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.
TEE PRESIDENT: Did you not find any synagogues in your travels through Russia?
TEE PRESIDENT: You never saw a synagogue?
A I don't know how I could have found a synagogue....
THE PRESIDENT: I ma just asking you. You didn't see a synagogue in all the time you traveled in Russia and in the Ukraine?
THE PRESIDENT: In looking at your personal record I find a referennce to various decorations, and I am only asking as a matter of information what some of these decorations mean. What is meant by the decoration "Yuletide Candlesticks". Did you receive that decoration?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, the "Yuletide Candle sticks" is not really a distinction. It is an old Germanic object of cult. It is a candlestick where the Yuletide cnadle is put in and the remnant of the candle of the previous year is put under it so that the light continues to burn, and by the light of this candle all things concerning the family such as births and birthdays are celebrated while this candle is lighted in midst of a family circle. BY THE PRESIDENTS:
Q Well, is this in the form of a decoration or not? I don't know. I am only asking for information. among the leaders and SS men.
Q They were given by whom?
A By the Reich leadership of the SS. Every agency was constantly given a certain amount of Yuletide Candlesticks to be distributed to men and leaders.
Q And was this done during the Yuletide? the personel record if it was so generally done. If everybody got a candle why is it in this record next to the Gold Party Badge and the Deathhead Ring? candlestick and celebrates important dates of the family in the spirit of Yuletide.
Q Is this a religious ceremony?
Q What is the "Sword of Honor?" after he has been a leader for three years. He gets it from the Reichsfuehrer. That was a purely peacetime affair.
Q And you got that too?
QAnd then you got the SA Badge in Bronze. How, what did you have to do to get that? SA within a prescribed sports program, marching, gymnastics, jumping, etc.
Q Yes, and then you got the Deathhead Ring. Now, what sport did you have to accomplish to receive the Deathhead Ring?
Q You say "you believe". Do I understand that you received a decoration and you don't know why you got it? automatically handed out,
Q Did you receive the Blood Medal?
Q Did you receive the Coburg Badge?
Q Did you receive the Riding Badge? you were involved the record of the victim was examined? were compiled and were handed to the AOK/6. military unit that was close to the scene, then it went to division headquarters, then it went to Army headquarters, is that correct? general and from there it was sent directly from G-2 to AOK.
Q Well, this was in G-2 of the division?
Q Yes, then AOK approved or disapproved? If it approved then the record came back?
A The records came hack?
Q And eventually got to where you were involved, to your kommando? listening to the witnesses, writing up the reports, giving them to 3-2, going to division headquarters, Army headquarters, and then coming back. How much time was consumed in that operation? interrogations had been partly carried out by the Army units already. Supplements were made and reports were added by our people, just as circumstances were. came from the commander in chief that a certain person should be executed? during the evening discussion or during the morning discussion respectively with the legal export came to his decision the following day.
Q I see. From the time the incident occurred until the papers got to the Army commander and returned, how much time expired? it was quite obvious that the actual culprit had been found, it did not take more than one or two days, while in other cases where it was necessary to do further work, it took longer. re followed?
A Three hundred, did you say?
Q No, thousands. The records here show,these documents show on some occasions....
A Thousands? Inasfar as it concerned retaliation, measures, it is said that Army units seized these people. As to these retaliation measures certainly there was no interrogation previously "but those were reprisals which, had been ordered by the commander in chief, how long they took in Lutsk, I don't know.
involved that each case had been examined.
A I couldn't answer to that, Your Honor, Every case, as far as I know, was examined by my leaders and also by those whom I knew personally. the statement you made about the Eisenhower Order?
Q You only heard about here?
Q Very well. How, the original order that Hitler issued provided for the execution of all Jews, that is correct, is it not? the entire Jewry, yes. bach? order, or rather to give such orders myself, I must say that I was fortunate enough, compared to others, to be subordinate to Oberbefehlshaber, a commander in chief. order, is that what we are to understand? importance to the fact that the culprits be seized who did harm to the troops, and within the advance march this Army corps, at the front, such actions could not be carried out; and he did not carry them out either; but later the situation changed when the front did not move any more and the Higher SS and Police Leader, also with his orders, became active besides the command of the AOK/6. Then the Fuehrer Decree came to effect in its entirety.
that all Jews were involved, then you said to your counsel or one of the attorneys who was questioning you that this meant only to seize the Jews. That is what you told Mr. Hochwald, that Streckenbach didn't mean to kill the Jews, but only to seize them, is that right? shot. This referred to the fact that the Jews were ordered to be shot right from the beginning, and one could see that Streckenbach did not like repeating this order, and that this was one of the worst moments of his life.
Q Very well. How the documents relate how tine after time when your commando was in the vicinity of a certain place the documents show that executions took place of Jews, not spies and saboteurs, but just Jews, For instance, one report shows that on a particular day there were 36 political functionaries, 32 saboteurs and looters, and 4372 Jews. How, when this particular operation occurred, naturally there was no detailed examination of the cases of these Jews. That is correct, is it not?
A Your Honor, I cannot say that. Those are affairs which concern another unit and these are figures which are mentioned for the Kiev territory.
where Jaws ware killed merely because they were Jews that you just happened to miss the train; you got there just as the train was leaving the station; you got there just as the parade went by, or you got there just as the circus tent was being pulled. down; you always got there, a little late. How did you happen to rime this so perfectly?
A Your Honor, this was not done, on. purpose. It just happens like that and it was as I have described here when part of the kommandos were assigned. Thye had to take part and the entire organisation of the SK 4a, that is, in. its two sub-divisions, were carried out at the dates fixed, as I have described. My personal illness has nothing to do with these dates. During these months I dragged along and I had to beg so that they at last recognized that I was ill. various doctors treated me. The same staff physician that treated the commander in chief treated me in Shitomir. The men died of the sans illness fight days later, and then the group physician treated me.
Q Just one final question, fitness. Have you ever had any personal differences with the Defendant Steimle? differences. reference to you as a "bloodhound." Can you imagine why a person who did not know you and had no differences with you, had no reason to dislike, you, would volunteer to make a statement of that kind? Let ms make this very clear that we are not giving any credence to this affidavit. I don't know whether he has any right to say or not. That is not the point and I don't want you to assume that we are underwriting what Steimle said. I am only asking you to make whatever explanation you can as to why a total stranger would go out of his way to use such deprivious language regarding yourself.
A your Honor, I am at a loss myself about this. I thought about it why Steimle should have done this. It may have been from my personal attitude, because I attempted to keep discipline and order end cleanliness in my unit and some people did not like it.
all would call a person a blood hound because he was clean and insisted upon sanitation?
A Your Honor, that is the. contradiction which results and that is what I cannot understand.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, fortunately, we will be in a position to hoar from the affiant himself and perhaps at that time it may be less ambiguous.
DR. GAWLIK(Attorney for the Defendant Seibert) Your Honor, I ask that it be granted that the Defendant Seibert be excused for Friday and Tuesday in order to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Defendant Seibert may be excused from attendance in court tomorrow and Tuesday of next week in order to prepare his case with his counsel.
DR. FIGHT(Attorney for the Defendant Biberstein): Your Honor, following the questions which your Honor just addressed, I would like to address another question to the witness. May I?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, by all means.
DR. FICHT: As a result of your question.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. BY DR FICHT (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT BIEBERSTEIN): Fuehrer Decree that Jews were to be shot, merely because they were Jews in its entirety only had its effect when the fronts did not vove any more. Concerning this, I would like to ask you, did you mean to say only in the territories where the Higher SS and Police Leaders had been assignee or in the operation territory where the Einsatzkommandos were active? personally experienced, the territory of the AOK 6, which was under Reichenaw.
DR. FICHT: I have no further questions which interest me.
DR. HEIM( Attorney for the Defendant Blobel): Your Honor, would you permit me to address another question, following the questions of the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: By all means. BY DR. HEIM (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT BLOBEL): carried out under your personal supervision?
DR. HEIM: Thank you. That is all. your Honor, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: You said in Sokal, and then had he completed his statement?
DR. HEIM: Yes, Your Honor, he said in Sokal.
THE PRESIDENT: You asked him how many executions of the SK 4a occurred under his direction. Then, he says two in Sokal, well, does he mean in all? Did these two happen to take place in Sokal? I don't know whether his statement was finished or not, Q (By Dr. Heim) Witness, do you mean, altogether 2 exeuctions under your supervision?
Q And where did that take place? took place in Sokal.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, the Tribunal will grant me another 5 minutes, I could finish the evidence of Blobel.
I wish to ask the Tribunal's permission chat I may ask that a criminal record be brought from the Defense Center concerning the witness who will be called to the witness box here.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't quite catch your request.
DR. HEIM: I ask the Tribunal to grant that I may get a criminal record for the witness Hartl, whom I will call into the witness box here.
THE PRESIDENT: You want to present a document of some kind which refers to the witness that you will call?
DR. HEIM: Yes, Your Honor. In Germany, it is like this: Is a certain Court about every person who has been fined, a list is kept in this record, the fines and personal notes are entered.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal authorizes you at obtain and submit that record.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, Your Honor. Now my last set of questions; During the case in chief of the Prosecution, the Tribunal was kind enough to allow ms, concerning a document submitted by the Prosecution during the case in chief of the Defendant Blobel, to make my final objection. It is an affidavit by a certain Hoess contained in Document Book III-C of the Prosecution, Exhibit No. 134. This document was only accepted temporarily at the time. Meanwhile, from the record of the Pohl case I have had an excerpt made concerning this document and, if the High Tribunal is pleased by this, I would like to read parts of it, which concern this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I read from page 6236 of the German Record of Case IV before the Military Tribunal No. II of 3 September 1947. It says:
"MR. ROBBINS: The next document -- I don't have the original hers in Court so that I shall mark Exhibit 196 as document 4498A & B, and. I will offer it as soon as I can get the original. The Document Room has not completed the document as yet.
"DR. SEIDEL (For Defendant Pohl):"
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, I probably can shorten this a little bit. I have inquired into the whereabouts of this document and into the ruling of the Tribunal in the Pohl case and the Prosecution, submits that this document was rejected by the Tribunal in the Pohl case for the reason, that it is not a sworn statement.