A. This task was handled by the Commander personally on the basis of the reports which his experts gave him for this purpose.
Q. Do I understand you correctly that you had nothing to do with the drafting of the reports on the overall activity of the Einsatzkommando?
A. Yes.
Q. Were these activity reports which the Commander Hermann made brought to your knowledge?
A. No.
Q. Your Honor, at this point I would like to refer to paragraph in the affidavit Koenig on page 22 of my document book. I would like to read the first paragraph into the record; I quote: "The Security Service reports or other information collected and assembled by Fendler and myself went, through Kommando Commander Hermann, to the official in charge of Security Service matters at Einsatzgruppe C. On the other hand, Kommando Commander Hermann made up the general activity reports of Einsatzkommando 4 B himself, without exception. He did not, however, make these reports available to the specialists, so that these did not know their content." As Chief of 3 could you give instructions to Department 4?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever receive an order to carry out an execution?
A. No.
Q. Did you yourself ever give an order to carry out an execution?
A. No.
Q. Not even as a Liaison Officer to the Wehrmacht?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever attend an execution?
A. No.
Q. Did you find out in the assignment about executions which the Commando 4 B carried out because that executions occurred in 4 B you will not doubt since you have seen reports of events here in the meantime.
A. When we were in Lemberg at the end of July 1941?
Q. Yes, 1941.
A. The Commander Leader announced that orders had been given to the Commando when carrying out the general security tasks to proceed in the severest manner against the bearers of Bolshevism and if necessary to execute them. Similar directives for similar treatment of Commissars, agents, looters, saboteurs were allegedly given to the Wehrmacht. It was also said that for the East military law did not apply and in its place it was left to every officer to make his own decisions. He, the Commander Chief, reserved the right for Einsatzkommando 4 B for all executions which might become necessary. During the assignment I heard that Sondercommando 4 B did carry out executions, but I did not get any information how many persons were involved or what king of persons they were.
COURT II CASE IX BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. You say you did not get any official information. Did you get any unofficial information as to the number of people executed?
A. I learned from hearsay that executions occurred. I remember at the moment only one case that a figure was mentioned to me. It is possible that I know at the time, that I heard about it, that I have forgotten in the meantime.
Q. How many people did they say were executed?
A. In that one case, to which I just referred, 20 to 30 persons were mentioned. BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Herr Fendler, do you refuse to confess that people were executed merely because of their race or because of their political convictions?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand the phraseology of your question, Dr. Fritz. You sounded almost like a prosecuting attorney with that question: Do you refuse to confess.
DR. FRITZ: No, no. What I asked the witness, Your Honor, was whether he himself declined to believe, whether he agreed to it that persons were executed in the East merely because of their race or political convictions.
THE PRESIDENT: Why put it in such a complicated way? Just ask him directly, did he know that people were being executed because of their race.
DR. FRITZ: There is a difference, your Honor. I want to hear about his attitude concerning these executions.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't quite grasp the question the way you put it the first time. We will see what happens now.
COURT II CASE IX BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Herr Fendler, did you agree that in the East at the time people were executed by the Einsatzkommandos only because of their race, because they were Jews or, for example because of their political convictions. What was your inner attitude?
A. No, I deny this.
THE PRESIDENT: No, it isn't clear Dr. Fritz because the question mingles the factuality with the spirituality of it. Why not find out first if he knew that Jews were being executed because they were Jews; then find out if he approved of that policy; then you can go into his inner soul. BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Herr Fendler, you heard the question the President asked. Did you hear about the fact that persons were executed in the Eastern territory merely because of their race, or political convictions? A. I heard about it after the assignment. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. You knew of the Fuehrer order?
A. No, your Honor. BY DR. FRITZ: Your Honor, I shall come to this in my further examination. Your Honor, in this connection I would like to refer to the affidavit Koenig on page 22 of my document book. It is in the third last paragraph and I quote:
"In the executions which were carried out on the order of Kommando leader Hermann by the Executive Department (category IV), as far as I know Fendler never participated; nor did he ever arrange any of these. He would, furthermore, not have been either authorized or empowered to do this."
Q. Herr Fendler, in the afternoon session of 30 September 1947 when the Prosecution talked about your case, they referred to the following documents. First of all in Document Book 2-A, NO 2938; that was on page 81 of the English text, page 79 of the German text, Prosecution Exhibit No. 44. The passage concerned is on page 14 of the original. Also in Document Book 2-C, document NO 2934, page 49 of the English text, page 52 of the German text, Prosecution Exhibit No. 79. In the original the passage referred to is on page 5; and also in the Document Book 2-A. NO 3155, page 44 of the English, page 40 of the German text. Prosecution Exhibit No. 38. The passage concerned here is on page 4 of the original. In these documents, Herr Fendler, the executive activity of Sonder kommando 4 B in Tarnopol and Krementchug is reported on. Your own affidavit shows that you were in those locations. I now ask you, did you take any part in the executions and excesses which took place about which the document reports?
A. No; I had nothing at all to do with it; these events, just as well as all of these events mentioned by the Prosecution I have seen here for the first time. I don't know either what the Kommando leader reported at the time about the events in Tarnopol and Krementschug. I heard at the time that in Tarnopol and Krementschug. I heard at the time that in Tarnopol and Krementschug executions were carried out.
Q. Did you hear about the extent and the reasons for these executions in the reports shown of the events?
A. I can only say that I heard about it in Krendogla, which I mentioned before that the Kommando in Tarnopol shot 20 to 30 persons. I cannot give a more detailed COURT II CASE IX explanations about figures?
A. I only know that in Krementschug shortly before the Kommando left for Poltawa an execution was carried out. What kind of persons they were and how many they were I can't say. The Prosecution on 30 September as well as also on the 3rd, in Document Book 2-G, Document No. 2830, which is on page 25 of the English and page 23 of the German text, Prosecution Exhibit No. 72; on page 18 of the original it says, and I quote:...
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't get the English page, Dr. Fritz.
DR. FRITZ: Page 25, your Honor. I will read the quotation:
"The garrison of Sonderkommando 4b is stationed at Poltawa, according to a report dated 16 October 1941." paragraph soon after the passage just read that the Kommando 4b from 4 October 1941 to 10 October 1941 executed 186 persons.
Q. Were you still in the Einsatz during that time?
A. No, on 13 September -- it must have been 1941, that is -in Sonderkommando 4B the Einsatzgruppe received an order from Berlin that the candidates for the leading service including myself were to report back in Berlin on 1 October. The order had been delayed obviously at the gruppe and I left the kommando then on 2 October and travelled via Kiev and Lemberg to return to Berlin where I arrived on 6 or 7 October.
DR. FRITZ: Your Honors, in order to support the statement of the defendant Fendler, I would like to refer to affidavits again. The first one is the affidavit Heyer, page 27 of my document book. There it, says in the second paragraph from the second sentence -and I quote: "I met him again in the East in Poltawa on 2 October 1941. At that time Herr Fendler and I, as well as other candidates for the leading service, had been ordered back from the Einsatz and we were on the return journey, on 2nd to 4th of October. I travelled by express coach back to Berlin while Herr Fendler went on into Reich territory by train." graph in the affidavit Koenig, page 22 of my document book, which also confirms that at the end of September 1941 Fendler had been relieved from the Einsatz assignment -- document 9, in the last paragraph of the affidavit.
I also offer at this point the affidait Brass, Document No. 13 on page 34 of my document book. I offer it as Fendler Exhibit No. 12and I refer to the second paragraph whereat the witness says that Fendler at the beginning of Octoner visited him. That was 1941. which I have already submitted, also the last paragraph of 32. It is on page 32 of the document book. This last paragraph shows the same, what Fendler has testified at this point.
Q. What did you do after you returned from the Einsatz assignment?
A. After my return from the assignment, I continued to study law at the university in Berlin. In the year of 1942 I passed my Referendar Exam. After that, as a Referendar, in order to do my duty and practice, I came to the county counselor in Waldenburg in Silesia to the government of the Liegnitz. In August 1943 I passed the major State Examination and became government counselor, government assessor.
Q. Where were you active after passing this final examination and having passed the training you just mentioned?
A. In September 1943 I was transferred from Office I of the RSHA to which I had belonged until that time to Office VI in the RSHA
Q. How long were you there?
A. Until the collapse.
Q. In Office VI you dealt with the political information servie from abroad, was it?
A. Yes.
DR. FRITZ: Your Honors, the tasks of Office VI have already been explained by other defendants. Apart from that, Schellenberg in his affidavit of 12 July 1946 in the IMT gave explanations about this. to assist the Tribunal. I have included Schellenberg's affidavit into my document book. The affidavit has the document number SD-61 and I offer it as Fendler Exhibit No. 13.
THE PRESIDENT: What page is that on?
DR. FRITZ: 636.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution would like to object to this document in this connection as entirely immaterial. This document is going to be introduced obviously to show that the Department, No. VI, of the SD was not a criminal organization.
According to the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, Department VI is precisely named among the departments of the SD which were considered by the International Military Tribunal to be criminal organizations. The verdict of Control Council Low No. 10 makes it absolutely clear that in this respect the decision of the International Military Tribunal is binding. Therefore, it seems to me that defense counsel for defendant Fendler tries to introduce proof as to the criminality of this special department and this seems to be immaterial in this case. Only the membership of the defendant Fendler to Department VI can be contested by the defense. It can be further contested that he had knowledge of criminal acts committed by the organization but the fact that Department VI was criminal cannot be contested before this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: What have you to say that, Dr. Fritz?
DR. FRITZ: Your Honors, I limit myself exclusively to the person of the defendant Fendler.
THE PRESIDENT: You can show that he was either not amember of that organization or that being a member of the organization he was entirely ignorant of its criminal operations, but you cannot contest what is now res judicata, that that organization has been declared a criminal organization.
DR. FRITZ: I do not intend to do that by introducing this documtnt, Your Honor. I only wanted to talk about the general activity of Office VI, for the convenience of the Tribunal. That is why wanted the affidavit to be introduced in my document book. It has nothing to do with the question whether Military Tribunal No. II is bound to the decision of the IMT.
THE PRESIDENT: We will permit the document only for the purpose of enlightening the Tribunal on the knowledge of the defendant that this organization was conducting criminal operations.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Since other defendants also talked about the tasks of Office VI, I ask you. Herr Fendler, just to describe briefly your arm activity in Office VI.
A. With the assistance of confidential non, I had to obtain secret and official matters in time by means of a certain information service about the political and economical situation in the countries Spain and Portugal and about the other foreign countries inasfar as such information could be obtained in these countries. Also it was my task to make the necessary technical arrangements and to maintain them, which was necessary in order to get this information. The information obtained inas far as it concerned Spain and Portugal, they revaluated in my department and were compiled into reports, according to periods or as required. These reports I submitted to my group leader and he handed them over to Office VI; that is, Schellenberg. These persons decided how these reports were going to be used.
Q. You were only responsible, then for obtaining and working on reports?
A. Yes, I had to give a picture of the situation as objectively as possible and about the symptoms of the development of the political and economic development in those countries.
Q. Did you have anything to do with Keeping a check on foreigners or Germans in Germany and abroad in order to persecute them by the police?
A. No, my assistants had no executive power, nor did I.
Q. Did you have the task to organize the NSKAP abroad?
A. No.
DR. FRITZ: Your Honors, at this point I would like to introduce three more affidavits. I offer the affidavit of the witness Neubourg on page 49 of the document book as Fendler Exhibit 14. I would refer to the contents.
I also offer the next affidavit in the Document book page 51. That is Fendler Document No. 15, an affidavit by Elizabeth Custodius. I offer it as Fendler Exhibit No. 15. I also refer to the contents and, finally, I offer the next affidavit, page 55 of the document book by the witness Bernhard, Document No. 16 Exhibit No 17. I refer to the contents as well
Q. How long were you in Office VI, Herr Fendler?
A. Until the collapse, May 1945.
Q. While you were working in the SD did you ever have to fulfill missions or did you have to carry out acts which violate the internationally recognized rules of warfare or which might be considered inhumane?
A. No.
Q. Was your membership in the SD after the war broke out -voluntary?
A. No, I had been deferred for service in the SD; that is, at the beginning of the war I had received a note. In my pay book a note was contained that in case of war I was to serve in the SD. Not obeying this order would have been punishable by court martial; I beg your pardon, military law.
THE PRESIDENT: That is one time where court martial is correct. I think that is the first time it was used correctly and now you don't want to keep it.
A. Because at this service I could not leave this job voluntarily as has been described reportedly; your application to be released to the fighting forces was subject to punishment.
DR. FRITZ: Your Honors, the personnel file of the defendant Fendler in the Document Book III-C -- that is Document NO 4958, page 56 of the English, page 92 of the German text, Prosecution Exhibit 143 -- this persnnel file shows on the first page of the original some incorrectness concerning dates.
Inasfar as these inconsistencies are of importance here, I would like to address a few questions to the defendant Fendler.
Q. In the German Document Book the date of joining the SS is given 15 April 1947. In the English text they give 15 April 1933. In the photostatic copy of your personal file I cannot see any such entry. In your own affidavit, which is in Document Book III-C, Document NO-4144, Exhibit 142 of the prosecution, page 55 of the English text, page 89 to 90 of the German text, there it says on page 1 of the original under figure 2 -- and I quote: "In the year 1933 I joined the SS."
What is the truth of the matter concerning your entry in the SS?
A. May I correct the figure of a year here which was just given incorrectly? It says in the document book in German here not 1947 but 1937. In the year 1933, in the Forst/Niederlausitz I applied to be allowed to join the General SS. In the fall of 1933 I was tranferred into the SS Reserve as a candidate in Breslau because I had resumed my studies there in the meantime. As I have already mentioned, from 1934 until 1935 I served as a soldier. When I was released from the army I heard that my application for admission in the General SS had become obsolete because I had not done any service since 1933. I, therefore, was never a member of the Allgemeine SS, only when admitted into the SS formation called the SD in the Spring of 1936 I was admitted into the SS. The date of admission, therefore, is wrong both in the English and German; in the German document books and in my own affidavit it is missing and I want to add here that in 1944 I joined as a canidate.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, inasmuch as the date can be ascertained only from the exhibit, neither from the German nor from the English mimeographed copy, I would respectfully request that the Tribunal advise the secretary-general to bring the exhibit into the courtroom after the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: The secretary-general is so informed.
Q. Concerning your promotion to SS Sturmbannfuehrer in the German document book, this is not mentioned at all. In the English document Book this promotion is mentioned as 9 November 1944. In the photostatic copy of your personal file I also cannot find any such entry. I, therefore, ask you when were you promoted to SS Sturmbannfuehrer?
A. On 13 January 1945.
Q. Why did you apply in the year 1933 for admittance in the SS? A. At the time I was 20 years old and I had no political experience. I shared the hope of many Germans that the German people would be led towards better times and as a young person I decided to join this movement, being an idealist. Therefore, like many of my other sport comrades in those days, I had applied for admittance in this affiliation of the Party.
Q. Your were a member of the NSDAP since 1937?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever hold any office in the Party?
A. No, I was only a nominal Party member.
DR. FRITZ: Your Honors, I have finished my direct examination of the defendant Fendler.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until one-fortyfive.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1345 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 13 December 1947.
DR. KRAUSE (DEPUTIZING FOR DR. RIEDIGER FOR THE DEFENDANT HAENSCH): witness Fendler concerning the fact that the witness belonged to the same Sonder-kommando, which later on, that is, in the year 1942, was under the command of Haensch for a time.
THE PRESIDENT: Please do. BY DR. KRAUSE (DEPUTIZING FOR DR. RIEDINGER FOR THE DEFENDANT HAENSCH):
Q. Witness, I understood you to say tat you belonged to the kommando right from the beginning of the Eastern campaign.
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. And you went with the kommando as far as Poltawa, is that right?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. When the kommando advanced, did they also pass the places, Shitomir, Rowno, and Vinnitsa?
A. The Kommando 4B, while advancing in the time while I was with the kommando, only passed across Vinnitsa.
Q. When was this? If you do not know the exact time, please tell me approximately.
A. It must have been about the last week of July when the kommando arrived there.
Q. Did the kommando stay there?
A. Yes.
Q. And can you tell us approximately how long they stayed there?
A. As far as I remember -- the Reports of Events could not help me to reconstruct this -- it must have been the matter of eight to ten days.
Q. Do you know whether detachments of the kommando while advancing further stayed behind in Vinnitsa or in the vicinity of Vinnitsa?
A. No, certainly not. I know that the entire Sonderkommando 4B left Vinnitsa.
Q. Did Sonderkommando 4B while advancing to Poltawa, as you told us, did they always stay together?
A. How do you mean that, did they always stay together?
Q. At no stage of the advance were any detachments of the kommando left behind at any localities.
A. No, I do not know of that.
Q. At a later time, when they advanced further, were parts left behind in the rear Army territory?
A. No, I do not know that.
Q. In Vinnitsa or the vicinity of Vinnitsa, did the kommando have any connections with that town at a later time?
MR. HORLICH-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, it would be necessary to specify this question a little bit more as to the time. I do think it is clear that the witness can only testify as to the time he was there and if he has information other than at the time he was there, he may state how he got it.
DR. KRAUSE: A moment please. The translation did not come through.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what Mr. Hochwald has said is that you should indicate the period of time that you are asking about.
DR. KRAUSE: It always only the period until October 1941; that is about the time when the witness was with the Kommando SK-4B. I am not asking him about any other period.
THE WITNESS: Until the 2d of Oct. 1941, that is the day when I left the kommando in Poltawa.
Q. (By Dr. Krause) Yes, of course. The question was whether the kommando during your time, that is up to 2 October 1941, during their further advance, kept in contact with locations left in the meantime, Vinnitsa in particular.
A. I only remember that from Poltawa, which you just mentioned, an officer once travelled back to Kirowograd in order to talk to a confidential agent there with whom he had worked for a long time, in order to contact this man. A certain personal relationship had developed and that is the only case I remember. I cannot say anything concerning Vinnitsa.
Q. Thank you. Now a final question to you: Can you tell us to whom the tasks of the kommando were handed over as soon as the kommando left a certain garrison and went further cast?
A. Well, I cannot make a general statement about this. As I already said in my direct examination, the only person who had full command over the kommando was the kommando leader himself. Of course, it could occur that when the kommando was being transferred from one locality to another the kommando leader travelled in advance and that he gave a mission to one of the other officers to be in charge of the kommando while on route from one locality to another. That happened.
Q. The question which I put to you was this: If the entire kommando moved from one location, say, Vinnitsa, and if no one remained behind form the kommando there, who took over the tasks which the kommando had dealt with until then, in the location Vinnitsa which had been left, the security tasks in particular?
A. Vinnitsa is a special case. On the whole it was like this: When the kommando moved, no new forces followed who took over the tasks. If I may say so, a vacuum remained for the work, that is, during the time of my advance. This was general experience which I had in the assignment, there were two exceptions: One concerns Lemberg where Kommando 5, as has already been said, and Kommando 6 moved in after us. When they had moved in, we left Lemberg again and the second case is Vinnitsa.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, is this what you want?
DR. KRAUSE: Yes.
A. (Continued) The second case in Vinnitsa. Sonderkommando 4B was relieved by Einsatzkommando 6 in Vinnitsa.
Q. Thank you.
A. Or say I just add that I don't know whether it was the entire Einsatzkommando or whether it was only a detachment of 6. I don't know.
Q. A final question. Do you know whether, in the locations which you left, very soon commanders of the Security Police and the SD followed, or how much time elapsed before these commanders arrived there?
A. I cannot say anything about this from my own experience.
DR. KRAUSE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defense counsel desire to crossexamine the witness? If not, Mr. Hochwald will proceed with the crossexamination for the prosecution.
MR. HORLICH-HOCHWALD: If Your Honors, please, before I start with the cross-examination, I would like to present to the Tribunal and to Dr. Fritz the photostat of the document which was in question this morning, the personal file of Fendler.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. HORLICH-HOCHWALD: I shall ask Dr. Fritz to look through the magnifying class and tell the Tribunal whether he can read the entry.
DR. FRITZ (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT FENDLER): Yes, Your Honor. My photostatic copy is so poor that I cannot see anything at all, but here I can see with the magnifying glass the date 15 April 1933. The figure "33" however, can hardly be seen.
MR. HORLICH-HOCHWALD: Does that satisfy the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. The record will indicate what has transpired.
BY MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD:
Q. Herr Fendler, you have just testified that in Vinnitsa Einsatzkommando 4B was replaced by Einsatzkommando 6, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal when that was?
A. I cannot tell you the exact date, unfortunately. It must have been in the last days of July, 1941.
Q. Thank you very much.
A. Or the beginning of August, possibly.
Q. When you entered the SD, that was in 1937, was it not?
A. 1936.
Q. 1936. Your decision to enter this organization then was entirely voluntary, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Am I correct in assuming that you were deferred for SD service when war broke out?
A. Yes, I believe that I was drafted even before the outbreak of the war. I do not have this any more and therefore cannot give the exact date.
Q. Is it correct, Herr Fendler, that you were deferred for this SD service for the simple reason that you already had been previously a member of the SD, is that correct?
A. That is possible.
Q. You do not know that?
A. I was never told this. I could only say concerning the general situation, the situation at the time. Even now when I look back at it, I believe that I an justified in drawing that conclusion because the Security Police had a lack of personnel and especially in war time the were interested in retaining and keeping their trained experts at their disposal.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal whether other people who had not been active in the SD as voluntary members were deferred when war broke out to the SD service or whether that was only a measure which was taken in cases of people who already had been active in the SD?
A. I don't quite get that.
Q. Whether you know a case in which somebody was deferred for SD service when war broke out without having been a member of the SD previous to that time?
A. I heard that at the outbreak of war so-called honorary assistants existed, who were deferred for the SD because they could not be spared in the future work.
Q. But they had, as a matter of fact, already been honorary collaborators before that time, hadn't they, I mean honorary collaborators of the SD?
A. That was not necessary, Mr. Prosecutor. It wasn't necessary, If I may explain this, after the outbreak of war, it did occur that a man was declared indispensible from the SD. An economic chief, for example, could be accepted after war broke out. They were interested in has further colaboration and saw to it he was not sent to the front but would be at their disposal to work in the SD.
Q. That is not my question. The question was: Do you know if somebody, when war broke out or before war broke out, was deferred for SD service without having been a member or honorary collaborator of the SD previous to the outbreak of the war -- do forget what happened during the war. I am only asking what happened before the war, when you were deferred, at that time when you were deferred to the SD.
A. I did not hear of any such case, but I do not want to exclude the possibility.
Q. You have told the Tribunal that actually you never were a member of the General SS. You do not want to say by that that you never were a member of the SS, I presume, is that correct?
A. I merely wanted to say, Mr. Prosecutor, that I never was a member of the Allgemeine SS, the General SS, as you just said. When joining the SD, that is, the joining of the SS Special Formation called SD, I be came a member of the large organization SS, in that way only.
Q. When you were a candidate for the leading service, did you go to the training school of which the Defendant Schulz was the commander?
A. No.
Q. You never were a member of this school?
A. May I explain this briefly? I cannot answer just yes or no to the question. As a pupil I was never a member of his training school. The course for the candidates for the leading service had nothing to do with the general training at the officers training school. Only officials for the intermediate and lower service were being trained there, but it is like this that a few members of the leading service, while studying at the university in Berlin simply did not find an apartment. Therefore the Officers Training School used another building, which was not attached to the school, it was an apartment house. They put apartments at their disposal. If I may so say. we lodged there.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal whether when you were sent home from your assignment in the East, whether it was with other members of the school at the same time and on the basis of the same order?
A. I believe so, yes, However, I must add immediately that apparently the date for reporting, 1 October, could not always be met because the individuals concerned heard about it too late, sometimes on purpose and sometimes accidently. Sometimes on purpose, because, as I have already said, the Einsatzgruppen kept the order back because they did not want to release the persons before they had been replaced.
Q. But it was on the basis of the same order, wasn't it?
A. Yes, on the basis of the same order about which the Defendant Schulz has already spoken.
Q. Herr Fendler, can you tell the Tribunal when did you hear first about the Fuehrer Order?
A. After the collapse, Mr. Prosecutor, in connection with the publications in the press concerning the proceedings in the IMT I heard about it that the Einsatzkommando were supposed to have killed certain groups of persons.