has to do with it. namely the name of the enterprise of Zeppelin. But this is the first thing in the three documents which means anything to me. people, that you ever ordered executions? just given to the defendant.
MR. FERENCZ: I have just handed to the defendant three pages which appear to be a questionnaire or life history of three men. Each contains a picture of the man. It states when he was born, his name etc. These are part of a file to which the last note attached is as follows, to your memory the execution of certain people by your order:
"SS Special Camp Wissokoje. Dated 5 December 1942. Memorandum. As a result of various things which"-
DR. GAWLIK: I have to object, your Honor. I have to have a German copy of that document so I can tell whether this document is relevant before I can let it be accepted into the record, your Honor.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, I have copy of the document. The objection is a matter of relevance. I think the objection can be over-ruled. I will show the document to the defendant and to the defense counsel and introduce it in the court as soon as I am finished reading a short paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: That answer your objections, Dr. Gawlik.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, but your Honor, I still ask that I be given a copy prior to the introduction of the introduction of the document because I can't judge whether the part that is being read is relevant, the reason it is being read, and whether it has anything to do with Naumann. I can't check it if I don't have the copy, the copy should be shown to me in advance. And we always used to do it that way before. We always received the German copy first.
MR. FERENCZ: I am just trying to refresh the defendant's recollection, your Honor. I will show the relevance of this document in the first sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Dr. Gawlik, Mr. Frencz is not introducing a document in evidence at this moment. He is cross-examining the witness. He asked him if he recalls certain episodes, and the defendant has stated he has no recollection of any such episodes. Now, the prosecution is endeavoring to refresh his memory. Naturally, you have the right to see this document, but Mr. Ferenzc has the right to put the proposition to him before exposing the document to anybody, because it is only for the purpose of refreshing the recollection of the defendant.
MR. FERENCZ: I repeat my question. I will read to you a certain document to refresh your recollection about having ordered executions: "Special Camp Wissokoje. 5 December 1942. Memorandum. As a result of various thinhs which happened in the meantime at the special camp Wissokoje, "K" was given the special treatment on 25 November 1942 by order of SS-Brigadefuehrer Naumann of Einsatzgruppe B." Does that refresh your memory?
Q I will read a little further: "Here can be seen from the reports of SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Sauckel, to the RSHA, Amt VI, Department VI-CZ, signed Goebel, SS-Unterscharfuehrer."
Do you remember anything having ordered executions now?
DR. FICHTE( for the defendant Bieberstein): Your Honor, for the defendant Bieberstein I would like to object to this manner of introducing evidence. It was usual at all times that before a document was introduced at least no one could read anything from the document During cross-examination it may be brought on that something is stated in the document, but not the whole document can be read. I an objecting to this on principle, for any further such cases.
DR. GAWLIK: And now I would like to see the document which was just read. the document.
MR. FERENCZ: You may show it to the defendant. Perhaps he will then remember.
THE PRESIDENT: Up to this point there is nothing incorrect in the procedure so Mr. Ferencz may continue.
Is there a question pending now? BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q Does that refresh your memory, Naumann? gruppe B - in the Estate of Wissokoje there was a house which had been placed at the disposal of an official of Office VI, and this representantive of Office VI received three to six Russians who stated that they were against the Bolshevists, and that by order of the Germans they wanted to carry out certain actions against the Germans. This agency of Office VI was not subordinated to me. It was subordinated to the competent department of the RSHA, Reich Security Main Office.
It received these instructions from there which did not concern me and with which I had nothing to do. The leader of this Commando, a Hauptsturmfuehrer, conducted independent negotations, without having to report to me and without reporting to me. As, for execution of a man of this organization - I never did order such a thing because I didn't have the right to do so. It was up to Office VI. around Camp Wissokoje?
A No, I don't know that, either. killed by order of SS-Brigadefuehrer Nuamann of Einsatzgruppe B. Is that you? Are you the person referred to? than myself.
Q But you don't know anything about those killings?
MR. FERENCZ: Thank you. Your Honor, this document has just been received from Berlin. We have not yet had it processed, as soon as we can put it into the hands if the Court we shall do so and introduce it as an exhibit at that time. We have three such documents.
THE PRESIDENT: I would suggest you expedite the processing so that the Tribunal may be entirely current on these documents.
MR. FERENCZ: We will do it as rapidly as possible, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. FERENCZ: Before the recess we were discussing some documents which stated that the defendant Neumann ordered the execution of certain peopl. For purposes of idnetification I ask that these documents be given Prosecution's Exhibit No. 175, and we will introduce them as soon as they can be processed.
DR GAWLIK: I object to these documents being permitted to be presented, and I ask that the originals be submitted. First of all the connection of these documents is not evident, what I have been handed -and I only was given a part of them, and the Prosecution still the other part, are three questionaires of three Russians, but what they have to do with it, and the connection with these documents, is not at all evident and for that reason the Prosecution has not shown in how far these questionaires are at all relevant. In the last document which was given, to me it concerned a memorandum from a document and it seems strange why the Prosecution does not submit the entire document. I, therefore, must contest the authenticity ox these documents, unless the original be submitted. If the Prosecution has a copy, they must be in the position to get the original also.
MR. FERENCZ: If your honor please, at the time we introduce the document into evidence we will introduce the complete document, certified the same as every other document introduced in Nurnberg, and the defense counsel may raise their objections at that time. Now we are just asking that it be given a number for purposes of identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, the Prosecution at the present moment is merely asking that numbers be assigned to these documents. You will receive copies of the documents. That is copies of the entire documents, before they will be admitted into evidence. When he is about to introduce the documents into evidence you will have an opportunity to object to their relevancy or to their authenticity. He has merely asked that we give numbers for the purpose of maintaining the continuity.
DR. GAWLIK: But I ask that the original be submitted for identification because I contest the authenticity of this last document. It does not show at all from where it originates. I talked to some of the defendants. I am not allowed to talk to Defendant Naumann during crossexamination. None of the defendants know the persons mentioned there.
THE PRESIDENT: What have you to say to this, Mr. Ferencz?
MR. FERENCZ: The original is in Berlin, your Honor, and we have only received photostatic copies. This is the practice with all documents introduced. We have seen at the beginning of this trial that documents are processed in a certain way to assure their authenticity. The only objection I can understand is that the Prosecution has fabricated this document. If that objection is actually raised we will bring the original here. However, we must request that a photostatic copy be adequate, inasmuch as it is the usual practice, and to bring originals down in every case would completely disrupt the custody of the documents and the great care with which they are handled now.
DR. GAWLIK: I did not quite understand the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, when you receive the copies, please look them over quickly and then decide whether you will insist upon the originals being brought here from Berlin.
At the present moment we well allow the numbers to be assigned. The Secretary-General may indicate what numbers.
MR. FERENCZ: 175, Prosecution's Exhibit 175.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you intend to give only one number?
MR. FERENCZ: He will give one number to the group of documents. your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, that number will be assigned to the group of documents.
Q (By Mr. Ferencz) Naumann, you have made several statements here this morning, which you, of course, insist are true, isn't that correct? of the other defendants to or careful about what they tell the interrogator and not be fooled, and further try to tip them off about what you had said in order to avoid, contradictions? prison about my interrogation.
Q About what? it to the Court and identify it. Would you read it out loud, please?
Q Will you please read this, return the other document, please? I will hand you the original.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I want to know about the contents, as is customary, before the document is discussed here. I cannot look after my clients interest as defense counsel if matters are discussed here about which I have no knowledge, matters which are between the Prosecutor and the Defence. The usual thing is that when a document is discussed that the defense counsel gets a copy.
MR. FERENCZ: If your Honor please, I have only one copy, but I give it to the defense counsel.
Q (By Mr. Ferencz) Would you please continue and read the document slowly and clearlytto the Court?
A "Do not be bluffed during interrogations. Always be careful, even if they smile at you. My statements so far you Were leader of the VKM first of all in Moshaisk, then in Roslawl. I cannot give the dates. Whether you carried out executions I do not know. My service started at the and of November, 1941. At that time there were no more ghettos in my region. The larg executions of the first time occurred during Nebe's time. I then got you into my staff, first of all because of your linguistic ability. Secondly, I had to be open here as it seemed to be wiser - because of your inclination to drink occasionally. I then assigned you to my staff, firstly because of your linquistic knowledge -
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I object. First of all it should be shown who wrote this letter. The Prosecution would have to prove this. Secondly, I don't see the purpose of reading it out. The Prosecution could submit this document. Why should it be read out?
MR. FERENCZ: If your Honor please, we introduced first a typewritten copy of the document. The defendant said he was not sure that this was his own note, whereupon I handed him the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it the contention of the Prosecution that this is a note written by the Defendant Naumann?
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and have you handed him a document which purports to have been written in his own handwriting?
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, your Honor; he has it now before him.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Naumann, is this your own note?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Then I don't see any objection to his reading it.