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.
Q. Wherefrom do you know that those estimations were exaggerated?
A. Well because Hoffman already admitted that this figure was entirely wrong and that it was much too high, he should have know it from his discussions with the Higher SS and Police Leader and from the town commandant.
Q. The army authorities obviously were of a different opinion, I would like to introduce at this point document NOKW 2129, as Prosecution Exhibit 179, Your Honors. I am sorry I haven't got the English copy. I should have it.
THE PRESIDENT: This is the English.
MR. HOCHWALD: I know, but I don't have that copy.
THE PRESIDENT: You, yourself don't have one.
MR. HOCHWALD: Just the German. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. This document is a number of copies which were handed over for the war diary. We have translated only a few short excerpts out of the Enclosure No. 2 of this document, and this document reads on page 9 Of the original, which is page 2 of Enclosure No. 2: about "Subject: Visit to the Field Command 195 Kiev."
"The total population is estimated at about half the normal number, for instance about 400,000. The Jews of the city were ordered to present themselves at a certain place and time for the purpose of numerical registration, and housing in a camp. About 34,000 reported, including women and children, After they had been made to give up their clothing and valuables, all were killed; this took several days."
Do you think that this estimate is correct, Mr. Blobel?
A. Only from what I heard, I can only keep to what I have said already, that is an estimate.
Q. It it patently clear from this report as it is from all other reports which speak about the killing in Kiev, that women and children were killed in this execution. It it not Mr. Blobel?
A. Whether women and children were executed here too, is that correctly, what I understand, that is what was said then, yes.
Q. You testified here that retaliatory measures against Jews were necessary, and, therefore, in full agreement with the laws of war: would you be of the same opinion now as it is established that 34,000 were killed?
A. Such a measure, I consider now as ever to be incorrect and I could never testify to it as being correct.
Q. Did you find yourself bound by your orders to participate in executions of this kind?
A. May I ask to have that again, please?
Q. Did you find yourself bound by the orders you had received to participate in actions of this kind?
A. Yes, bound one was.
Q. You did feel yourself bound, is that right?
A. Yes, one felt bound to this order, yes.
Q. You testified here repeatedly that all reprisals were certainly justified, is that also correct in cases where at least one-third of the victims were woman and children?
A. I did not make any such statement on that or say it was justified if one-third of the victims were women or children. I did not state anything concerning this. I merely said it was wrong and incorrect to include women and children.
Q. The question is: Do you consider such an execution justified when approximately one-third of the victims are women and children, defenseless women, defenseless children? Will you answer this question, please?
A. No, I don't consider that to be correct. I have expressed that very clearly yesterday.
Q. Do you consider such killings murder?
A. Murder - in any case it was quite an incorrect order, and these are victims who would suffer in the course of war events whether it could be legally described as murder, that is a different question.
Q. What do you think - I do not ask the legal people, the legal people do know what it is to kill 33,000 people, but I asked your opinion:
Do you consider these killings in Kiev, as they appear in the reports here and in the report which Was just handed to you. Do you consider these killings to be murder?
A. Well, if one describes the killings of these people as murder or homicide so still it is a unique phenomena in the course of these war events.
Q. But Mr. Blobel, I asked you whether you consider the killing of these 33,000 people to be murder, which is a question which you can answer with a "yes" or a "no". Do you consider it murder or not?
A. No, the expression "murder" can not be applied here because there were reprisal measures which came in answer to terroristic actions.
Q. Do you consider these reprisals justified if one third of the victims are women and children?
A. This reprisal being extended to women and children I do not consider to be right.
Q. So, do you consider then the killing of women and children as it happened in Kiev to be murder?
A. It is a reprisal measure, which extends also to those women and children, and the person who ordered this had to see clear whether he could be hold responsible for murder for this or whether this was permitted as a reprisal measure and whether it was in accordance with International Law.
Q. This was not the content of my question. I asked you whether you considered the killing of defenseless women and children in an act of reprisal to be murder, yes or no, what do you consider it?
DR. HEIM: For the Defendant Blobel: Prosecution, the witness in his cross examination is only at the disposal of the Prosecution on facts which he has seen and heard about and he can only now testify on this subject. The opinion of the wit ness about any facts as maintained by the Prosecution are irrelevant and in my opinion should not be used in cross examination.
MR. HOCHWALD: Dr. Heim has interrogated the witness Blobel here for two days and during these two days the witness Blobel has a hundred times at least declared that the killings as carried out by Sonderkommando 4a and it's subcommandos were entirely justifiable in accordance with the laws of war and the laws of humanity. I should be at liberty to ask him now whether this statement which he certainly made of his own free will is also valid for the killing of women and children, that women and children were killed, is contended by the Prosecution and proved in it's case in chief.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one objection which has not been raised and which the Tribunal raises and sustains of it's awn accord, and that is the pounding with the pencil by the Prosecution on the podium which sounds like a sledge hammer in our ears.
MR. HOCHWALD: I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: So that objection is sustained on the part of the Tribunal. with regard to the Prosecution's question put to the defendant it is relevant but it seems as if the witness has given his answer and I don't know how a repetition can give us any more light than has already been shed on that particular inquiry.
MR HOCHWALD: I am sorry, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY MR. HOCHWALD
Q. In connection with the killings in Kiev you testified that you do not know whether members of Sonderkommando 4a participated in this execution, is that correct?
A. I did not say that. I merely explained that the SK 4a through an order for the group sent people to take part in the action which had been ordered by the Higher SS and Police Leader, and that the SK 4a then in fact appointed 15 people.
Q. So you know that members of Sonderkommando 4a participated in these killings?
A. I know that, yes.
Q. But you are also sure that neither you nor one of your officers participated in these killings, is that correct?
A. That is also correct, yes.
Q. Do you know Sturmbannfuehrer Albert Hartl?
A. Hartl?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I know this Hartl as a church expert in the RSHA, in the Reich Main Security office.
Q. Did you meet him once in the East?
A. I believe he visited troop "C" on one occasion and traveled through the territory during the winter once.
Q. When were you acquainted with him in Kiev?
A. I couldn't say that.
Q. Approximately in the spring of 1942?
A. No, I remember having see this man Hartl when I went to Kiev later to visit Dr. Thomas in the office of the Commander of the Security Police, I saw this man Hartl there. Yes, he must have been there.
Q. But you did see him then, it was when you met him at Dr. Thomas' it was in Kiev, was it not?
A. At Dr. Thomas's in Kiev, in his office building.
Q. Did you show him then, when you met Hartl there in Kiev, did you show him the place where the Jews who were killed by you and your Sonderkommando, and were buried in Kiev, can you remember this affair?
A. Me, to have shown Hartl that place. I cannot remember that at all. That is all imagined. At the time Hartl was in a SS and Police procedure because of some internal occuppences in the building there and I recall having met and saluted him when passing him/in the corridor in August and did not talk to him any more since then.
Q. I would like to refresh your memory. Your Honors, I offer document No. 5384 as Prosecution Exhibit 180.
DR. HEIM: For Blobel:
Your Honor, I object to this document. It is an affidavit by a certain Hartl which the Prosecution submits as Exhibit No. 81. I request that this document only be admitted if I am given an opportunity to see the affiant, a certain man Hartl, and to cross-examine him here on the witness stand. On the principle of the best proof it is appropriate that Hartl who as far as I know is in the prison here be brought into this court room to be examined here on direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you have to say to that, Dr. Hochwald:
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do think that this affidavit is perfectly admissable. If the Defense wants to crossexamine Hartl on the affidavit, the Defense is at the liberty to do so. He only needs to file the request of that kind with the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: If the affiant is available to the Defense for cross-examination and may be called by the Defense for cross-examination, then, of course, no harm may be done the Defense by the introduction of the affidavit.
MR. HOCHWALD: To the best of my knowledge, Your Honor, Hartl is here in the jail and can be called for cross examination by the defense any tine.
DR. HEIM: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. I want to read to you from this affidavit.
DR. FICHT: For the Defendant Biberstein: ted to us to be called as a witness and I, therefore, object to the admission of the document, because this person will be examined as a witness here any how, and according to the principle of the best evidence he should be examined here himself and not his affidavit introduced.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's hear what the Prosecution has to say in reply.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, Dr. Ficht himself has said that Dr. Hartl will be a witness for Biberstein, that means that he will be available to the Defense for cross-examination and from what he said on behalf of the defendant Biberstein it seems to me impossible for the Prosecution to receive from this witness the information on which the affidavit is introduced, as the case of Biberstein has nothing whatseever to do with a meeting which took place between the Defendant Blobel and the affiant, so from the contention of Dr. Ficht alone it is perfectly clear that we are at liberty to put in the affidavit. When Dr. Ficht calls his witness to the stand Dr. Heim will have ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness on the affidavit, but we do not intend and see no reason to bring this witness into Court in order to let him testify on two very short excerpts.
THE PRESIDENT: we would recommend this procedure: That the Prosecution counsel proceed to examine the witness on the statements made by one Hartl and to the extent deemed necessary on that subject. He may read what Mr. Hartl has already stated but the affidavit itself should not be introduced as an exhibit at this moment. After Hartl has appeared and testified then the Prosecution nay determine whether to present the affidavit or not because it may be that the witness will repeat what he said in the affidavit, and, then, of course, the affidavit is superfluous. He may deny it and then the affidavit may be introduced to impeach him.
MR. HOCHWALD: I thank you very much, Your Honors. May I then reserve Prosecution Exhibit 180, document No. 5384?
THE PRESIDENT: That reservation will be given to you.
MR. HOCHWALD: I would like to read from paragraph 3 of the affidavit:
"In March or April 1942 I met Paul Blobel in Kiev." That is you, Mr. Blobel, is it not, Paul Blobel, is that you?
A. My name is Hermann Wilhelm Paul Blobel.
Q. "When we were both making a trip to the estate of the commander in chief in Kiev. Dr. Thomas, on the outskirts of the city, in the vicinity of the cemetery, Blobel Showed me a certain place and said that Jews whom he had killed with his Kommando were buried there. It was an old tank ditch, which was later filled in. Blobel mentioned that these executions were carried out on the advance march."
what do you have to say to that, Herr Blobel?
A. This Herr Hartl I did not meet in 1941 but in the year 1943. This was not in March or April but it was inthe summer months July or August 1943. There I met Hartl for the first time when he was with Thomas. Whether I travelled out to the estate of Dr. Thomas with Hartl I cannot remember, because not after all of this time I cannot remember that, but I don't see why I should have done that and that I showed him a tank (Panzer) ditch on the way and said to him that Jews had been shot by my Commando there during the advance March, I presume he just endeavored there
Q. Is it true or not that you told him that?
A. It cannot be correct.
Q. It is not true then?
A. Noo it is not true.
Q. Then I would like to read from paragraph 5 of the same document, Your Honor:
"Twice while I was in the East I had a chance to see executions. The first one I saw in Kiev from a distance. Oberfuehrer Erhlinger had the Kommando."
Do you know a man by the name of Erlinger, Oberfuehrer?
A. The Oberfuehrer Erhlinger at the time was still a Standartenfuehrer in 1943, and was the commander of Kiev with the Commander of Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Thomas. I know this man Erhlinger but definitely he was not an oberfuehrer in 1942 already.
Q. "I saw the second execution in Kremenstchug, where Sturmbannfuehrer Platt had the Kommando."
Do you know Sturmbannfuehrer Platt?
A. No, I don't know Sturmbannfuehrer Platt.
Q. We will go on with the quotation:
"In the first execution exactly 100 persons were executed. In the second execution more than 100 persons were executed. The people were executed by a shot in the neck. The corpses were buried in a large tank ditch. The candidates for execution Were already standing or kneeling in the ditch. One group had scarcely been shot before the next came and laid themselves on the corpses there." carried out. Do you still maintain this statement?
A. I maintain it now as ever. The executions which the SK 4a carried out under my command at the order of the Commander-in-Chief were carried out in the proper court martial manner as I have described here. What Ehrlinger and Platt did at that time and this cannot have been that year, because one time they say 1942, and the date is wrong. It should be 1943. Those were Commando agencies which were active there two years later and I don't know anything about that.
Q. Do you still maintain that by Sonderkommando 4a no other shootings were carried out than by rifle, two men for one execution?
A. Yes, I state that now as before.
Q. Do you know how it was possible to kill approximately 34,000 people in two days, and this number should be established by now?
A. I cannot make any statements about that. I did not see it and it was up to the Highest SS and Police Leader who had ordered this, and as far as I know ordered his police regiment and the Ukrainian militia to do this and the 15 men of SK 4a did participate in the course of this action. Whether these men actually shot I did net witness that personally.
Q. You told the Tribunal that you were rather often ill. Will you give for the sake of the record exactly when you were on duty and when you were ill in the time from May 1941 to the time you left the East, which was in April 1942?
A. In the first third of July: 1941, throughout July I was in about hospital and at the beginning of August, during the first days I went back to the Commando.
Q. It would be correct that you were ill from the 10 of July to the 2nd or 3rd of August in the hospital?
A. That might be approximately correct.
Q. Proceed.
A. After my birthday I became ill again, around about my birthday, and approximately until the beginning of September, the 1st 3rd of September, shortly before the departure for Kiev, I was continually in the quarters there.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal what time it was, from whichday to which day?
A. On the 13th of August was my birthday, 4-5 days before our departure, and that was on the 17th, or maybe on the 18th when we moved. It must have been the 12th or 13th of September.
Q. It was a complete month, was it not?
A. Please?
Q. You were ill a complete month, from the 13th of August until the 13th of September, is that right?
A. Yes I got up in between but then it started again. Malaria and Wolhynian fever are similar and you have occasional attacks.
Q. Did you get reports from your teilkommandos during this time?
A. Some might have been received. It is possible that when I was well, I read a few reports and that I was told where the commandos were and how individual people were because in the house itself we had accommodated 10 or 12 sick people for as I have said this fever spread immensely.
Q. When were you ill for a third time?
A. At Kiev I had been wounded owing to the blasting on the 24th the 24th of September.