A. I said during my direct examination that the men which were left in Radomyszl by the Commando, about three or four, had been detailed to this operation on the part of the Higher SS and Police Leader, and took part in this operation, and that this report must come from the source of Obersturmbannfuehrer Mayer who was the permanent deputy, of Group C with the Higher Police and SS Leader, and that this kommando, these three or four men, would not have been in a position to shoot these 1107 people. This is one of the most evident reports, as to how the situation reports were compiled from all sources.
Q. would it have been possible for the men of the Teilkommandos; as far as I remember you were not sure whether these Teilkommandos were 15 or persons. Let's take it there were 15. If they would have used automatic pistols or submachine guns and would have shot the people in the neck , would it then have been possible to carry out as many executions as are mentioned in this report?
A. I have already made a statement on this in my direct. examination , that certain particular measures, executive measures of the higher supreme leader had beenordered, and that it was impossible to reach this number of executions with only 15 men.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal then that it is impossible that these Teilkommandos carried ou t shooting by submachine guns or by automatic pistols or by shooting in the neck ?
A. It was prohibited.
DR. HEIM (For Blobel): Your Honor, It is a hypothetical question and the witness is under no obligation to answer this question. Your Honor, I object to the admissibility of this question. It is a hypothetical question which the witness cannot answer and need not answer. According to my knowledge witnesses may only be asked questions which witnesses are able to answer according to their own knowledge or what they know from hearsay.
THE PRESIDENT: As the Tribunal heard the question it had to do with the methods of execution so that certainly would be within the sphere of the witness's knowledge, and as I recollect, the specific question was whether machine pistols were used or whether the method of shooting in the neck was employed.
Now, the witness can answer whether those methods were used or not. That is not hypothetical. killing was done by means of machine pistols or the technique of shooting in the neck. Will the you please answer that question?
A. For execution the kommandos had rifles as ordered. Submachine guns or machine guns or hand pistols were prohibited. They were not used. Also the Russian method of shooting in the neck, was equally prohibited and it was not carried out. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Do we understand that all those exectuions were done with rifles?
A. with rifles as ordered by the kommando.
Q. And we understand that you said yesterday that there were two riflemen per subject, per executee , is that right?
A. Two men, two rifles, for one person.
Q. Yes. Now leaving aside for the moment all discussion about the correctness or justice of an execution, we would like to have you describe an execution. Now, in your affidavit of June 6, 1947, there is one paragraph which states that out of the total number of persons designated for the execution 15 men were led in each case to the brink of the mass grave where they had to kneel down, their faces turned towards the grave. By whom was the grave dug?
A. Our men dug the grave, our men.
Q. The subjects had nothing to do with the digging of the grave, is that correct?
A. No.
Q. No, now you say, "their faces turned toward the grave. The execution squads were composed of men of the Sonderkommando." Well, we will leave that out, because we are now only describing or attempt ing to have you describe an execution.
When the men were ready for the execution one of my leaders who was in charge of this execution squad gave the order to shoot. Since they were kneeling on the brink of the mass grave the victims fell, as a rule, at once into the mass grave." In order that the subjects would fall into the mass grave and in order to avoid shooting in the back of the neck, I take it then, that the shots would pass over the grave?
A. The shootings? No, the target was : heart and head.
Q. Yes, but the victims were on the other side of the grave. In other words, they had to be facing the riflemen and consequently the grave would be between the riflemen and the victims.
A. Up to ten steps; up to ten steps.
Q. No, no, please answer that question. The position of the grave as regards the riflemen and the executees, was the grave in between these two groups?
A. No, the grave was the last unit, grave, executees and the kommando - the firing squad, the grave and executees.
Q. Then they would fall over backwards into the grave?
A. No, they fell face down.
Q. Then you had to shoot them in the neck, in the back?
A. Yes, in the back.
Q. Oh, then , you did shoot them in the back?
A. They were shot in the back position.
Q. Well, if they were facing the grave and would fall into the grave upon being shot, then they would have had to be shot in the back, would they not?
A. Yes, that is what I say.
Q. Yes, they would be shot in the back. You did not shoot into the neck, you say?
A. No, not the so-called shot in the neck of the Russians, the way we put it, the pistol shot, which is fired at a very close range of the executee.
Q. Now you say that the rifleman would aim at the heart. Was any placard or bull's eye or any kind of a marker placed on the executee's back so that the bullet would reach the heart of the subject?
A. Yes, there was a bull's eye over the heart and the middle of the head.
Q. Always on the subject's back?
A. No, the men know this from their military training where to aim.
Q. Yes, but the shot would always enter from the back.
A. Yes, they were shot from the back.
Q. Yes, now what distance was the rifleman from the subject?
A. Up to 10 steps.
Q. You say up to ten steps? Could it have been shorter?
A. 8 to 10 steps.
Q. 8 to 10 steps? Would that include the length of the rifle or not? In other words, would the ten paces extend from the muzzle of the weapon to the subject, or from the rifleman to the subject?
A. From the back of the subject , who was about 1 to 2 paces from the grave until the first member, there was always 8 steps, 7 to 8 feet, 7 to 8 steps were actually made; to one farthest back it was ten steps; when the order was given to fire, the first member kneeled down; the second member kneeled down in the place of the first; the first victim kneeled down; the next was supported by the next one; then the order was given to fire and rest arms, secure arms, arms down. The first man got up and the men stood at ease.
Q. You say that the victim was helped by the next person, you mean by the next victim?
A. I do not understand.
Q. Who took the victim to his place?
A. There were other men, other units, when, for instance, 30 men were executed in these places and 6 to 3 men shot at a time, then the others were led in by a group of another 4 to 6 people and were put into position and the men who brought in those people also were the ones who put them into the graves and the death was confirmed by them.
Q. Yes, now you did say in answer to one question that a bulls eye was used and then later I understood you to say that the riflemen were so expert that they knew where to aim. Do I understand that in som instances a marker was used and in other cases no marker was used?
A. I did not say that markers were used, that bulls eyes were used and I am only trying to explain how a group was shot by a military Kommando and how the military kommandos carried out the shooting.
Q. Then I misunderstood you. I am sorry.
A. According to military rules.
Q. Yes.
DR.HEIM: (Attorney for the Defendant Blobel): Your Honor, the misunderstandings are the fault of the bad translation of this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
DR. HEIM: I found out that, for instance, it was said when Blobel said the following: that the Russians carried out the shooting into the neck, the word "Russians" was left out. This is not true, Your Honor. The witness said there were not markers or bulls eye. It is only the fault of the mistranslation. There are misunderstandings between the Tribunal and the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then I can clear that up very easily, Dr. Heim, I will put a direct question to him which, I am certain , will clarify the entire situation.
Q. Was any type of marker or sign used on the victim to guide the aim of the riflemen?
A. No.
Q. Were these riflemen all previously qualified as expert shots ?
A. As far us people were members of the SK 4a, they were police officials or detachments of the Waffen-SS or the Army Units and they all had had a military training, and aiming training, and firing training were within the plan of instructions.
Q. Striking a vital spot in the body requires a very steady hand, a very good eye, and perfect control of the nervous system. Could you say that all these riflemen were so trained that they could bring home their shot to a vital spot in the victim's body at all times?
A. After the order had been given to fire the deed were examined and two men were detailed with this task. It was always clearly established that the aim had been reached.
Q. Were these physicians who examined?
A. Those were people who had been detailed by their Commanders to deal with it. Sometimes they were officers of the Army units or even the leader himself, and when Army units dealt with these executions there were also medical officers.
Q. But you did not always take with you a medical officer, did you?
A. In Sokal the executions of which I am describing, these medical officers and these military doctors were present.
Q. But in the Teilkommandos which were made up of small groups, would there be a physician available at all times at the execution?
A. The respective military commander of the unit had to give the order; had to report about it to his superiors. If he had to report about an execution to his superior officer, I can assume that he kept to the instructions.
Q. But it would happen would it not, thatat times there would be no physician present and then this examination would be done by one of the squad?
A. In sokal the exectuions of which I am describing , this was carried out to the samllest detail end I can assume that in other locations officers took great care that these rules were carried out.
Q. I am only asking you, Witness, wouldn't it happen that because of the small number in the squad that a medically trained person would not be present and then the examination would need to be done by one of ths soldiers or one of the officers not medically trained?
A. I hardly think that one would have trusted the judgment, of just one single person. The officer or the leader of the SK, whoever it was, must have confirmed himself the actual death of the victim, because that was his duty.
Q.Yes, I take it that an officer would confirm the fact of death, but this officer would not necessarilybe a physician. Now what tests would the officer apply? Would he listen for a beat of the heart, or would he touch the pulse? What methods would he usually employ to ascertain whether the victim was really dead or not?
A. When no doctor, no physician was available, I am sure that he must have gotten hold of a trained medical officer of some kind, whom he consulted.
Q. Well, now you said in your answer that "when no medical officer was abailable." That presupposes that none was available. Did the examining officer merely look down into the grave to see whether anyone was moving or not and be satisfied with that kind of an examination whether death had been inflicted?
A. No, no. After every shooting order this happened: After each firing order, when the shots were addressed, somebody looked at the victims because the victims were then put into the grave, when they did not fall into the graves themselves and these tasks were in the field of tasks of the men of the individual commandos. The edge of the grave had to be cleaned, for instance. Two men who had spades dealt with this.
They had to clean it up and then the next group was lead there.
Q. Since this was all done rapidly, might it not be possible that a victim would be buried, even though not actually dead?
A. No, that is quite impossible, Your Honor.
Q. You exclude that possibility?
A. Yes, for the simple reason that if it was ascertained that the shots which had been aimed at the head had not actually hit the head, one of the men of the firing squad was called in, who fired again from a distance of 3 to 4 paces. He shot again and thus it was made absolutely certain that the person concerned was dead.
Q. In applying the coup de grace, was a pistol or the rifle again used?
A. Only the rifle was used.
Q. The rifle was used in every instance?
A. Yes.
Q. I understand that your regulations, as you pointed out yesterday, provided that two rifles were used for a non-German and five rifles for a German, in the event there had to be an execution of a German subject, is that correct?
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. Will you please tell us just what you said yesterday on that subject?
A. The military regulations decree that if a German has to be shot, the man must be shot by five rifles; five rifles must point at the victim. That was the subject of the discussion which Field Marshal von Reichenau had who decreed that only two rifles should be used in disagreement with the regulations and who also further decreed that the grave should be dug and this grave had to be placed in a territory suitable for executions and executions had to be carried out either in the early morning or in the evening. After that the grave had to be filled in immediately. The ascertaining of death in each case was the duty of each leader and he had to make use of medical officers or Army physicians and these regulations were thus carried out by officers and leaders and they were followed.
Q. You told us that an execution would usually occupy about ten minutes. Would ten minutes include the marching to the grave and the placing into position and the firing, the examination of the victim, and the actual burial?
A. As I said that ten minutes was the minimum period, that is, of course, all according to the area and the various groups. It might have taken a little longer.
Q. But, generally, ten minutes or a little longer would include the entire operation from the moment that the victim marched to the grave until it was all over.
A. Ten to fifteen minutes.
Q. Yes, now was that also true when women and children were executed?
A. I never saw that.
Q. You never witnessed the execution of women and children?
A. No.
Q. We will come back to the question I put about a minute or so ago which I don't think you fully answered, namely, the German regulations which provide that five rifles shall be used in the execution of a German. Then you stated that the Field Marshal had reduced this number to two for non-Germans.
Is that what I understand you to say?
A. Yes, in this form it had been ordered.
Q. The original order which came from Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, Streckenbach and all the way down to you, what did it say with regard to the number of rifles to be used per victim?
A. There were no directives about the carrying out of this order, or, at least, they were not announced. I received my instructions from the Supreme Commander.
Q. When he reduced the number from five rifles to two rifles, was there any discussion on the subject?
A. No. the Supreme Commander ordered this in his instructions. He said there used to be five men who participated in an execution of Germans. Now we shall use only two, and that was the order.
Q. Did he regard that two would be ample to do the job?
A. That must have been his opinion.
Q. Yes, well, then, do you know the original regulation provided for five, if two would have been ample?
A. I don't know the individual orders of the Army units.
Q. Very well. Now, isn't it possible that the reason five rifles were ordered originally was to exclude the possibility that the victim might not actually fall dead after the volley?
A. Whether the possibility exists that the victim might not be killed after two shots, is that what you meant, Your Honor?
Q. No, this was what I meant: That five rifles, or five bullets, were required by the regulation in order to lessen as much as possible the chance that one of these bullets, at least, did not strike a vital spot. In other words, there is more chance that a man will die when five rifles are firing at him than if only one is firing?
A. I do not understand. In the case of five shots, it is without doubt that death would occur.
Q. Yes.
A. If there are only two shots, death will also occur after the shots hit the head and the heart, but one rifle is not enough. Therefore, the Field Marshal ordered two shots.
Q. Yes, but with five being a certainty, two could mathematically be less than a certainty.
A. It had the same effect.
Q. Very well. The victims who were awaiting their turn to be shot, could they see what was happening before their turn arrived?
A. No.
Q. How were they hidden from the view, or how was the view concealed from them?
A. The victims were under guard in the territory farther away and in such a position that they could not see what was happening.
Q. How much distance would they need to travel after the order was given that they were to be shot until they actually arrived at the grave?
A. At least 100 paces, all according to the area, whether it was hilly, or even, or whether there were any buildings.
Q. If there were any physical objects large enough behind which they could be kept for a few minutes, you always endeavored to plate them behind these objects, is that what I understand you to say?
A. Yes, yes. People were led in back of these physical objects.
Q. Very well. Of course, they could hear the shots?
A. Yes, that is possible.
Q. Yes. Did you over have any experience with the victims being recalcitrant as they were being lead to the grave, attempting to break away or was there any demonstration, or any attempted struggle?
A. I could never observe when I was in Sokal that there was resistance.
They were well guarded, and Eastern men get over things so very quickly and I was always surprised at that. Even when those executions took place in Sokal the same thing happened. It was quite unbelievable for us Germans.
Q. You mean that they resigned themselves easily to what was awaiting them?
A. Yes, that was the case. That was the case with these people. Human life was not as valuable as it was with us. They did not care so much. They did not know their own human value.
Q. In other words, they went to their death quite happily?
A. I would not say that they were happy. They know what was going to happen to them. Of course, they were told what was going to happen to them and they were resigned to their fate and that is the strange thing about these people in the East.
Q. And did that make the job easier for you, the fact that they did not resist?
A. In any case, the guards never met any resistance or, at least, not in Sokal. Everything went very quietly. It took time, of course, and I must say that our men who took part in these executions suffered more from nervous exhaustion than those who had to be shot.
Q. In other words, your pity was more for the men who had to shoot than for the victims?
A. Our men had to be cared for.
Q. They had to be guarded?
A. Cared for.
Q. I didn't catch that.
A. The men who shot had to be looked after, needed to be taken care of.
Q. And how were they cared for? Did you have nurses along to cheer them up in this task that they had to perform? In what way were they cared for?
A. The people had to be told before these executions about the crimes of the executees, why they had been sentenced. They were told about those facts and that the order of the Supreme Commander was the death sentence and that they had to carry out these orders by actually shooting these people. These men of our Kommandos where did they come from? They came from all classes of the population. One was a criminologist. One had a free-lance profession. One had been a merchant. They had never shot anybody before and for those people it was something quite unusual.
Q And you felt very sorry for them?
Q You didn't feel any pity for the victims because you felt that they were entitled to be shot? they actually committed. Those people had themselves committed murders and shootings, and shot soldiers, and who by their own will had brought death to other people. execution?
Q Now, you said that all these people had committed crimes. Mr. Hochwald was examining you not very long ago about the death of ten Germans and the killing of 1,160 Jews in retaliation. 116 Jews per German. Now, did each group of 116 participate in the killing of that one German?
A I don't know. killing of 10 Germans -- had they themselves committed the crimes which you have just mentioned? You said that all these victims themselves had committed murders, they themselves had killed people; therefore, there was no reason why you should waste any sympathy on them. But if 1160 people were killed for the death of 10 Germans, it follows that some of the 1160 had not actually killed anybody, doesn't it? Your Honor, you were mentioning the figures which refer to an incident in Luck where a number of Ukrainians were murdered by Russians -- and 10 German soldiers were murdered by Russians, as it says here in the document.
Q But Mr. Hochwald questioned you at length on that very subject, and he asked whether you would be filled with revulsion at the thought of 1160 people being killed for the death of 10 Germans, and you said, Well, I would have to consider that.
And after some consideration here in the witness stand you finally came to the conclusion that the reprisal was justified. Is that right? justifiable to kill 1160 people because 10 Germans had been brutally murdered. fluenced the Field Marshal, and upon which he ordered retaliation measures. Whether the number is just in any such instance I cannot say but retaliation measures are justified in any case.
Q But this is something which is very recent. The questioning took place a half hour ago or so. Mr. Hochwald asked you whether it was proper and just to kill 1160 people because 10 Germans had been killed. And you, after a great deal of deliberation and voicing your doubts, and expressing your opinion, finally concluded, here on the witness stand, that since 10 Germans had been killed, brutally killed, murdered, that it was entirely in order as a military measure to have a reprisal, and if 1160 were executed that was entirely correct. You said that, didn't you? measure, and the ratio of 1 to 116 is too much, too high. If it had been 1 to 10, veil, I could understand it, perhaps.
Q You would justify 10 killings to one as a reprisal? perhaps not even the ten, but at any rate nine wouldn't have committed any murders themselves.
Q We understand, you said that. It is a retaliation measure. It is reprisal measure. It is a military measure. You told us that. And we understand it.
But if ten are killed for one, then at least nine of the ten are innocent of killing. regarded as hostages, as it is used, generally judging it in the manner of the people, it must be said that if one person is murdered ten hostages must be shot. And if the Supreme Commander says one person must be shot, then he can take out one of these people. the supposed criminal, it is entirely in order to execute the ten?
A I imagine that they must be able people. That is what I mean. actions to be hostile to the German forces, if there is a death on the part of one of the German forces. it is entirely in order, and proper, to have reprisals. And you have indicated a ratio of ten to one would not be unreasonable. guilty in your eyes because he was part of the enemy? if he took part in a crime he had to get his punishment, but I do not know details about the extent of reprisal measures carried out by the army units. I have no judgment of it. From my own human feelings, from my own understanding, I can only say that such atrocities had to be avenged.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say something, Dr. Heim?
DR. HEIM: Before we have the recess, Your Honor, I would like the following question clarified. Is the defense allowed to speak to a witness who has been brought here by the prosecution as a prosecution witness. The prosecution itself is of the opposite opinion.
MR. HOCHWALD: I do think that Dr. Heim refers to the defendant, not to a third witness. As far as I can remember, the Tribunal ruled three or four sessions ago that during cross-examination the defendant is not to be spoken to by anyone.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand Dr. Heim's question to be that at all.
MR. HOCHWALD: I do think that is Dr. Heim's question, sir. Therefore I tried to have it explained.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please repeat your question. I understood that your question was -
DR. HEIM: An I permitted, as defense counsel, to speak to the defendant who is now in the witness stand after he is now in crossexamination. This morning the prosecutor told me that it was not allowed.
THE PRESIDENT: You were correct Mr. Hochwald, in your interpretation of what Dr. Heim said. When a witness is under cross-examination he is not to be spoken to by any one without the Court's approval. The Tribunal rules that while the present witness is under cross-examination he may not talk to his counsel or to any one else.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, just Before you resume I have only one question to put. BY THE PRESIDENT: our questioning, there is something said about the collection of clothing of the victims. Were the victims unclothed before the actual shooting?
Q In your affidavit you said, "At that time, clothes and valuables were not yet collected. Later on this was changed." Did the rule become modified in that respect, later?
by the Ukrainians and they took care of them. I know that.
Q Well, then, the clothes were removed Before the execution? taken away from them at all. This only happened in Kiev. How this was done, I don't know. In any case, the Ukrainians later took the clothes which were left behind and other items and distributed then.
Q. When the rule was changed, were the clothes removed before the execution?
A. In the SK 4a this never occurred. I couldn't describe any case and I don't remember any case where in any way the people who were to be shot had their clothes taken from them before they were shot.
Q. The reports take frequent references to the turning over of clothing to your commando SK 4a, clothing and valuables, was this clothing and were these valuables collected before the execution?
A. The SK 4a never received such collections as I pointed out yesterday, it was reported in Shitomir once that the SK 4a received valuables there and the SK 4a has never been in Shitomir. The secend case refers to Kiev.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Mr. Hochwald: BY MR. HOCHWALD: may it please the Tribunal:
Q. Herr Blobel, did the Sonderkommando 4a also report to the army authorities?
A. Sonderkommando 4a, the leaders of the sub-commandos had to them to him, at least those which concerned his unit. About special reporting about their activities I hardly think they had to do to the General of the Division. The G 2 officer dealt with this, who was in charge of this task.
Q. Who gave a report to the I-C officer about executions being carried out?
A. Well they gave him the records and the G-2 Officer either had to contact the G-2 section of AUK 6 or had to ask for authority or orders to carry out executions, and if the sub-commandos took part in these, an officer must have known a bout these facts.
Q. Do I understand you correctly, that they reported about the number of executions which were carried out, is that right? Will you answer that "yes" or "no", please?
A. I would like to hear your question again, please?
Q. It it correct that the Teilkommando leaders reported about the numbers of executions they had carried out to the army authorities?
A. These reports to the army authorities....
Q. I asked you to say first "yes" or "no", then you may explain to the Tribunal whatever you want to explain, but I am at a loss to understand whether you answered my question in the negative or positive. Therefore, please, answer first by "yes" or "no" and then explain,
A. As a reply to the question of whether the sub-commandos gave reports to the army authorities....
Q. About the executions, the number of executions which they carried out. This is the question. It is a very, easy, short question:
A. Of course.
Q. Did you read these reports?
A. How could I have read them, I never used to get them.
Q. They were not sent from the army authorities to you?
A. No, no.
Q. Do you remember having seen a report to the army authorities concerning the executions carried out in Kiev on the 29 and 30 of September?
A. From the army authorities?
Q. Or by the army authorities?
A. I don't remember ever having seen a report.
Q. Could it be true if the army got these reports, and as I understand you, the army got these reports not over staff leader Hoffman, who was exaggerating so very much the numbers, would it be true that if in such a report by the Army the number of 33,000 would appear, would you then still say that this number of killings was exaggerated?
A. According to the reports and all of the talk in Kiev about this occurrence at the time it couldn't have been that number of people. These were all estimations.