told you during this meeting? from this moment on you are officers under martial law, and you have to carry out missions which I am now going to tell you about. You have to execute them exactly as any soldier would before the enemy. Then he detailed the missions and the directives and he said. "During the march in the east which is to be expected, Einsatzgruppen will be formed which are sub-divided into commandos and you will lead these commandos. And the Einsatzgruppen and commandos will be under the Army commanders during this march to be expected in the east. And the mission which I am now going to explain to you is the following: all elements which endanger the security of the troops: the activists, Communist agents the security are to be apprehended, and Jews in addition. the case which was very close to his heart.
Q May I interrupt. You did say 'arrests' did I understand you correctly?
A There are to be seized. Apprehended, to the German army? questions about it later.
army? about it later. all Jews or the Jews who were dangerous for the security of the German army? formed and they discussed back and forth that they did not understand exactly what they did mean by that. Did they mean all Jews or do they mean only these persons who have to be prosecuted, for the whole picture was pretty much mixed up. It was not clearly delineated. am interested to know. to be considered out there and because we were under the army, we were under the supervision of the army, and in addition some directives of execution had to be issued, for the question was left open completely. I never saw a written order.
Q Witness, I don't think that you answered my question. I asked you: were you of the opinion that all Jews were to be arrested or only the Jews who would be dangerous for the German army and committed any crimes would be. arrested by the Einsatzgruppe.
Q Not all of them?
this court room? Did you hear his testimony here?
AAt the beginning I wasn't here. Streckenbach gave in Pretsch? Did you hear that part of his testimony?
Q I unfortunately don't have the transcript here but I do think that I can say he made it unmistakeably clear that Streckenbach told and everybody understood him so, that by no means only the guilty Jews were to be arrested, but there was an order in existence which provided for the killing of all Jews, men, women and children alike, and of the killing of all gypsies and the killing of all communists and that this was made perfectly clear in this meeting, in which you, together with the defendant Ohlendorf, were present, is that correct? not here. Streckenbach, did you not? now and I must always say that this question was discussed so often out there. Therefore, something must have been said in this respect, but if I must repeat this precisely I cannot do so. description of what happened during this meeting and on my question you have been repeating the very same precise description again. So tell me now, who is telling a lie, you or the defendant Ohlendorf? You both heard the same statement by Streckenbach. You both tell us something completely different about that, what Streckenbach says.
Will you tell me now, can you remember what Streckenbach said, did it escape your attention that he said all Jews were to be killed? "And Jews" we were to understand it that way at that time. between the testimony of Ohlendorf and yours. The defendant Ohlendorf told the Tribunal very openly and his testimony is corroborated by the testimony of four of your co-defendants, who testified after him, that it was an order to kill all Jews, not arrest them. It is entirely different. Will you explain that, why the differentiation between killing and arresting escaped your memory?
DR. HEIM: FOR BLOBEL: Your Honor, I ask that the Prosecution be directed that if he is recalling testimony of witnesses here, he should read the testimony. The Prosecution is not so much asking the witness questions but he is beginning to argue.
THE PRESIDENT: First let us clear up the initial point. The Prosecution asked the witness to relate what had happened at that meeting with Streckenbach, and the witness indicated those who came within the order, he listed spies, saboteurs and various others and then he ended with the phrase "and Jews". Now it is not necessary to labor that point. The Tribunal understands from that that whatever the witness was instructed to do with regard to certain categories, that it included all Jews. Now that is the first point, that is clear. The second point is what was the witness instructed to do with these categories which includes "and Jews", that is where we are at present. So you may proceed from that point, Mr. Hochwald, as to what he was instructed to do with regard to these various classifications, among which there was the item "and Jews."
DR. HOCHWALD: I only want to remark the fact that I was not able to present the witness with the transcript. I have sent for the transcript and by mistake another part of the transcript was sent to me, otherwise I would have had the transcript in English and German available.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but he has not yet answered that question specifically. So get an answer to that and then you can begin to make whatever comparisons the situation logically calls for. BY MR. HOCHWALD: you heard from Streckenbach, whether all Jews should be killed or whether they should be only arrested? Streckenbach was concerned, but these execution, measures would also have to be conducted and these did include Jews also, "and the Jews", that's how I remember and I meant that the entire Jewry was meant by this. BY THE PRESIDENT: Now, you haven't answered the question, witness. You have already disposed of the first part that it includes all Jews, so it isn't necessary to repeat that. We understand that, but whatever the instructions were, were they to include all Jews. Now what Mr. Hochwald asked you, is what were you to do with all Jews, added to the other classifications, of course. Now that is what he wants you to answer. shoot. BY MR. HOCHWALD: all Jews were to be shot, is that right?
Q That about the gypsies? more. This is all strange to me.
Q What about the communist functionaries? agitators were emphasized especially as the carriers of these political circles which would hinder the advance of the German army. were to be killed? that these cases had to be gone into and to be worked out that in order to apprehend these people the documentary evidence and the naming of people were to be found in this. And then it was concluded that these activists were the leaders of the communist party in that country. according to Streckenbach's statement sufficient that whenever somebody was found who was a communist the order was to kill him? be proven. knew when you left Pretsch that all Jews, whether they committed a crime or did not commit a crime, were to be killed by your unit, or that in the case of communists there was a difference made, as to whether a communist was guilty of a crime or not, is that what I take from your testimony.
in general terms and the apprehension of other people and their sentencing also was ordered by that order. that at least a part of your function would be to kill defenseless people, is that correct? "The Jewry" there were definitely defenseless people among them and one could not assume that they were all to be considered as criminals. and your unit did not commit any acts which were against the laws of war and the laws of humanity. Do you consider the killing of people, just for the simple reason that they were Jews, in accordance with the laws of war and in accordance with the laws of humanity?
A No, not at all. Not with this conclusion.
Q But you had your order from Streckenbach. Will you comment on that. Will you explain to the Tribunal and to me, how it is possible that you made this statement just now. It was an order that you received?
Q May I interrupt you. It took approximately half an hour to get you to say on this that all Jews were meant with these words, so we are so far that you said you knew that all Jews were to be killed. Please explain now the question I asked you. You told the Tribunal that no acts were committed by you and your unit, which are against the law and the laws of humanity. My question is, did you consider the killing of defenseless people, just for the simple reason that they were members of another race in conformity with the law of nations, and the laws of war, and. the law of humanity.Will you answer this question, please?
THE PRESIDENT: The trouble there, Mr. Hochwald, you put him a question and after you put these questions, then you said, will you answer the question please. Now he said, nein, nein., and. I don't know whether he gave one "no" for the first question, and the second "no" for the second question, or both "no's" for the second question, or both "no's" for the first question. Just ask one question at a time, please.
MR. HOCHWALD: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. BY MR. HOCHWALD: people just for the simple reason that they were members or another race, that is , in conformity with laws of war end laws of humanity? they are Jews, I don't consider in accordance with the conception of international law, and not according to the laws of humanity either.
by your units. How do you reconcile the fact that you received the order from Streckenbach to kill all Jews on the one hand and on the other hand that you never carried out any acts which are against the laws of war and the laws of humanity. How did you reconcile these two statements? regulations which were to be issued by the chief of command 6 and I was under his command. This was the framework in which I was included in this order, and the opinion of this man was decisive.
Q You are speaking about Field Marshal von Reichenau, are you not? disregard this order which was handed down by Streckenbach, but came, as we have been very often told here, from the head of the State and Highest Commander, Adolf, Hitler? at the Army Command 6, but he had a written order. Streckenbach, if Field Marshal von Reichenau did not even know about the order? exactly the same, and he had it in his document, and Major Paulsen read it to no when I reported to him. also by Field Marshal von Reichenau to kill all the Jews? Field Marshal had to see to it that the orders of his subordinate commanders were examined and that they were followed. the same order as it was handed down by Streckenbach, and this order was read to you. I do think that we agree that one of the most important part of this order, was the order to kill hundreds of thousands of defenseless people.
The question to you is: Did Field Marshal Reichenau hand down the order for the killing of all Jews to you?
A In this order it said -- "as it is to be expected -can explain the whole thing, but I would be glad if you could so answer, yes or no. It is a very easy question, if you can say in this order the killing of all Jews was provided for?
A No, this order was not given to me by Reichenau. For the reason that the order which was in von Reichenau's hands and which read: "That during the advance of the German Wehrmacht the political people who would endanger the security of the Wehrmacht and then it enumerates: the agents, the saboteurs, the agitators, and so forth and - among them Jews - among: them Jews, were to be dealt with by the police officers.
Q I don't know, but I do think you did not answer my question. Is it true, on do I understand you correctly that you said that in the order which was given you by Field Marshal Reichenau, the killing of all Jews was not provided for? not given in this form. and was an order of Hitler. Who relieved you of this order? I was now under Field Marshal von Reichenau's command, to whom I was subordinated, and I had to comply with his orders. a Higher Authority than Field Marshal von Reichenau was?
Q Did you carry out the order you received from Streckenbach?
given by the head, of the State. Can you explain that to the Tribunal? his area, and if he received the same order, he had to account for it to his superiors. Field Marshal von Reichenau the killing of the Jews was not provided, so he very likely did not receive the sane order. But did you report to Field Marshal von Reichenau when he gave you the information what your task would be that you had received in Pretsch, the special task to kill all the Jews with your unit? there was no question from von Reichenau which would have lend to that,to start this question, for I had no written order, I had only received an order from Rasch to report to Field Marshal von Reichenau he will give you further orders. order on your own discretion. That you just disregarded this order on your own discretion, the order from Streckenbach to kill all the Jews? Is that what you want to say? command at all. The Field Marshal might have said something else to me. immediate superior? chief of the group. Sofar as orders were concerned, the commander of Army Command Six.
Q Is it true that the defendant Rasch was your immediate superior?
Q You were commander of Sonderkommando 4-A, is that correct? 4-A were subordinate to you? A These sub-commandos were under SK 4-A organizationally, and were part of SK 4-A and therefore were subordinated to me as the commanding officer.
Q. And the officers?
A. Yes, the officers too,
Q. Did you have the duty to supervise the activities of these Teilkommandos?
A. To supervise the activity insofar as it convered the people conducting themselves in a soldierly manner and according to orders, a real job of leading men.
Q. You had no supervision of their activities, is that what you are going to imply?
A. In the activity I had no influence directly because the competent divisional commander or a member of the divisiona staff the G-II was the decisive factor.
Q. Did you or your office receive ever reports about the activities of these Teilkommandos?
A. Yes, of course, we received reports about the activity of these sub-kommandos.
Q. So you knew everything that was going on in those Teilkommandos, did you not?
A. Sooner or later, sometimes not at all.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal whether the leaders of your Teilkommandos carried out the Hitler Order which provided for the killing of all Jews and gypsies?
A. How carried it out?
Q. I did not say "how" I said "whether".
A. In this concrete form in which Streckenbach gave it they did not. The officers carried out the execution ordered to them in the way the Army Commander of Army Command 6 had ordered them.
Q. It means they killed only people who were guilty of offenses against the Wehrmacht, is that right?
A. Yes, as far as there was no agreement between the Higher SS and Police Leader and the Commander-in-Chief about entire localities as far as retaliatory measures existed or from other reasons.
Q. Were you informed about such reprisal measures?
A. Later and partly from the documents here,
Q. So you did not know during your activity that reprisals on a very great scale were carried out?
A. Yes, we knew that.
Q. And you considered those so-called reprisals justified before the laws of war and the laws of humanity, is that correct?
A. In my examination I emphasized that I considered that justified according to international law, What was done as a result of punitive action; but that people were shot who were not hold as hostages or were not guilty of anything, that I refused. I did not confirm that, and I objected to it.
Q. Were such people shot by the Teilkommandos under your command?
A. Yes, it is said here in the doucments that in Kiev it was the order of the Higher SS and Police Leader. The case of Radomischl was mentioned here where people of the kommando took part. These are incidents which I did not approve of at all.
Q. But you knew about that when you were commander of SK-4a, did you not?
A. Yes, certainly I knew about them. Yes, we heard about them, we were out there in that area.
Q. You have been very often ill during the time you were in command. You just told the Tribunal that you did not agree with those measures. Why did you stay in command of Sonderkommando 4a if you were so very much opposed to these measures?
A. Well I had no opportunity to go to a higher agency who would have taken a personal interest in it and would have immediately effected a transfer. That did not happen until later in Kiev when I spoke with Dr. Rasch.
of the campaign, quite ill as an effect from imbibing too much alcohol? Is it not true that you were to be removed at that time, and did you meet an intervention with your superior, the Defendant Rasch, that you should stay in command of Sonderkommando 4a, is that right?
A. That is not right.
Q. That is not true?
A. No, at that time I was sent to the hospital at Lucks because of suspected typhoid and I was unconscious with high temperature.
Q. How were your relations to Dr. Rasch, your immediate superior?
A. I first knew Dr. Rasch at Pretsch, and then I saw him again when the order was given out at Crocow on the 25th. Thus I got to know Dr. Rasch as my superior. Outside of that I had no contact with Dr. Rasch.
Q. Did he know that you were ill?
A. Dr. Rasch later was reported about it, yes.
Q. What do you mean by later, please, after you had returned or during your illness?
A. No, on the march when the remaining kommando went to Lutsk from Skolan and changed quarters there was a dispute between an Army officer and myself- and that was reported to Dr. Rasch at the time by the kommando. How that was reported, I don't know. For that purpose he sent Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Beyer to the kommando.
Q. May I interrupt you? I do think my question was: did Rasch know that you were in the hospital? He was your immediate superior. I do think it should be natural that he was informed that you were not in charge of the kommando, but it is my question, and you can easily answer it with yes or no, that it was reported to him that you were not on duty, that you were in the hospital, a few kilometers from the front.
A. Yes, the kommando probably informed the Group C whenever it was possible, and since it could not maintain communications with the group, the Higher SS and Police Leader must have made the decision in Lutsk, and he must have reported to Dr. Rasch. This is how I assume it, but I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: I am informed, Dr. Hochwald, that the film will expire in two or three minutes, so that I wouldn't want you to be right you see.
If it is agreeable to you we will recess at this point.
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
( The Tribunal adjourned until 30 October 1947, at 0930 hours).
on 30 Oct. 1947, at 0930-1630, Justice
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II-A.
Military Tribunal II-A is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
DR. MANDRY (for the defendant Sandberger): Your Honors, I would ask you to excuse the defendant Sandberger today and tomorrow, as I would like to prepare his defense with him.
THE PRESIDENT: You wish him to be excused now, immediately?
DR. MANDRY: Yes, end tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Sandberger will be excused from attendance in Court today and tomorrow. He will be taken from the Courtroom under guard.
You may proceed, Mr. Hochwald. BY MR. HOCHWALD: May it please the Tribunal.
Q Mr. Blobel, I asked you yesterday whether you once made an attempt to be relieved from your duties as commander of Sonderkommando 4-a. Will you tell the Tribunal whether you made such an attempt?
A When I was ill I asked Dr. Rasch to be relieved from my post.
Q When was that? of October.
Q What were the reasons for your request?
A Dr. Rasch knew that I was ill and the doctor told him about my state of health and he agreed to my release.
correct?
A Yes, and this was supported by Dr. Rasch. tasks which you had as commander of Sonderkommando 4-a? utter.
Q And why had you such reasons... why did you not conform with those tasks? of interests. And the whole assignment was revulsive to me.
Q Why... why did you have a revulsion against this task?
A I had had a different profession. I had been an architect, and I had not been active in police matters, and I had not been trained in this, and the Einsatzgruppen and the Einsatzkommandos... even when I joined the Einsatzgruppen in the army my actual task was going to be the carrying out of police measures -- police assignment. givings about these executions which were carried out by Sonderkommando 4-a, is that correct?
A Of course, I had a revulsion against them. That was part of my state of health. that correct?
AAs far as criminals were concerned, yes. Not the others. I have already stated that... I felt revulsive toward them from the bottom of my heart. chain of command as far as your commando was concerned... your Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4. You have drawn these charts yourself, is that correct?
Q Did you make these charts according to your memory?
in reality. your disposal now , is that correct? which our channel of command worked, and showing the communication relations of the different commands to each other. your own memory, the correctness of this chain of command, is that correct? time prior to 1941.
Q Have you such documents? according to your recollection? ordination at the time. compiled from any documents which you have, is that correct? as I experienced them myself while I was with AOK 6, and the subordination of Gruppe C. to report to Heydrich, is that correct?
A No, I was not forced to report to Heydrich. I had to go and see him.
Q But he spoke to you, is that right? minutes, then I left. That was the first time I actually saw Heydrich in his office.
Q He was your high superior?
superior. soft, is that correct?
A He used the expression "effeminate man".
Q Why did he reproach you for being too soft?
A I don't know. I discussed that with Obergruppenfuehrer Mueller and I thought about it a lot, and I assume that he drew that conclusion from the fact that I had been ill all the time, and he must have received further reports from Dr. Rasch or from other people of the same group. out the Hitler Order? during those three minutes he merely insulted me.
Q So you actually do not know why he considered you to be too soft? being entitled to furlough.