If they could work it out themselves, they did not need the assistance of the Einsatzgruppe and this was mostly the case, letter? I merely want to clarify in advance as to the phrase (Sonderlager) Special Camp Wissokoje. The Prosecutor asked me whether I knew a camp in Wissokoje. With good faith, I said, "no" because there was merely a house, which was a Russian farm house, a wooden house, covering about 15 square metres. This wooden house was inhabited by the agents and there they received their reports. I do not consider this house to be a camp, because it was a house with two rooms, which was put at their disposal. The phrase an SS Special Camp, Wissokoke, I learned about only for the first time here. I had never heard about it and a house of 15 square metres, can hardly be given, the bragging name of an SS Special Camp. Also the Signature that is written here I do not know. It is Obel or Gobel. I know the man mentioned in the letter, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Sakut. this?
A I don't know any such person.
Q He did not belong to your staff either? that it was actually written like that, is based on a mistake. orders to to that effect, for "Special Treatment" as it says here. I would have remembered it and I already said that I could not have given such orders, because I was not in charge of these Russian men. Once or twice I saw these men. There was a colonel among them who performed very good tricks on horseback, but apart from that I didn't know anything about these men.
when you were Chief of Einsatzgruppen B? security in the rear of the fighting forces. The activity itself extended mainly to the search for partisans as mean task, then there was also SD reporting and setting up local police force. These three subjects were the most important tasks of the Einsatzgruppe B. far?
DR. GAWLIK: Then I have no further question.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have something, Dr. Hoffman?
DR. FICHT (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT BIBERSTEIN): Your Honor, I only want to ask that the Defendant Biberstein be excused tomorrow from attendance because I want to prepare him for his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Biberstein will be excused from attendance in Court tomorrow and, incidentally, the Tribunal will announce that there will be a session tomorrow, even though it be Saturday. It will begin at none o'clock and will terminate at twelve O'clock.
Do you have something, Dr. Hoffman? BY DR. HOFFMANN (Attorney for the Defendant Mosske): Einsatzgruppe independent? gruppen. as Ohlendorf? gruppe B were the same as those with Einsatzgruppe D?
D as in Einsatzgruppe B I cannot say, because I could not see in what manner Ohlendorf was in charge of his Einsatzgruppe. commitment were the same?
A If you don't express yourself too generally by referring to the Fuehrer Order, that was the basis of all Einsatzgruppen and all Einsatzkommandos, in the same manner.
Q There is one thing I don't understand. you said the Einsatzkommando leaders received the Hitler order and carried it out. You only notified the Hitler decree that was all you did were you then, as functionaries necessary at all? assigned and according to what Ohlendorf said, during the last few days and what I said yesterday And today. it is obvious that there had to be Einsatzgruppen Chiefs. Because the territory was so vast there had to be a connective system, even if only a loose one.
Q Witness, perhaps I am stupid, but I still don't understand why you interrupted the line of orders which you followed concerning the Einsatzgruppe Chiefs, the Hitler decree the Einsatzkommando leaders and any the channel of command was, Hitler decree - Einsatz leader. cutiond, a number of actions occurred. This includes me and also the kommando leaders. That is obvious, but if in Schmiedenberg, Pretsch, and in Dueben, in one of those three places, an order was not only given in the Einsatzgruppe Chiefs but also Sonderkommando and Einsatzkommando chiefs, I cannot help that. the Einsatzkommando carried it out?
DR. GAWLIK: I want to object to this question. I don't see the relevanty of this question to the line of defense of my colleague Hoffmann.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is in the nature of cross-examination, which it is, Dr. Hoffmann has the right to extract as much benefit as he can from the witness for the benefit of his own client, so that it's entirely up to the witness as to whether the statement by Dr. Hoffmann as put to him is correct or not, so the objection is overruled.
Q To explain Dr. Gawlik's attitude, I wanted to say that I act as defence counsel for an Einsatzkommando Chief and therefore it is important for me to know whether he is made responsible for the Hitler Decree immediately or whether you come in between. Up to now this has net been shown and that is why I ask you. neither a kommando leader, nor an Einsatzgruppen chief. That is my opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand from that answer that Adolf Hitler is now charged with all the war crimes no one else is responsible? Is that what I get from your comment?
THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor, what I mean is the decree was issued; for the fact that it was issued, Hitler as Supreme Commander is alone responsible because he gave it.
Q (By Dr. Hoffmann) Let us leave this subject. Obviously we cannot agree, witness, Another question: You said you cannot state how many executions were carried out in your Einsatzgruppe? manner; Did you know how many Jews, gypsies, and other people to be killed were in the territory of your Einsatzkommando?
A I say "we" expressly. We knew as little about this as about the total figures of the population there.
Q Do you know how many remained afterwards? this decree out to the full extent. To repeat my question, did you know how many survived, yes, or not
A To this clear question I can only say, "no." opinion that no Einsatzkommando leader did not carry out the decree to the full extent, but he did, in fact, carry it out fully? Fuehrer did not carry out the decree completely.
Q But you are not quite sure?
A I might mention that I didn't look through all the woods in Russia to see whether any Jews remained. the individual kommando leaders, yes, or no? were just as obedient soldiers as I was.
Q Do you consider it obedient to carry out such a decree? can help to win the war against an enemy, which at that time and even now threatens not only Europe, if that order was given to us as soldiers, we had to carry it out. of the Einsatzkommando leaders had this same opinion as you, you think therefore that that order was carried out to the full extent, is that right?
Q But apart from that, you don't know?
A What the others did I don't know. BY THE PRESIDENT: as you know?
A I don't know, Your Honor, of anywhere it was not carried out, I have no proof that it was carried out to the full extent, because a kommando leader might have said for some reason or other, "I won't do it, and nobody will find out." I don't know that anything like that happened, but I cannot say now that it actually did not happen. Decree was aimed at Bolchevism and that therefore you believed it to be just? and the Soviet Officials were to be executed? You agreed with that?
A Your Honor, please don't take it amiss if I can't say yes fullheartedly. After this decree had been given by the Fuehrer I considered it necessary to carry out this decree. you believe you had to obey orders, is that the interpretation I am to get from your answer? Socialist I heard the speech of the Fuehrer on the 22d of June, 1941, when he described the opponent in the East And I realized the meaning of his speech and when the decree was given I carried out this order in order to win the war against the Bolchevists. was the way to win the war and you believed the war to be just, because you had heard Hitler say so in this famous speech on July 22d, 1941, or whatever date it was? might be of vital importance.
Q It doesn't need to extend far. The question is simply, "Did you agree with the order and did you execute the order, because you believed that as a National Socialist man, as a patriot, as a soldier, it was necessary to execute this order in order to win the war against Bolchevism against Russia, did you agree with the order"? essary to kill hundreds of thousands of defenseless people, men, women, and children unarmed, did you agree with that?
no misgivings about it? it seriously. I have said that repeatedly, but opposite to the personal misgivings and the weightof these thoughts, there was the order and my personal misgivings and my personal ideas for me as a soldier would become inconsistant for me being a soldier, I was not allowed to follow my personal misgivings and ideas.
Q Did you have any misgivings at the time?
Q Then you did not agree with the order? and it was contrary to my nature to kill defenseless people.
Q And you believe it was wrong to kill, especially women and children? so, because there was Fuehrer Decree. to shoot down women and children.
A No, I did not hold that opinion owing to my convictions. It was my conviction that it had to be done.
Q Then you were in full accord with the order?
Q You either did or din not have misgivings. Did you have misgivings?
to the carrying cut of this order, but owing to the situation at the time -
Q Answer the question simply. Did you have misgivings? Did you have some reluctance? Did you feel some revulsion in the execution of this order? to carry it out.
Q Did you have misgivings? Answer that question.
Q Then you did not agree with the order? You had misgivings. You were reluctance You felt that there was something wrong; therefore, you had misgivings; therefore to that extend, you did not agree with the order. Now please answer that question. it was inhumane and unjust to strike down defenseless woman and children, is that right? it a terrible duty to have to shoot these women and children.
Q Now let us stick to the issue. I asked you a number of times whether you did or did not have misgivings and now I get the direct answer from you; you did have misgivings; you did not like this job.
A. No.
Q Very well. Then to that extent you believed there was something wrong with the order? and that it was necessary. I also know for sure -to execute the order in order to destroy the enemy in order to win the war, why did you have any misgivings?
something morally wrong? and these helpless women and children. You saw nothing morally wrong in that?
Q You saw nothing morally wrong about it? I do not hesitate to answer.
Q It isn't a question of being decisive. It is a question of telling the truth. Now you either thought this order was right or it was wrong. Now if it was wrong tell us it was wrong. If it was right, tell us it was right. Tell us if it was right or wrong. There is certainly no disposition to coerce you to give one answer or the other, we want the truth because you must understand that this is certainly a very pehnomenal thing for people to be shot down without an opportunity to defend themselves, to explain their case, there was no opportunity given at all. Therefore, it is a very phenomenal situation so that it is entirely in order that we ask of you who was in this operation whether you thought it was right or wrong and that is all there is to it. Now you either agreed with this order or you did not agree with it. because you agreed with it?
A I already said that I had misgivings. It was with reluctance and it was a fight between duty and conscience add the realization that this measure was necessary in order to fight Bolshevism.
Q Then you did not agree with it completely? Let me point out to you witness, that when a soldier goes into battle, he has no misgivings.
He is going in to fight. He knows that his opponent is armed. He knows that he is fighting for his country and he may kill. Further, afterwards, when he comes back and goes home he sleeps tranquilly that night, if he comes out alive, and he has no misgivings, no reluctance. On the contrary, there is enthusiasm for the combat. Now, here you say you did have some misgivings; you did entertain some reluctance, so therefore, I ask you whether if you did entertain That reluctance, If you did not believe at the time that there was something wrong with the order. was part of our aim of the war and therefore it was necessary.
Q Very well. Then the Tribunal will accept from your answer that you saw nothing wrong with the order, even though it did involve the killing of defenseless human beings. That is what we draw from your answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will be in recess until two o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
9The Tribunal reconvened at 1400 hours)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT. Any further examination of the defendant Naumann? If not he will return to the defendant's dock.
DR. GAWLIK (for the defendant Seibert): Your Honor, for the time being I have concluded my introduction of evidence in the case of Naumann. However, I reserve the right to introduce other evidence at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have in mind witnesses, or documents, Dr. Gawlik?
DR. GAWLIK: Only documents, your Honor, that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: That right will be reserved.
(The witness was excused)
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendant Schulz?
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I would like to make an announcement on behalf of the Prosecution. By order of the Tribunal dated 29 September the witness Haennecke was declared a prosecution witness. In the meantime, the Prosecution has finished its interrogation of the witness Haennecke. Defense counsel for defendant Schulz requests Haennecke as a defense witness. There is no objection on the part of the Prosecution that Defense counsel call Haennecke as a defense witness. Moreover, the Prosecution would like to reserve the right to introduce an affidavit of said witness at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: Your statement is self-explanatory and needs no comment.
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Thank you, your Honor.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: (for the defendant Schulz): Your Honor, before I may call the witness for the defendant Schulz to the witness stand, I would like to make a short statement.
I had a conversation with the defendant concerning the witness Haennecke and we finally agreed not to call Haennecke as a witness a I have an affidavit which I will introduce at a later date. However, on the 2nd of October of this year I made a written application to this Tribunal to place certain witnesses at my disposal whose names we re mentioned on that list. So far, with the exception of the witness Haennecke, I have heard nothing at all of the witnesses. That is the reason why I would refer again to that application and ask the Tribunal kindly to comply with my request so that I can possibly, at a later date, call in those witnesses and subject them to our direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please indicate the names of those witnesses?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: At the time I had requested the witnesses: Reinhold Braeder, Alfred Faust, Dr. Lauer, Dr. Ogilwi, Alfred Schwarting, Dr. Joseph Steiner and Hans Wanninger? your Honors. Approximately 14 days ago I gave my Document Book I for Translation, So far I have not been able to receive a single copy in English. I only have copies in German. Therefore, it is not possible for me to introduce those documents, in particular, during the examination of the witness. I would appreciate it if this Tribunal would give me an opportunity of introducing those documents at a later date. Ana an additional fact is, that for the short period of time which was placed at my disposal I have not received all affidavits which I intend to introduce. This is due to the fact that the mail service is rather slow and a few affidavits are still to be expected from Austria.
I would therefore, appreciate it if the Tribunal would take notice of these matters as well.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, of course, will allow you to present those affidavits and those documents when they are available and ready for presentation.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Then I would appreciate it if the Tribunal would order that the defendant Schulz be brought to the witness stand as a witness in his own behalf.
ERWIN SCHULZ; a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE SPAIGHT: Raise your right hand and repeat after me: will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
JUDGE SPAIGHT: You may be seated. BY DR. DURCHHOLZ: full name and the details about you? November 1900 in Berlin. My last place of service was Salzburg in Austria, where I also lived. studies, and your professional background, witness? of the Koclnische Gymnasium in Berlin. I remained there without interruption until "Unter Prima" that is until I was 17. On the 11th of April 1918 -- I was 17 at that time With that I interrupted my studies. After having received my infantry basic training in the autumn of 1918 I was transferred to the Field Recruit Depot of the Fifth Guard Infantry Division in France.
Due to the Armistice of the 9th of November 1918 I was no longer used for front line assignment. I participated in the retreats from France towards Germany, and early in 1919 I was discharged from the Army as a simple private. served in the first World War did you receive any decorations?
A No, I didn't, In 1934 - that was the only time I received the general modal which was issued to all participants of the first World War. 1919, witness?
A I returned to my old school class. That is to say, I returned to the Cologne Gymnasium in Berlin and towards the end of 1919 I graduated. That was the examination for veterans of the first World War. finished that school?
A It was my intention to become a physician. However, I could not possibly carry out my plan to study medicine because my father did not have the means to pay for the expenses involved in such a study. My intent to carry out those particular studies in the medical training of the Army did not succeed due to the collapse of the German Army at the time and the dissolution of the German army. I would have chosen that way as might have been suggested to me to do because within the framework of that training the expenses would, of course, be borne by the Army. On one condition, however namely, that after I would have completed my examination I would have had to join the army for a period of eight years in the medical service.
have enough money at his disposal to enable you to study medicine. Would you like to tell us briefly what your father's profession was? in Altmark. As a child already, when he was very young, he became an orphan. When he was 18 he volunteerd into the Army and, to be exact, it was the same regiment in which I later served. My father did service there for approximately 12 years, and he thus gained access to a position as an official of the State in the civil service. My father first joined the Berlin police, but after a comparatively short time he was called in by the Berlin magistrate for his extraordinary services in the police. He was rather young at the time -- that was in 1902 -- when he was placed in charge of the administration in the Waterworks at Lichtenberg, which was part of the Berlin Hamburg Works and he remained there until he was released and received a pension due to retirement in 1924.
At the end he was administration inspector. My father explained low official.
My mother also did not have a fortune My mother was of four became a half-orphan.
As the pension which my grandmother
Q. Now , witness, after having deviated from the normal now to our professional background.
What was the profession you had chosen under the circumstances?
A. As both of my parents had a very severe childhood behind them, and a very severe life altogether, they had make it their task to have me study.
Considering conditions in 1919, after the reasons of convenience, to choose the study of law.
Due to this a selection of a professional or other career later on.
That is examination.
At the end of the second term the first signs of in flation could be noticed easily.
My father lost all the money he
Q. Now, witness, I come now to your studies for the career as a police officer.
What did you do to get that job?
A. Before I answer that question, Mr. Counsel, may I state that I personally helped along with my own upkeep.
I worked as a simple clerk in the bookkeeping department of the Dresdner bank in Berlin.
In 1923 I went to Hamburg with the intention to continuing my studies of law as a student I was employed in an auditing department, but the inflation, however, had set in in the meantime, and the devaluation of money made it absolutely impossible for me to save up any money. Unfortunately at the time we had to live from hand to mouth in the worst sense of the saying. Through a friend of mine I found out that the Bremen Police were looking for police officers. Again led by the career of my father, I decided to apply there for a job, and particularly since I had all the necessary qualifications for such a job, and, at the same time, I hoped to have lots of time while I was there to continue studying in order to carry on from those two terms which I had mentioned before. I received my order of inscription after I had been there, and on the termination of my notice, the 5 November 1923, I joined the "Schutzpolizei", the protective police in Bremen.
Q. In what capacity did you do it. Were you in an official position, in a position of a civil servant, or were you bound by a contract?
A. I became apolice official , in other words, I became an official according to the German code for officials. After two years, approximately, I received a so-called citizenship of Bremen. I also received a document to prove that.
Q. What was your activity then, and your further training with the police, witness?
A. As I had the qualification of having served in the army I became a police sergeant. As police sergeant I had one simple advantage, which was to be able to jump some of the prescribed number of courses. However, as a police sergeant, according to directives prescribed by law, I had to go through some courses, and finally passes an examination before I became an officer; the same as applied to all the other officials. On 1 March 1924, I became a T/5. On 17 May 1924 I became a sergeant.
On 1 February 1925, after having completed the staff sergeant examination, I became a staff sergeant. On 12 April 1924, after I passed another examination, I became official code instructor which is about the same as staff sergeant. On 1 July 1925, I became a full sergeant, and the same year I passed my officer's examination. It was on 1 August 1926 that I became a Lieutenant, what we call in German Zugmachtmeister. During all these phases of my development I was put through ail the branches of the police departments, and trained in all those branches, I served in the police service as "commissarischer" lieutenant and I went through special guard duty with cur patrol, and so on, and I also worked with the traffic police for a while. Then after that there was a special training in the mounted police; then on the military motor patrols, and in the identification department.
Q. I understand that after you passed your examination on 1 august you became an officer. Why did it take so long, witness?
A. The reason for that is that at the time those members of the Army and the police were under the control of the Entente Commission; agencies which had been prescribed by the Entente Commission could not be circumvented in any way. As the Bremen police corps was comparatively young, and as no vacancy could be expected very soon, a special commission was granted by the Entente Committee to two comrades of mine and myself, and we finally became what I referred to before when speaking of the KommisarLieutenant, which stands for a lieutenant with a special commission. This commission became effective on 1 August 1926; a full commission officer's position could only start on 1 November 1927.
Q. Due to thatposition as a police lieutenant did your field of activity change in any way?
A. Generally speaking, there was hardly any change. I remained in the Wachbereitschaft, within the service, that is to say, I was working in the traffic division of the service, and also in the police service.
By special request I also went through the criminal police branch, and in order to increase my knowledge within the field of police work within that assignment. In 1928 I was transferred to the Police School in Bremen, and in the first year of my activity in the Police School in Bremen I took over the training of the use of weapons, and in the second year of my activity in the police school, I was assigned as teacher in police matters. They had special classes for police training of non-commissioned officers.
Q. During that period of time did you have a political activity, or anything of that kind?
A. No. I was not active in any political way. Political activities were discarded by me anyway, as I was at all times of the opinion that a civil servant is a servant of the State and not a servant of a party. I also always complied with the principle during the entire time of my activity. A political attitude also was discarded by me, because the commander of the Protective Police in Bremen, General Gaspari, had stated in hiw own free way that his officers werenot to join any party, nor were they to represent one of the parties in public in any way. After that I denounced any political activity. After that I was transferred to the Political Police in Bremen, that is, the end of 1930. The Political Police of Bremen was called the Central Police Office.
Q. You stated, witness, that you were not active in any way in political matters, nor did you have any political attitude, how was it, witness, that you were then transferred to the political police?
A. My transfer to the Political police took place because one of the special vacancies was created for a special expert, and I was theone who had been assigned to that duty, and I went down there. In any case, political points of view were entirely out of question for me when I was transferred there, and they could not possibly be considered because the Political Police had nothing whatsoever to do with politics directly; their activity waslimited to serving all political parties, regardless of what kind of parties they were.
It was decided after my transfer to the Central Police Office was made, as a matter of fact, that I was not to become a member of any party, nor was I permitted to be a member of any party.
Q. Who was the man in charge of the Political Police, and who was that police officer subordinate to?
A. The man in charge of that agency was Police Captain Kruse. The agency itself was in direct service with the Division of Police called the Senatory. (interruption).
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
THE WITNESS: The Police Senatory in Bremen is approximately the same as a Minister of interior, in other countries. It is a term used within the structure of the Police Division, and it is approximately the same as it is today. Bremen is a City-State, and with the official name of "Free Trade City of Bremen." BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Can you tell us what political group this Police Captain belonged to?
A. then I joined the Political Police Senator Deichmann was the police officer. Senator Deichmann was a member of the SPD, the then political party of Germany. His successor became Senator von Sprecklesen. Idon't remember the exact date when this occurred, but according to my recollection he was a member of the German People's Party.