Q All right, that was not the case. What was your rank in the service on 1 January 1933?
Q 1st Lieutenant?
Q And on 1 August 1939?
A On 1st August 1939? Sofar as I remember I was Regierungsteat. (Governor Council)
Q Yes but what was your military rank? You were a Police Officer here your not?
A Yes, here I must give a some what lengthy explanation. In 1923 I joined the Protectice Police, and until the end of the year of 1938 I was police offer all the time, and a member of the police, and, thus, I belonged to the Main Office of the Regular Police. As a result of the police reorganization in 1939 some kind of decision had to be made whether I was to remain as a member of the Main Office Regular Police, or whether I should go to the Security Police, thus, in the year of 1938 I was released from the Main Office Regular Police, and I was transferred from the Main Office Regular Police to the Main Office Security Police. The Main Office Security Police didn't dispose of their office positions, and, thus, as Police Captain, that was my rank at the time, I was transferred as a government counsellor. the orderly of police was the rank of Captain, is that correct, in 1938?
Q And you were not promoted in 1939? dates are here in the document.
Q When did you become a Standartenfuehrer? in Hamburg.
Q That called for the rank of a colonel, is that right?
Q That was in 1940, was it not?
Q When were you promoted to Oberfuehrer? were promoted Oberfuehrer?
A No, not directly when I returned from Russia. For at the end of September I returned from Russia, and if I remember correctly that promotion to Oberfuehrer became effective on 9 November.
Q On 9 November you were promoted to Oberfuehrer?
A Yes, I think so. But this is in my personal file which I gave the CIC and that must have all my information. general?
A Yes, that is right. That is an intermediate promotion for officials, that is, because there is no such equivalent rank.
Q When were you promoted to the rank of brigadier-general? original date as of October 1942, as I remember it.
Q That was the highest rank you achieved? the so-called Sudeten country, in Aussign and in Reichenberg, is that correct?
Q Was that in 1938?
1938, and later during the occupation of the Protectorate in the Spring of 1939
Q Where were you after the occupation of the Protectorate? leadership of the State Police in Reichenberg, and sofar as I remember that was effective 1 June 1939.
Q How long did you stay in Reichenberg? the documents to show this, until I was transferred to Hamburg, and that I think was on 1 March 1940.
Q What was your position there?
A Where? In Reichenberg I was Head of the Police Agency, and I was Governor Councillor. you not? during the time that you were there in command?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I can not tell you exactly.
Q Approximately? were there?
A I can not say that definitely, because I don't know it exactly. But any kind of a large scale arrest didn't take place during my time. On the contrary, I used an expert who was especially given the job to see that the Jewish property was confiscated in an orderly manner. fiscated then? property was already undertaken, and in this field I found a lot of disorder.
This disorder caused me to create order, and to use an expert on the job, who carefully confiscasted the Jewish property, and wherever any agencies had taken hold of some furniture, everything was carefully confiscated and was reported to the Chief Minister of Finance.
Q What was the name of this expert?
A That was the Police Inspector Spaet, if I remember correctly?
Q What happened to the people who were arrested at that time? Were they sent to a concentration camp? Office, for I did not have the power to make decisions in this matter. possible? yes.
Q You were also in Olmuetz?
Q When was that? 1939.
Q 15 March 1939, is that correct? In Olmuetz? date.
Q You were there for eight weeks, approximately?
Q What was your position ther, Herr Schulz?
Q You were commander of an Einsatzkommando, is that correct?
A Yes, that is right, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q Were you the highest Gestapo officer in charge in Olmuetz? Einsatzgruppen chief who had his headquarters in Prague.
Q But in the Olmuetz you were the highest, were you not?
Security Police suspects of persons who were endangering the security of the occupying forces, mostly ethnic Germans who were immigrating from Germany, and also the pure Czechs, is that correct? Germans and Czechs were arrested at that time in Olmuetz? during the time of my stay only very few arrests were made. If it was the question of Czech Nationals, the measures were carried out by the Czech police. sures? arrested? there were not many. is that right? Jews. Whether some Jews were listed in the arrest lists given by the RSHA, I just don't remember at the moment. were arrested by other agencies then yourself?
A I didn't quite get the question, exactly. against the security of the German forces were arrested, did I understand you correctly? arrested?
A No, at the moment I can not remember. Certainly not because they were Jews only.
Q You are sure of that?
A Mr. Prosecutor, there are many years in between, and I don't know that exactly but it can not have been a decisive number. I ask you to consider that the Einsatzcommando was a preparatory agency which only created a prerequisite for localities for the agencies to be set up later. that time, were you not? Czechs, as you mentioned, and surely if they were Jews. Were they sent to concentration camps? concentration camps, from Olmuetz, I don't know that.
Q Nobody was sent to Buchenwald?
Q Who was sent to Buchenwald without your order? case. another concentration camp just without having the approval of the Gestapo? of the Einsatzgruppe, is that correct?
Q In May 1941?
Q Who communicated this order to you? tion?
A With two exceptions, Mr. Prosecutor. Namely I was in Pretsch at the time of the inspection and the two days before we marched to Russia, after the war had been declared on them.
Q I meant it that way, I didn't think you going. I meant the inspection only when Heydrich was there. Can you tell the Tribunal where these three places are located? Schnieberg, some kilometers away from Pretsch.
Q What province of Germany is that?
Q Is that in Eastern Germany, is it not?
A Well, that depends what borders you are considering. This is on the road to Leipsig. satzgruppen?
Q Who was present at this inspection?
A That Mr. Prosecutor, I can not tell you definitely. All the Einsatzgruppen kommandos were distributed among the various localities and on that day of the inspection they were gatherd together on the marching field near Schniedeberg. A very few hours before the inspection all the commandos gathered together, and lined up in the open square, and then the inspection took place by Heydrich, and after the inspection they marched out of this place down the road.
Q You don't remember of one of the defendants being present at this inspection? Einsatzgruppen -- Einsatzkommando leader of Einsatzgruppe V were present.
Please keep in mind that at that time - I did not know about the distribution of the various offices among the various commandos. I know that in Schniedeberg in a bar where part of the Einsatzkommando was quartered, Dr. Rasch was there, so far as I remember, and, I also believe to have seen Sturmbannfuehrer Hennecke and I also think that I saw Herr Blobel, and I think Herr Hermann was there, too, but I can not tell you that definitely, whether this was on the day of the inspection or whether this was in the last days before we started to march out. is that correct?
A Mr. Prosecutor, if I did mention any other name it would be an assumption so I can not tell you definitely.
Q Was Streckenbach present? and Heydrich undertook the inspection.
Q Did you speak to Streckenbach on that occasion?
Q Nothing else, no conversation? before the inspection you were called to a meeting in the Prince Albert Palais in Berlin to Heydrich, and Heydrich informed the people present about the task of the Einsatzgruppen, and especially about the war against Russia, is that correct?
Q Who of the defendants in the dock was present at that meeting?
A I think I can say definitely that Herr Ohlendorf was there. As for the others, I don't know. Ohlendorf?
A There were several, Mr. Prosecutor, but I can't tell you that definitely who was there. I know, for instance, that Gruppenfuehrer Nebe was there.
I also know that Dr. Stahliger was there. I think if you were to mention any names to me I think I can remember that I saw them, but otherwise I really cannot say with certainty which of the defendants were there.
Q Neither Naumann nor Rasch?
A Dr. Rasch, I think, was there, yes.
Q Was the defendant Naumann there?
A Naumann I cannot recall. I cannot tell you that definitely.
Q Was Streckenbach present at that meeting?
Q Did you speak to him?
A I did not talk to him personally. As I remember this incident we were together in this hall, and we had to wait for sometime until Heydrich arrived. During the time Streckenbach was present and there was a general conversation, but a special personal conversation between myself and Streckenbach did not take place. some excesses on the part of the Nazi regime when Hitler came to power, is that correct? to be the effect or a transit period which would soon disappear. and 1941, especially of excess against Jews, Socialists, Communists, and other enemies of the Nazi regime? duties.
Q Many of such cases?
Q You were all the time an officer of the Gestapo. You can hardly have been ignorant of the fact that great numbers of Jews, Communists, and other enemies of National Socialism were sent to concentration camps for an unlimited period of time without having been afforded trial, is that correct?
camp who was not previously carefully interrogated. Excesses did not take place under my leadership.
Q I did not mean in your office. I just asked about your general knowledge. valid for me would also be valid for others. I cannot imagine that according to the directives which were issued by the RSHA without any reason anyone would be put into a concentration camp, for the decision about bringing anyone into a concentration camp lay with the RSHA itself. Therefore, reasons had to be given for such measures. don't you?
Q In the light of this experience, how do you interpret Heydrich's remark at the meeting, this meeting which we have just discussed, that the most severe measures against Jews would have to be taken during the campaign against Russia? would have to be taken. Heydrich expressed himself as follows, as I said in my direct examination: "Also against Jewry one would have to take more severe measures. The experiences in Poland taught us that."
Q All right. Will you tell the Tribunal how you interpreted these words of Heydrich? arrests, that is, send people to concentration camps or Ghettos, or other such possibilities. I did not think about these things in detail.
Q You went to Einsatzkommando in Russia. You must have had some idea what you were going to do there.
according to that I adjusted myself to this type of assignment. the Jews in connection with the task of the Einsatzgruppen?
A May I have this question repeated, please? were you of the opinion that this would not be a part of the task of the Einsatzgruppen? executions had been ordered. to do? You said what you did not expect. I want you to say what you did expect.
A Mr. Prosecutor, I had to leave that up to the situation. I did not go to Russia with a predisposition about what was to be done and with clear orders, but first I had to see with what events should be confronted. If someone assigns me a job, I cannot say, I cannot judge the situation until I have seen how it develops. you and the other persons present during this meeting?
Q And you didn't think at all about what eventually would be done to these measures against the Jews? danger could be accomplished by arrests, for previously, although I had already been eight years with the Security Police, I had never received an order to shoot Jews, and never did I hear up to that time that such an order had been given. the opinion that all Jews were to be arrested?
Q But didn't you know of severe measures that had been taken in Germany from 1933 on?
scale. That this was my opinion I can emphasize by the fact that after I reported back to Berlin, To Streckenbach, I expressed very clearly that there should be another solution to eliminating danger than shooting. of July, is that right? This conference you just spoke about, that was on the 28th or 29th of July?
Q Oh, I am sorry. You told Streckenbach in detail about the order Obergruppenfuehrer Jeckeln had issued. This order was handed down to you by Dr. Rasch, and then in particular women and children were not to be saved.
Q Did you read the order to him verbatim, didn't you? could not read it, but the way I remember it I presented it orally. murder, is that correct? way it had been given, namely to include women and children, I just don't remember what type of wording was used. Dr. Rasch had given a limitation, but I can't remember the exact wording. I presented this to Streckenbach with the explanation that women and children were to be shot so that there would be no avengers. satzgruppe C in this conference, is that correct?
A I could only refer to this Einsatzgruppe C, Mr. Prosecutor, because I did not know the other Einsatzgruppen. satzgruppe C.
afterwards I had a more detailed, more personal conversation with Streckenbach in which he told me his own opinion about these war measures in the East. This, his personal opinion, was not being debated in the order given by Jeckeln. that the activities of the Einsatzgruppen are plain murder? by Jeckeln and handed over by Dr. Rasch in Zhitomir. I am referring to Document Book III-C, page 61 of the English. This is NO-3841, Prosecution's Exhibit 130, page 101 of the German. It is the last thing in paragraph 6 of the affidavit. There it reads, "Streckenbach himself described the activity of the Einsatzgruppen in the East to me as murder." Oberursel when I was interrogated.
Q Is it not true that the word "Einsatzgruppen" is used here, in plural, which means in itself that more than one Einsatzgruppe was meant, does it not? As the sentence is worded here it means that all Einsatzgruppen in the East were meant, is that correct?
AAccording to this wording yes, Mr. Prosecutor, but at the time my defense counsel Mr. Durchholz, asked that this thing be corrected, and the Tribunal has informed Mr. Durchholz that this correction can be made. I also ask that you take from the text here that all this conference only referred to Einsatzgruppe C, since the name of Dr. Rasch was mentioned before. I also would like to say that in the year 1945 I still did not have the knowledge about the extent of the activities of the Einsatzgruppen which I have today. It maybe that I overlooked this at the time, and I think that is understandable, for I did not know at that time what a tremendous difference this one letter might have. Otherwise I would have looked even more carefully at what I had testified to.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q.- Witness, do I understand you to say that now in 1947 you know more of what happened in 1941 than you did in 1945 when necessarily you were closer chronologically to the former date?
A.- Yes, Your Honor.
Q.- How do you explain that?
A.- I did not have the knowledge about the extent of the activities.
Q.- Well, what school did you go to after 1945 that you learned about the activities of the Einsatzgruppen?
A.- After 1945 it became known to us in Obernrsel what is to be discussed, or what was discussed before the great court about the Einsatzgruppen. I can still remember very exactly that I was extremely surprised at the time to hear the number of 90,000 executions from the lips of Herr Ohlendorf.
Q.- Witness, but what I am speaking of is this. In 1945 you had a certain personal knowledge, first-hand cognizance of what was done by the Einsatzgruppen, that is correct, isn't it?
A.- Yes, Your Honor.
Q.- Now, so far as your own personal observation is concerned, that could not have increased with the passage of time, and especially when you were in prison?
A.- Whether I was surprised -
Q.- So, therefore, whatever you knew in 1945 you knew, and you could not increase your personal knowledge of what had happened previously by the passage of time, that is to say up until 1947?
A.- I don't know how you mean this question, your Honor.
Q.- Yes. Let me make an illustration. Let's suppose that in 1940 I made a trip to Australia.
A.- Yes.
Q.- In 1941 I would remember what happened in 1940.
A.- Yes? Your Honor.
Q.- In 1945, I couldn't remember more than I remembered in 1941, could I?
A.- Doubtlessly not, Your Honor.
Q.- Very well. That is the reason I don't understand why you say to us that in 1947 you know more about what the Einsatzgruppen did than you did in 1945.
A.- From my own experience I did not know this, Your Honor, but it is obvious that during these years in the camps, as well as otherwise we talked about what happened and what the events were.
Q.- What you mean is that you learned more about the activities of other people since 1945?
A.- Yes, that is what I wanted to explain, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY MR. HORLICH-HOCHWALD:
Q.- You made here a differentiation between the Hitler order as testified to by the Defendants Ohlendorf and Naumann, and the order of Jeckeln which was handed down to you by Rasch?
A.- That is right.
Q.- You explained this difference twice. Unfortunately, I am still not aware where the main difference lies. Will you tell the Tribunal where you see this colossal difference between these two orders.
A.- Mr. Prosecutor, I think you have misunderstood me. There were two orders for me. The first order was made known to me in Lemberg, I think, in connection with the reprisals which had been ordered there.
Q.- May I just interrupt you a moment. You do speak about this order?
A.- Yes.
Q.-You do speak about the Hitler order which, according to your testimony, was not known to you as you had not been in Pretsch when it was handed down by Heydrich?
A.- Yes.
Q.- But I understood your testimony to the effect that there was a difference between the Hitler order and the order that was handed down by Jeckeln. I personally fail to see the difference, and I would like you to explain to the Tribunal where you see the difference.
A.- Mr. Prosecutor, you might admit that there is a tremendous difference where an order of the Chief of Staff is passed on, and as expressed with that clarity by Herr Ohlendorf, and this measure has to looked upon as a war-emergency measure. This is an order which the Chief of Staff is free to five, and this order has to be accepted; but in Whitomir where there was no talk of the Chief of Staff but where it was said the Reichsfuehrer who had handed down such an order and did not give the reason of absolute war emergency for this measure but merely said that no avengers should arise, then there must be a great difference in this. At least that was the way I saw it, and this reason and the fact that we were not told at the time that the Fuehrer had or dered it had developed great doubts within me and great uncertainty.
Q.- All right, that I can understand, but what I cannot understand is one thing. When you came to Streckenbach on the 28th or 29th of August, Streckenhbach knew about the fact that this order was given by the head of the State. He knew why it was given and he knew how it was given. What I personally cannot understand is the fact that he answered you when you gave him all these facts, "This is plain murder." Will you explain that to the Tribunal?
A.- Well, I can remember, Mr. Prosecutor, that Streckehbach was also very excited about this way of issuing orders, for I expressed my conviction about it to him.
Q.- And he agreed with you?
A.- And I also told him, how am I going to explain this? I told him how this strange order was interpreted by the other Einsatzkommando lea ders who were present at the conference.
Q.- But will you tell the Tribunal why didn't Streckenbach tell you, which would have been the only natural reaction, "The way Rasch told the thing to you is wrong, but the order in itself is right. It is a war emergency. It is ordered by the Fuehrer." That is the thing which I absolutely am unable to understand from your testimony, and you possibly can inform the Tribunal how that happened.
A.- Mr. Prosecutor, I cannot remember the wording of this order, and please try to imagine yourself in my situation for when I came to Streckehbach I still did not know that this order had been given already announced at Pretsch. That this Fuehrer order actually existed, he did not keep from me.
Q.- May I interrupt you a minute? You testified here in direct that he promise I you to contact Heydrich, and several days later, as Heydrich was agsent at that time in Prague, he came back and told you about the Hitler order. This is the thing about which I want to have information. The order of Rasch was an order, which said, that all suspected Jews and their families were to be killed so that no avengers could survive. The Defendant Ohlendorf and the Defendant Naumann have testified here that a Fuehrer order was in existence that all Jews, suspected or not, were to be killed, men, women and children, in order as the Defendant Ohlendorf said, to safeguard the momentary and future security of the Reich. The "safeguarding of the future security" and the phrase "no avengers should survive" to me has absolutely the same meaning, no difference. What I do see only is that the order of Rasch was not as far reaching as the Hitler order. The Hitler order said, "all." Rasch's order said only "the suspected." I still fail to see that when you told your story to a man who undoubtedly knows about the Hitler order that this man goes on and says, "This is plain murder,"
A Mr. Prosecutor, I did not discuss this with Herr Streckenbach with so much precision, for the simple reason that my recall had already been made known. If this dismissal had not been granted I would have discussed this with Streckenbach in ever greater detail, but, as I took it from the conversations which I had with him and in which I described to him the tremendous spiritual distress of the men and I described it to him very passionately, in this case I can point out to you that my description at that time and my decision at that time to see Streckenbach and to tell him about these things was just as difficult as it is to discuss these things before you today. have no explanation of this reaction of Streckenbach?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I don't remember the exact course of the conversation. I just know the one fact, that Streckenbach was very much exited about the way of issuing orders and this can be traced back to the fact that I myself was so aroused, and this is the reason why I designated Dr. Rasch was ruthless, that without consideration of the feelings of men, he merely gave this bare fact, without even giving us an explanation in order to quiet down our agitation. Thus the conversation developed and thus I told Streckenbach that this is impossible. "How can such a measure be carried out? How can it be ordered with these bare two words?" And in this situation, Streckenbach had agreed that this was unheard of, this manner of making an order known. BY THE PRESIDENT :
Q Witness, did Streckenbach criticize the Fuehrer Order? Did he say anything which could logically be interpreted as a condemnation of the original Fuehrer Order itself?
A Yes, Your Honor, I can say that he did. Streckenbach was as much aroused by the war measures in the East as anyone else. Dr. Rasch interpreted it? and told him what had happened with Rasch and what had happened to me as a result of the manner of issuing orders.
Q No, let us adhere to my original question. Did Streckenbach criticize, condemn, or disparage the original Fuehrer Order, which has been so clearly described by the first two defendants, Ohlendorf and Naumann? considered the Fuehrer Code as very cruel, if I may express it that way. order, wasn't he, to the Einsatzgruppen leaders?
A I don't know this from my own experience. you know that, at least, since 1945, since you have been studying this? of heart from the time that he originally gave the order?
THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, would you please repeat the question; it did not come through. must have had a change of heart between the time that he originally gave the order to Ohlendorf and the time that you spoke with him as to the manner in which Rasch was executing the order?