DR. HEIM: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If Your Honor please, Mr. Schwarz, these interrogator is just here and I can ascertain now the whereabouts of the affiants, Hartl and Ruebe.
THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would do that immediately.
HR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: Would you excuse me for a minute?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, the affiant Hartl is in the Hurnberg jail. The affiant Ruebe is hold by the Spruchkammer of Karlsruhe. Karlsruhe.
THE PRESIDENT: If Dr. Heim will present his application for the production of these witnesses, present his application to the Tribunal, it will be approved forthwith.
MR. HORLICK HOCKWALD: May I read not, Your Honor?
THE RESIDENT: Yes. please.
Q. (Reading) "In October 1943 I was transferred to Kommando 1005. This kommando was under the leadership of Standartenfuehrer Paul Blobel." Herr Blobel, is that you, Standartenfuehrer Paul Blobel?
A. I an Standartenfuehrer Paul Blobel, yes.
Q. (Reading) "It was the task of this kommando to destroy mass graves. This work was done by Hauptsturmfuehrer Harte. The graves were opened by Russian civilian prisoners, the corpses taken out by means of iron picks, piled up and later burned. After completion of the work, the Russian civilian prisoners were shot by the members of the kommando. The corpses were burned too. I was present at such shootings several times, namely at Minsk, Schmolewitzsche, Pinsk, Janow Koprin, and Slonim. At the beginning of December 1943, Standartenfuehrer Blobel, accompanied by Hauptsturmfuehrer Harter, arrived for the purposes of making an inspection of our work." End of quote. Do you want to comment on that, Herr Blobel?
A. Yes, I can comment on this that the Kommando 1005 was not under my leadership, but as I have already declared, that the Supreme Commander of the Security Police, I have not seen myself, or, that is, the commanders had this order.
As this man here describes in Minsk, a burning of the corpses and I never met a Hauptsturmfuehrer Hartl. In September I went to Kiev in the Eastern Territory to Oberfuehrer Piffrader. The commanders, or, at least, the BDS were responsible for the carrying out of these tasks in their independent sectors.
Q. So you deny these facts stated in this affidavit, is that correct?
A. In Minsk I have not attended any burning of corpses. In Kiew I saw a burning of corpses with Ehrlinger and from there I was detailed to the Eastern territories to Piffrader, and I never had such kommandos as an actual kommando leader.
Q. If I sum up your testimony, so you told the Tribunal in essence that Sonderkommando 4-a executed 10 to 15000 people when you were in command of this unit, is that correct?
A. He, that is not correct. I said that the SK 4-a participated in such executions, but that the komnando itself carried out an execution of 10 to 15000 people is not correct.
people. You have further stated that all these executions were justified in accordance with the laws of war, as reprisal against the inhuman and Criminal warfare on the part of the Russian enemy, and as just punishment for grave crimes the perpetrators had committed against the German armed forces. Is that correct?
AAgain, I did not say that. I especially emphasized that retialiation measures for crimes were judged by me apart from the retaliation measures, and that these executions were of 10 - 15000 people were never emphasized by myself, and was never in agreement with measures, but only which I have in time described in my direct testimony. against the carrying out of execution orders.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that the defendant has testified a great deal on that subject, and that is pretty general.
MR. HOCHWALD: This, your Honor, concludes my cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will now be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I offer Document NO-5498, which is the Ruebe affidavit which I just quoted to the witness, and the Tribunal ruled that it will be held in suspense until the Defense decides whether the witness should be called or net. But I would respectfully request that the Exhibit No. 181 should be reserved for Document NO-5498.
THE PRESIDENT: I think by all means when a document is referred to that it should receive an exhibit number, whether it is accepted later or not is another matter. But for the purpose of continuity it would be well to give it a number and that number will be assigned to the document in question.
MR. HOGHWALD: Very well, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will announce that this Tribunal will not be in session next Monday all day, so that when it recesses tomorrow afternoon at three o'clock it will be recess until next Tuesday morning at nine-thirty.
Does defense counsel desire to question any further? BY DR. HEIM (for defendant Blobel): tion by the Prosecution. In the cross examination the so-called Fuehrer order was mentioned, as Streckenbach announced it in Pretsch. I want to ask you about this. Was this order as it was announced in Pretsch already binding for you.... that is, based on the order which was announced, could you start your activity? him in my opinion included the entire order, and I expected certain more detailed instructions about this order. And to me they were given as Dr. Rasch ordered me at Cracow, - to report to the commander of AOK 6 Reichenau and to take orders of lives and his orders were within the framework of this main order the so-called "Fuehrer decree". Commander-in-Chief Reichenau had approximately the same order in front of him, in writing. I would like to ask you about this. This order, as Reichenau had in front of him in writing, was it valid for you in the same form, that is, for your activity. hands of Major Palzhof. It was concerned with the subordination of the Commando of the Security Police and the SS under the army, and described the tasks in the same listing as I have mentioned it in the examination. This referred in particular to this Commando. could you only than become active according to these directives?
or rather the divided SK-4-A, had to go to the army unite, and to work according to the sense, and the sense of this decree is issued with same order the division commander as it came from the AOK 6. order which Jeckeln announced. Based on this order which was announced by Jeckeln did you ever execute Jews merely because they were Jews, even when those Jews had not committed any crimes against war laws?
A. I never gave an order of my own. authority for any such thing, and didn't have Jews executed at my order memely because they were Jews. That never happened.
Q. In the cross-examination you also said that only those leaders of the sub-kommandoes know about the Jeckeln order, who were active in the executive staff. Did I understand you correctly there?
A. The leaders who were active in the executive were familiar with the exact executive directions and when the leaders met the leaders of the remainder of the command (Rst-Kommando), whether administrative leaders or others, it can be understood that they discussed this matter.
Q. During the cross-examination the prosecution mentioned document in which the execution of 1160 Jews were mentioned. In this document it is mentioned that this reprisal action was carried out because ten German soldiers had been murdered. You said - when this subject was discussed that this proportion, or this ratio of 116:1 Seemed rather high to you and you continued to say that the ratio of one to nine, or the to ton seemed appropriate to you. Witness, do you know whether according to the valid International Law a ratio in reprisal measures is prescribed?
A. I don't know that. I only knew that other countries also carried out reprisal measures, and have given orders for such reprisals, about one to two hundred according to the well known order of General Eisenhower.
THE PRESIDENT: You say there is a well known order of General Eisenhower that two hundred were to be executed to one?
A. All the German people know, Your Honor, that an order was given by General Eisenhower that for every one American who was killed, two hundred Germans are to be shot.
Q. You say, all the Germans knew about an order of that kind?
A. It is well known in Germany. Whether all Germans know this, I don't know.
Q. You said that all the Germans know about this order. Now do you say that every German and every defense counsel here know of such an order?
A. Your Honor, I am convinced that many of the defense counsel know of this order.
Q. Can you point out one defense counsel who will make the statement that he knows that General Eisenhower issued an order that two hundred Germans would be killed for any one Allied soldier killed? Will you defense counsel make that statement?
A. Your Honor......
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, may I add something here. This matter so far as I know was mentioned in the proceedings against the Southeast Generals in this courthouse, a few days ago. I know that the Defense in the Southeast Case has requested that General Eisenhower and a French General, whose name I can't remember, be called as witnesses into the witness box, in order to examine both on the subject. Also I learned that in this case a witness, a German witness testified that during internment in Thuringia, at the end of the war or after he saw pesters of the American Power of Occupation, according to which for each American soldier who is killed, I believe, one hundred Germans should be shot as reprisals.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state this of your own knowledge?
DR. HEIM: He, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now coming back to the statement of the witness, he said, first, all of Germany Knew about this - ALL Germans knew it. Now, we will retrace our steps. Do you say that all Germans knew of such an order? Answer that yes or no.
THE WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then you modified it, and said that many Germans knew of it. I would assume that it would be those Germans who were very intelligent, and who were aware of current affairs. May I come to that assumption?
A. That some Germans know about this, those Germans who read these announcements?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Did you yourself know of such an announcement?
A. In the individual camps like Garmisch.....
THE PRESIDENT: Did you yourself know of such an announcement?
A. I didn't read it myself.
THE PRESIDENT: No. Now you said that many Germans knew of it. In this Tribunal today, in this courtroom, there must be, undoubtedly, many Germans. Can you point out one who knew of this order which you have just stated. Your own counsel has denied that he knew of it. Does any counsel here know of this order?
A. I think the Defendant Ohlendorf for example....
THE PRESIDENT: I ask about counsel, first, the attorneys. Does any attorney here know about the order, yes or no?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Which one?
A. Dr. Heim, for example, read about, it.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim already denied of knowing about an order. Mention the next person.
A. I don't know the other gentlemen as well. I said I presume that people knew it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, so, therefore, this bread statement that all of Germany knew about it has now been dwindled down to a statement that you just don't know of it, your own counsel does not know of it, and you can not point to one single German in this courtroom who knew about it, outside of the defendants' box. How is there anybody else you can call in all of Germany who can state that he knew of such an order?
A. Your Honor, such orders were announced in the camps as well as by letters of relatives.
THE PRESIDENT: You yourself didn't see the order, or the announcement, that is correct, isn't it?
A. The announcement, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You say you did see the announcement? Did you See the announcement?
A. I personally didn't see it. I didn't leave the camp.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, no one in Germany can be called by you to state that he saw the announcement. Then you refer to the defendants. Now can you refer to any defendant in that box there who will state that he saw this announcement?
A. Whether anyone personally saw the announcement? Your Honor, as to the people who knew about it......
THE PRESIDENT: I want you to answer that question, whether any defendants here in this courtroom today who can state that he saw this announcement which you mentioned a few moments ago?
A. I'd have to ask each one individually.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will direct a question to all of the defendants. The witness has stated, of course, you have heard what he just stated, that an order had been issued by General Eisenhower that for every Allied soldier killed two hundred Germans would be killed. You heard the Questioning back and forth between the Tribunal and the witness. Is there anybody here now to justify that statement insofar as the defense counsel, or any other citizen in all of Germany. Now, did any of the defendants here in the court ever see such an announcement. If any one did, he will please raise his hand. No defendant has raised his hand, so now we come back to your original statement, that all of Germany knew of this announcement. Do you want to withdraw that statement?
A. If that inquiry by the President to those people show this result, I must say the fact is only known to individuals.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you withdraw that statement in view of the results which has followed your original declaration?
A. I shell have to do that because I personally didn't see it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and will you now make an apology for having cast this aspersion upon the name of General Eisenhower, who up until this very time has earned the respect of not only those in his services on the Allied side, but even the respect of the foe?
A. Under those circumstances I have to beg your pardon.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed, please.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, during the cross-examination you talked about the collection of the clothes of the people executed in Kiex. Were you present during that action?
A. During that action of collecting clothes I was not present.
Q. Did you not see how those clothes were collected?
A. No, I only heard later that the Ukrainians had to administer these clothes and also distributed them.
Q. Where were you in March and April 1942?
A. At the end of March 1942 I returned to Berlin and until the beginning of May I was in my apartment in Solingen.
Q. Can you tell me whether in March of 1942 you were called to the estate of Dr. Thomas in Charkow and traveled together with a certain man named Harter?
A. That is quite impossible. In March 1942 when I left Charkow Dr. Thomas did not have an estate but he was in Kiev in his office.
Q. Witness, I am referring to Document No. 5384, which has the temporary exhibit number 180. It is an affidavit by Harter. I refer to paragraph 5, executions by Oberfuehrer Erhlinger are mentioned here and executions by Sturmbanfurhrer Platt. Did these two men mentioned ever belong to your commando?
A. Neither Oberfuehrer Erhlinger nor Sturmbanfuehrer Platt ever were in my commando. Oberfuehrer Ehrlinger later on was commander of the security police in Kiev and Sturmbannfuehrer Platt I did not even know.
Q. Do you know how the executionswere carried out at the order of these two men?
A. I never heard about it and never witnessed it when these people carried out executions.
Q. I am referring to document number 5498, with a temporary exhibit number of 181.
The Prosecution submitted this affidavit by a man called Ruebe. I am referring to the Arabic figure 4 on page 2 of the original. Witness, do you have the document in front of you?
A. Yes.
Q. It says here in the second sentence, I quote:
"This Commando was under the leadership of Standartenfuehrer Paul Blobel. It was the task of this commando to destroy mass graves. This work was done by Hauptsturmfuehrer Harter."
Witness, do these statements of Ruebe's reveal that you were the leader of this commando?
MR. HOCHWALD: If your Honors, please, I object to that question. The document speaks for itself. The witness can not recommend whether Harter was correct or not correct, but he can state from his judgment whether it is clear from the document that he was in charge of the commando or not. Moreover, Dr. Heim has announced here that he is going to call the witness and I do think this is a proper question to put to the affiant when he takes the witness stand but not to the defendant.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, if the Prosecution objects to this affidavit which is not yet admitted, I think I am also entitled to refer to this affidavit on the principle of equal rights of Prosecution and Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Heim, I can assure you that there can be no question about the equal rights between the Prosecution and the Defense. Now if you will specify exactly just what it is you are socking to ascertain, the Tribunal will very happily cooperate with you. Now let us know just what it is you want to find out.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I shall not refer to the affidavit, but merely address questions to the witness without referring to the affidavit.
DR. HOCHWALD: If you please, Your Honor, the Prosecution has not objected that Dr. Heim may put the affidavit to the defendant and and ask him questions.
We have objected against one very specific question which was: "It is clear from this sentence that you were the commander of the Einsatz Commando." I have only objected against this question, not against the fact that Dr. Heim uses the affidavit. He is at liberty to ask the defendant about it and the things which are stated in the affidavit are true or not. Naturally we used it, why should he not use it? But I have only objected against this one very specific question, of Dr. Heim, as not being a proper question to put to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you opened it up first on crossexamination and Dr. Heim is allowed to explore the possibilities of that subject.
DR. HEIM: I will not refer to the affidavit any more but merely want to address a few questions to you about the action 1005 to you: Apart from the experimental plants at Litzmannstadt, did you carry out any burnings yourself, that is, did you supervise personally any burning of corpses?
A. The commandos assigned for this task in Litzmannustadt had been assigned by the commando of the security police of the Inspector in Posen and he supplied these men. The command of the security police or rather the order was handed on by me and the organizational and factual questions were dealt with by the Commando of the security police. He had set up commandos and saw to it that it was carried out and was subordinate responsible personally to the Reich Main Security Office for the carrying out of this task.
Q. Herr Blobel, did you know a commando under Hauptsturmfuhrer Harter?
A. I don't know the name Harter and I don't know any commando of that kind.
Q. Do you know Hauptsturmfuehrer Sekel?
A. I don't know him either.
Q. Witness, upon your order or in your presence were civilians or prisoners ever used for this burning of corpses?
A. In my presence and as far as I have witnessed it during the test burning of corpses in Litzmannustadt German Police, SS men, were used to carry this out and in the Ukraine and in Kiev where I was present myself, Ukrainian militia carried out this task who had been appointed for it. In these eases no civilians or prisoners of any kind were used for it.
Q. Did you hear that in any commandos dealing with this action 1005, civilian prisoners were used to carry out this burning or corpses?
A. I never heard of that because then I would have had to report to Gruppenfuehrer Mueller about it.
Q. Witness, my last question now. Since yesterday have I talked to you at all except here in public?
A. No.
Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, your questioning an document No. 5498 causes the Tribunal to make the observation that the statement in the affidavit that civilian workers were shot after having participated in the exhumation and the destruction of bodies, can in no way, be imputed to the defendant, and the defendant will not be called upon to answer any charge which might scorn to arise from that declaration, because the indictment specifically charges the defendant with crimes only up to July 1943, unless the Tribunal will be corrected by the Prosecution in that respect?
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honor, I only want to state that it is a fact in the statement by the Tribunal that the Prosecution refrains from offering this document at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: So that you will not be called upon, Dr. Heim, to present any evidence whatsoever regarding the statement that civilians were shot in October, 1943, because that is beyond the limit date specified in the indictment.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, thank you very much for making this statement. On my part I would like to state that under these circumstances I can do without the interrogation of Ruebe, the affiant. On the other hand, I think that the defense counsel of the Defendant Strauch I believe, wants Ruebe to be called to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: If that is true, certainly he will be called. You do want to have the witness called?
DR. MENSEL for Dr. Lick for the Defendant Strauch: in case the Prosecution intends to introduce document 5498 against the Defendant Strauch as evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear from the Prosecution on that angle.
MR. CLANCY: I wish to assure the Tribunal that the witness Ruebe shall be brought here forthwith as a Prosecution witness and placed at the disposal for cross-examination for the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: That will answer all questions here and he will be available if he is needed he will be questioned and if he isn't needed he will not be questioned, so that, therefore, your rights will be protected from any point of view.
DR. DURCHOLZ: For the Defendant Rasch: questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You may. BY DR. DURCHOLZ:
Q. Witness, the Prosecution asked you during the examination about the tasks of Strechenbach at Trebsch. I would like to have a few circumstances explained by you: When Strechenbach had announced the tasks at Trebsch, did discussions take place between the persons concerned and about this order?
A. After the short speech which Strechenbach held the leaders went in two rooms of the school and little circles formed, some higher leaders sat down in a corner and discussed this subject, which Strechenbach had just announced and gave their personal views on it.
Little circles stood around to discuss this question.
Q. How many persons were concerned with this order?
A. If I remember correctly, say 25, 25 leaders.
Q. Can I understand the answer before the last that you tried to say that they did not part immediately, but that the participants stayed together for sometime and discussed the order?
A. That is right.
Q. Were the opinions about the contents of the new order, did they differ?
A. Yes, they did differ very much, some understood it one way as totalitarian order, some talked about individual points of the order, how it should be understood. Therefore, it was uncertain.
Q Therefore, it was necessary. No definite line existed?
Q Was Dr. Rasch present during that discussion?
A I remember that I was near Dr. Rasch but that he then together with other leaders went to the other rooms to talk to them, Host of these leaders I did not know.
Q Then the second subject. You said, before that your birthday is on 13th of August, and that on 13 August 1941 you were ill? were ill. Can you state approximately the dry when this order was handed, to Group-C by Rasch? 13th, aid sixteen days after that, certainly.
Q Then a, third subject. You said that in October 1941 the Reichsfuehrer visited Kiev, and that Rasch was disapproved by the Reichsfuehrer, When was it in the beginning of October or the middle of October? absence Hoffmann was in charge of Group-C, and after Rasch's return at the end of October, the commando was finally given over to Thomas. Does this - I understand to mean that after Rasch left for Berlin the commando was actually not taken back by him? Dr. Thomas, This happened at the end of October.
Q Now one more question. You just said that the Reichsfuehrer came at the beginning of the month and that Rasch left for Berlin immediately after the visit of the Reichsfuehrer.
Q And arrived, at the beginning of October as well, then?
Q A fourth question still. You talked about the gas-van of group VI. When did this gas-van arrive?
A This gas-van must have arrived about the middle of October. I think the middle of October.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Thank you.
TEE PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel wish to question the witness? Witness, are you a religious man?
TEE WITNESS: I was brought up in the Protestant Confession. confirmed, and our whole family grew up in that spirit.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you a religious man?
THE PRESIDENT: Are you a religious man?
THE PRESIDENT: Are you a member of any church?
THE PRESIDENT: Why did you leave the church? the Calvinist Movement in Wermelskirchen in the "Bergische Land", who are a separate sect. They are not tied to a church community of the State.
THE PRESIDENT: You thought you could do better without any connection with a church?
A One could not speak of a better treatment. Perhaps one could move more freely and bad closer contact with the other members.
THE PRESIDENT: So you left the church because you wanted, more freedom, more spiritual freedom? of life.
THE PRESIDENT: You felt that the church in some way hampered your spiritual independence? made.
THE PRESIDENT: Since you left the church in 1936, did you at my time attend any religious services of any character anywhere?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Where? attend church.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but between 1936 end 1945 you didn't feel that you needed the help end support of religion as you now apparently seen to welcome it?
A No. We also visited church service during that time.
THE PRESIDENT: Between 1936 and 1945?
THE PRESIDENT: You only visited hut not to worship? Land.
THE PRESIDENT: And when was that?
A When was this?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
A I don't understand you.
THE PRESIDENT: You said that you visited certain church services, and I an merely asking you when was it that you made these visits?
A. That was during the years after we had left the Protestant Community, and to together with our relatives in the Bergische Land we had close contact on these religious questions, and in this circle we spent many hours of worship.
THE PRESIDENT: You yourself worshipped in church after 1935?
THE PRESIDENT: Well now , there is a difference between visiting and worshipping. One nay visit a church to study the architecture, and to see what is going on, but when he goes to worship he goes with an entire different objective in view. He goes to get closer to the Supreme Being spiritually.
service was, together with wife and children, sofar as they are grown up.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you did worship in church after 1936?
THE PRESIDENT: Then the statement in your personal record that you left the church in 1936 is incorrect?
A Yes. Officially I belonged to the Protestant Community no longer. Officially I had left the Protestant Church, and we had became more acquainted with the Calvinistic Bund in Wermelskirchen. We were together with all our relatives there, and, this "being together included almost the whole local group (Ortsgruppe) in that locality.
THE PRESIDENT: You left one church and entered another church?
A If you can call it a church. You could call it a religious
THE PRESIDENT: Then you never really did abandon religion?
A No, we didn't leave it.
THE PRESIDENT: No, Did it occur to you that before every execution that it might have been consoling and comfortable to the executees if they could have had the benefit of some religious service? the spiritual life of these men in the East.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand you to say that these individuals who were about to be executed were Atheists?
THE PRESIDENT: That most of these individuals who were executed were Atheists?
A Most of the people in this country have no religion. The people know no such thing. The churches were used as storehouses, and I never found that any place of worship existed, and that any religious services were held, but later after the German troops entered, some churches were opened a gain, where part of the Ukrainian population gathered again for religious services.