Q. Answer that question, would you feel personally offended that these two Jews whom you respected and admired so much were persecuted? Would you think it unjust, unfair, unchivalrous and improper in a civilization such as you find in Germany, would you regard it as unjust?
A. Yes, I was hurt personally here, especially in the case of one person who --
Q. All right, Now, do you feel offended when all their brothers and sisters, going up into the hundreds of thousands and millions were persecuted, do you feel hurt when all the other Jews, who were of the same characteristics and temperament as these two Jews as far as race is concerned, do you also feel offended when they were persecuted?
A. May I ask what you mean by persecution, by persecuting, when the period of the persecution begins?
Q. Now, Professor Six, a man who has been a dean of a university and a professor and a journalist and a newspaper man and a general and a soldier, with all of your experience for you to ask what is meant by persecution seems a little trifling. You know from personal insult up to deliberate killings. Now, that is what is meant by persecution. It ran the whole gamut from the simplest kind of an insult to the last grave crime of killing them while they were in a defenseless position and burying them in unmarked graves. That is the definition of persecution. Do you feel offended when all the Jews were persecuted? Do you feel as much offended about that as you did about these two Jews you knew?
A. When on the 9th of November, 1938, I saw and I heard the Jewish synagogues were burned down, I was ashamed as a German, I must say that. I waited for the man Goebbels not to remain for a day longer in his office than necessary, and I must say it was a tremedous shock for me when I saw that he would remain in office, and not only, that but he was justified in his measures. If that is what you want to know, your Honor, I can still say as a German I think it is a shame and a scandal that churches are being burned down.
Q. All right then, you did agree with Hitler's policy of persecution of the Jews.
A. If it is a mortal persecution as it actually happened to be, If it was intentional to carry out the Jewish question systematically into the channel into which it was carried and to carry it out in that manner, if that really had been the case, although I do not know whether it was the case, then it is not for me to say here that I condemned the solution as it was later on called.
Q. Do you agree or not agree with Hitler's policy against the Jews?
A. I did not agree with this shape of politics.
Q. Very well. Then you had that reservation in your oath to Hitler.
A. In only this, your Honor, as a going system.
Q. You did have that reservation in your oath to Hitler?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. when you were protecting the churches in Russia, did you also protect the synagogues?
A. I said in Smolensk there were no synagogues, and it is a fact that although these two churches were protected by me that was mainly for the reason that there were archives there and valuable treasures. I did not want to leave these churches open to plundering and spoliation.
Q. You were interested in the church because it was a depository of documents in which you were interested and not because it was sacred as a place of worship?
A. Why I was interested in this, was that the question?
Q. Yes, because you had told us that you had protected these churches, Now, you say you were protecting them from plundering because archives were located there. Now, I ask you, were you interested in saving these eeclesiastical edifices because they were the depositories of documents in which you were interested, and not because they were places sacred to worship?
A. I thought they were places of worship, and I thought one should return these places to people for this purpose. I believed that it was necessary and self-evident that churches that were wished for by the population as places of worship should be returned. I do not think it is my merit only that this was done, and I think a number of people did that, and I do not want to brag about it because I regard this as selfevident that it should be done.
Q. Well, you bragged about it on Friday, and have you changed your mind about it now?
A. No, but I do not Want to brag about it.
Q. How many men were in your command in Moscow, in your kommando?
A. In the Advance Kommando Moscow there were twenty-three people.
Q. In your organization did you have a chaplain?
A. In the advance Kommando Moscow, no. The advance Kommando's twenty-three men did not have a chaplain.
Q. Did you have a chaplain in your other organization, when you were with the Waffen-SS?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever conduct religious services yourself for your men?
A. I could not do so. I am not a clergyman.
Q. Did you ever offer them facilities for worshiping?
A. If a man intended to go to church and worship he could do so, he was free to do so.
Q. Your interest, therefore, in Moscow, in saving these churches, was an interest which did not arise out of any religious impulse in yourself, do I take it?
A. Religious impulse, your Honor, was put in front of me as it were. It was wished that churches would be put at the disposal of the population, and I thought it was the right thing to do, to grant this impulse.
Q. Are you -- You don't need to answer this question if you don't want to. Are you a religious person yourself?
A. Yes, I regard myself as a religious person. It didn't seem clear to me when you were discussing the terror in Russia which you witnessed whether this terror was being perpetrated by the Russian forces or the German forces.
A. What I mean to say, your Honor, was that I myself am of the opinion that in the course of time instead of a peaceful policy in Russia a power policy, a force policy, was developed as it was connected in Germany with the name Koch. What actually happened is not only a shock to me but it was also a shock to large parts of the German population.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry to have broken in on your cross-examination, Mr. Ferencz. You may proceed. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q. Six, you stated that when you saw the burning of the synagogues as a German it struck you as a shame and a scandel. I ask you now, when you became aware of the fact that such defendants as Ohlendorf and Naumann here were executing or ordering the execution of people, did that strike you also as a shame and a scandal?
A. I can say that all these measures which were instituted in Russia at the outbreak of the war came under an unambiguous and clear Fuehrer order, and I think I left no doubt when I said that each person was in severe dispute with himself, and there are people who had this tension and it remained until this very day, but at the moment in which I am confronted with an order to a supreme commander or political leader, I am confronted with a choice on the one side and a political order on the other side. This tension is not new and historically speaking there always has been such a tension, I cannot say now if I am confronted with an order not --
Witness, pardon the interruption. However, I would appreciate it if you would first answer the question and then you may give whatever explanation you see fit. Now, I am asking you a simple question. You stated when you learned of the burning of the synagogues as a German it struck you as a shame and a scandal. I am asking you as a German did it strike you as a shame and a scandal when you learned of the murder of defenseLess people?
Answer the question and then proceed with your explanation. Is you answer yes or no? Did it strike you as a shame and a scandal when you learned about the execution of defenseless people?
A You mean, women and children?
Q You recognize the circumstances. You have told us there was a general Hitler order to kill all the Jews. When you learned that that Was being carried out, did it strike you as a shame and a scandal?
A I am prepared to answer it, but I cannot answer, if you don't ask me the question, "when". These orders that Jewish children and women were to be liquidated, I never learned in Russia. I cannot answer that, if I never found out about it. I cannot say how I regarded it. It is a hypothetical question. Nazi and an SD officer that the Hitler order to kill Jewish women and children and men was being carried out. When you found that out, at any time, did it strike you as a shame and a scandal, the same as the burning of a synagogue struck you as a shame and a scandal?
Q Did you regard it as a shame and a scandal. Those are your own words, you remember, as regards the synagogues. called by Goebbels as a spontaneous action, out without disregarding the Order of the Chief of State, the fact that synagogues actually burned and that no steps were taken to prevent this, I regarded as a shame, as a German and as a human being, but I cannot regard an order as a shame. It is, after all, the contents of an order, but not the order itself. I cannot say that an order is a scandal. If the Chief of State issues an order, I can only regard it as a human being, and I am prepared to regard and to judge it as a human being, but I cannot say that an order is a scandal, an order by the Chief of State.
I cannot answer that question.
Q I am not asking you about the order. I am asking you about the results of that order, the actual execution of people. You must have learned about that at some time in your long career as a Nazi. When you learned that people were actually being killed as a result of a Hitler Order, did that affect you as much as the burning of the synagogues did?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, I think it would be well, if you stuck to his original phrase, "a shame and a scandal", so that we don't get off into other bypaths.
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, Your Honor. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q You used the words, "shame and a scandal", as regarding the burning of the synagogues. I am asking you now, when you learned that people were killed, that Jews were killed, did that strike you as a shame and a scandal too? children as a scandal and a shame, whether they were killed by partisans, or the Fuehrer Order, or by bombs. That remains exactly the same, whether the killing of women and children is a shame. If you want this answer immediately, I regard it generally as a shame.
Q I am not asking you generally. I am asking you very specifically, and I would appreciate a specific answers: When you learned that women and children and anyone else were being killed by you, were being killed by the German, as a result of the Hitler order, did you regard that as a shame and a scandal? regarded the killing of the Germans. I simply cannot make any difference between the one and the other.
Q Is the answer, "Yes", you regarded it as a shame and a scandal, when you thought about it, is that correct?
Q Way don't you answer the question specifically? I put the question specifically.
Why do insist on making it general?
THE PRESIDENT: Put the question specifically and get a specific answer. BY MR. FERENCZ: the Hitler Order, did you regard that as a shame or a scandal?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, or no. not enter my head, but my reaction did not work in this direction.
THE PRESIDENT: You are being a little slow in answer to the questions which were put to you, but you will observe that in every instance, the series of questions follow upon something volunteered by yourself. These questions are all prescribed and precipitated by the statements which you volunteered on the witness stand. Further you indicated very specifically that you regarded the destructions of the synagogues on November 8, 1938, as a shame and a scandal. Now the question put to you by Mr. Ferencz is simply this: Since you regarded the destruction of the synagogues as a shame and a scandal, did you also regard the execution of Jews as a result of the Fuehrer Order as a shame and a scandal? Now, please answer that Yes or No or tell us you feel dis clined to answer it.
Now, yes, or no, or indicate you do not want to answer that at all.
THE WITNESS: Must I answer this question, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: I have indicated that if you don't want to answer it, then the Tribunal will have to assume that you don't want to make a comparison between the destruction of an inanimate conglomeration of stone, brick, and mortar, and pulsing live human beings. Now, if you don't want to answer the question, the Tribunal does not demand that you answer any question. You are indicted and you voluntarily take the stand. No defendant is compelled to take the stand, if he does not wish to, but once he takes the stand, he is subject to cross-examination and then, if he volunteers statements, certainly those statements are open to inquiry end the witness stated that he regarded it as being a shame and a scandal that the synagogues were destroyed.
Now Mr. Ferencz very properly asked you "Do you regard the destruction, the killing, the executing of men, women and children, as a result of the Fuehrer Order, a shame and a scandal?" Now, please answer that, yes or no, but, if you don't want to answer it, then, say, "Please, I do not wish to answer that question" and we will pass on to something else.
THE WITNESS: The shooting of women and children -
THE PRESIDENT: No, no. Now, we don't want another long speech. You are very interesting and we enjoy these bookish lectures of yours, being a university professor, they are very interesting, but now we have spent a great deal of time on this particular question and we don't want any long speech. Now, once again, Mr. Ferencz, put that question and stop there, and the witness will answer, yes, or no, except, if he is disinclined to answer it, then, he will have to ask the Tribunal to excuse him from answering the question, and of course be excused from answering the question. BY MR. FERENCZ: ler Order, did you regard it as a shame and a scandal?
Q I shall come to one more question. When defenseless men were shot, did you regard that as a shame and a scandal?
THE PRESIDENT: Why does it depend? Now, he said, if defenseless men were executed, a man is defenseless, he is helpless, he doesn't have an are to defend himself, I think that is what is meant by "defenseless", I don't need to have that amplified. If defenseless men were executed under the Fuehrer Order, did you regard that execu tion as a shame and a scandal?
THE WITNESS: If it is the expression of the fuehrer Order, then not.
Q Well, we have an interesting situation then. If defenseless men are killed as a result of a Hitler Order, you say that you did not regard that as a shame and a scandal. If defenseless women and children were killed, then you did regard that as a shame and a scandal. Why do you make the distinction? yes or no. This is the first time I have been allowed to say anything for some time, but I want to say something on my side, to make an objection. If you don't force me to answer, yes, or no, I want to state, Mr. Prosecutor, the term, "defenseless men" has to be defined very closely and you told me that I would be allowed to give a clarification afterwards. At the moment, or at least, shall we say, when I now state the meaning of the term "defenseless", the question is whether he would have the possibility to find out the case, or whether he would have been able to examine the actual possibility -
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, I think we can shorten this. What Mr. Ferencz meant, and you are right in objecting to the word "defenseless", if it were taken apart from the context of what has been going on now for two days by this: a man, a Jew, who was executed merely because he was a Jew. He was not spoken of as an individual that was given a trial or who was proved to have committed sabotage, or who was an active partisan, or who was lead out and shot. That is an act of war. We do not mean that idea. It means a man who was shot merely because he was Jewish, not having committed a crime, merely because of his race. Did you regard the killing of such a man, such a defenseless person as a shame and a scandal? I think that answers your objection.
THE WITNESS: In this question -BY MR. FERENCZ: The Tribunal has clarified the question. Would you answer the Tribunal's question, please?
A May I ask you to repeat?
Q The question is this: You stated that you regarded the killing of defenseless women and children as a result of the Hitler Order to be a shame sad a scandal. You also stated that you did not regard the killing of defenseless men to be a shame and a scandal. The question is: What is the distinction -- and by defenseless men, we meant to say, as the Tribunal pointed out, Jews who were killed just because they were Jews?
A Normally women and children are not waging war. On the other hand the man is a potential bearer of warfare. I underline this, I emphasize this "potential". If therefore the shootings are based on his characteristic of being a "potential" bearer of warfare, and if, furthermore, they are carried out when their potential guilt has been established in a concrete situation, then I think the shooting is justified. every day. The Jews were ordered to be registered. The old men who had never born arms in their lives were taken out and shot, along with the others. You have made a distinction between men whom it was justifiable to kill without limitation as to their condition or age, or class or anything else, and the killing of women and children, are you saying now that you regarded all men because of the mere fact of their sex as potential bearers of warfare, are therefore justifiable victims of this murderous order? and the women and children are disregarded. That, at least, is my opinion, and that is why I must make the primary and primitive difference between the potential bearer of arms and on the other hand the woman and the child. This difference is unambiguous and is in our cultural and moral code, and if I act according to this moral code, I must recognize this difference, but, if you ask my own opinion, I must give you the answer that according to the European moral code, the man is the bearer of arms, the bearer of warfare.
Therefore, I must make this distinction and I make it for this reason and for no other.
Q Then According to your cultural and moral code, it was justifiable to kill any man who was a Jew, regardless of his condition, age, or previous act, is that correct?
THE INTERPRETER: Would you repeat the question? It did not come through. perfectly justifiable to kill all men, because they were Jews?
A No, that has nothing to do with my moral and ethical code. According to my moral code, guilt has to be established, a guilt from a concrete situation. Europe, and your cultural and moral code, men were regarded as bearers of warfare? killing Women and children.
A This specific conclusion I did not draw. You did. I only stated facts of the case. children, out it was justifiable to kill men. is what I mean. were Jews was justifiable? it is justifiable, or, at least, was justifiable. It is another question whether it was also morally justifiable. any way? atmosphere, I regard the Fuehrer Order as unmoral, if I can speak as a citizen of a state. If I may be permitted to say so, who have, during the last thirty years, watched the establishment of a fighting moral, together with and in addition to a Christian and humanitarian atmosphere, and when I saw, according to these new orders, women and children were killed, not in actual combat, with your permission, I must say, as a citizen of a State, if I may be regarded as such, I regard it as amoral, but, of course, I can no longer say that as a humanitarian and as an individual.
I am justified to regard it as immoral. I want to say that quite clearly, out, as a citizen, I can only regard it as immoral and I give you the reason. The whole warfare moral or the so-called civilized world is overshadowed today.
MR. FERENCZ: It was a long speech.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you get an answer?
MR. FERENCZ: No, I didn't.
I would like to put the question again very simply. As I understand your answer, you regarded the Hitler Order as amoral, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Now, listen, Witness, you can't be two individuals. You're one men and you can't day, "over here I am a citizen. Over here I am a person. Over here I am a professor. Over here I am a, soldier." You are one man. Please answer the question as one man, and we have spent a great deal of time on this. It has all been very interesting and it hasn't bear lost, because we got angles which might not have occurred to us before. Now let's epitomize it in one very simple question, did you regard the execution of a Jewish man, a male, did you regard his execution - merely because he was a Jew as a shame and a scandal?
THE WITNESS: As an individual, I regard -
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no. Did you, not as an individual, just one certain individual, you. I only see one person. You talk to us as if you were a whole platoon of men.
THE WITNESS: I have Said that I regarded it as amoral. BY MR. FERENCZ: defendants, that the Hitler Order was a proper order?
THE PRESIDENT: While you are right at this point, I think I would like to acquaint Dr. Heim with what -- would you please step up to the podium, Dr. Heim? Because the witness has mentioned -- the witness has just Stated that he refused to answer this question, which might concern other defendants. I would like to call your attention, Dr. Heim, since you were not in the courtroom at the time, that this morning the witness made an answer which might seem to be contradictory to the answer which he made to a question put by you last Friday and, since it involves your client, we believe, in the interest of fairness and justice, you should know this answer, which could, be contradictor to the answer he gave on Friday. You had asked the witness this question: "Do you mean to say by that that the Commander of the SK 4a would have the possibility to prevent executions which he had been ordered to carry out. The witness answered among other things, but he made this very specific reply, "It is, of course, evident that whoever received an order had. to carry out the order." This morning he stated that had he received such an order, he would have refused to carry it out so in that he made a distinction between himself and your client, and we believe that you should be acquainted with that answer made by the witness. If, later on, Dr. Heim, you would like to question the witness on that, you, of course, will be permitted to do so.
DR. HEIM: (Attorney for Defendant Blobel): Your Honor, above all, I went to thank Your Honor for drawing my attention to this. Secondly, I take the liberty to ask you whether after the conclusion of the cross-examination of the prosecution, I can ask a few relevant questions of the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you will be permitted to do that, Dr. Heim.
DR. ULMER(Attorney for the defendant Six): Your Honor, may I ask you to inform Dr. Heim of the fact that the defendant refused for his own person and therefore provided that the question has no relevancy.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I'd suggest that you acquaint Dr. Heim with the general nature of the witness' statements so that Dr. Heim may be entirely at home in this for the cross-examination when he takes it up.
DR. ULMER: Will that be now, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, during the recess, hut I will say this for the information of the Marshal, that during the recess, the witness is not to speak to anyone.
DR ULMER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, I think we might recess now.
MR. FERENCZ: If Your Honors please, I have just one question I would like to put. BY MR. FERENCZ: answer this one too?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. He refuses to answer why he refuses to answer.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, thank you for giving me the possibility of informing Dr. Heim. I used the recess for this, and at the same time Dr, Heim. I used the recess for this, and at the same time Dr. Heim was informed through his assistants who were present throughout the entire morning's session.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes,
DR. HEIM: (For the defendant Blobel): Your Honor, I an very well informed about everything the witness stated this morning, but my questions relating to this, I would like to ask at the end of the cross examination of the Prosecution
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, we are disposed to let you do that, so you do not have to argue about that. Yes, the Prosecution will finish its cross examination and then you will be given ample opportunity to go into that subject or any other Subject which you deem relevant in behalf of your client.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome. BY DR. FERENCZ:
Q. Six, do you know a police major named Johannes Hermann Mueller?
A. I do not remember that.
Q. How has made some statements about your character, which I would like you to have an opportunity to explain. Therefore, I am going to give you an interrogation of this police major, and will ask you to read two of the questions which were put to him, as well..... I will ask you to read to of the questions which were put to him concerning you, and to read his answers out loud, and then to give us an explanation of his statements. The questions are 27 and 28. Would you please read that out loud? Would you please read it out loud? I won't hear anything.
A. I am just ready.
Question No. 27. To the person to be interrogated, (probably it is meant to be Nebe, N-e-b-e) at the time?
Answer: That is a very important question. Do you know all those people.
...it was such a strange mixture of people.
that he had the execution carried out. I don't know whether he was an old-time Nazi.
He fitted very well into the circle.
"Question No. 28; What kind of an impression did he make?
" Also one of those wild worriers. This repelled me a little. A full stop I always thought , Good Lord, that man is a Professor. At the time He was dull. He had worries about his family and his wife, I don't know, but apart from that he was not very quiet." given to those questions?
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, the name Muller, is the most popular name in German. For that reason it would he very nice if the Prosecution would submit this document as evidence in order to give me the possibility of informing myself which Major Muller from the police is concerned, and to use that in my cross-examination and how it comes about that he holes such an opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel let me make one suggestion which has nothing to do with your request, that when any attorney steps up to put a question or makes a statement, especially right in the middle of an examination being conducted by someone else, that he give his name and the client he represents so that it can be seen from the transcript at once who it was that made the declaration.
DR. ULMER: I beg your pardon, Your Honor, as defense counsel of the defendant in the witness box, Dr. Six himself, it escaped me at the moment.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not mean it as a criticism. I am only stating that for the purposes of the transcript, the record which is printed afterwards, it would not he too apparent that you were the defendant's counsel.
DR. ULMER: I know, Your Honor, but still I had to beg your pardon because it was a mistake on my part.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, now Mr. Ferencz, Will you please answer Dr. Ulmer's questions.
MR. FERENCZ: I shall be very glad to give it Dr. Ulmer and make it a part of the record. I am talking about Johannes Hermann Muller.
I will give defense counsel whatever information I have about Herr Muller in order that he may acquaint himself with who this person is. I know he is a police major and I have given that much to the defendant. Now to come back to my question.
Q. Do you have any comment to make or examination concerning this police major's opinion about you?
A Well, I don't knew this police major and I don't know who he may be. The explanations are so general that I cannot comment on them, no decisive fact is put down here upon which I could comment. tyrant, particularly as regard to your subordinates? me. If you can give me details about it I can tell you what I think about it.
Q I will give you part of Schellenberg's interrogation and I will ask you again to read the questions concerning you and the answers, and then you will be given an opportunity to explain it, it is question No. 29.
DR. ULMER: For the defendant Six; introduce these documents as evidence and to give them an exhibit number.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the derendant has asked to see the document so that he may be able to explain it, I have given him the document and it will depend. upon his answer whether I choose to submit it as a rebuttal document or not. I submit we are not obligated to make a document of ever piece of evidence we present to the defendant for the purpose of cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: So long as defendant and defense counsel are given every opportunity to see, study and scrutinize the document or Paper or memorandum whatever it may be, that the Prosecution is using, there is no necessity of making it an exhibit unless the Prosecution desires to do so.