This activity in Blankenburg was ceased after ten days, because the American troops were approaching. Incidentally, during those ten days, the activities were dissolved, because there was no longer any mail. Had I remained there longer it would have been probable that Kriminalrat Mueller who had been detailed to Blankenburg Office IV of the RSHA would have taken over, and, in this case, I would probably have been transferred to Office IV from Office I of the RSHA, but it never came to that.
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, I have now finished the direct examination of the witness, and I would now like to ask you to permit me to submit the documents 1 to 3 as exhibits. Document 1 I have already submitted on Friday for identification. I do not know whether it would be agreeable to the tribunal if I deal with the legal points, and if I would explain them --those points which are contained in Document No. 1. Perhaps the Tribunal would prefer it if I would just inform them of the content of the matter, I would like to comply with the express wishes of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: It is enough if you indicate with a phrase or two the purport of each document which you submit.
DR. LUMMERT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: However, if you come to some document in which appears a paragraph or more which you regard of extremely vital importance and want to read that, of course, you may.
DR. LUMMERT: Yes, Your Honors, In the proceedings on Friday I already mentioned that in Document 1, the most important points have been collected which concerned a more severe punishment because of refusal to obey, especially in police organizations, in special assignments.
I had also mentioned last Friday the first paragraph, the concerning paragraphs from the military penal code and the second paragraph, the so-called Special War Penal code and I have quoted from this paragraph. In accordance with this special decree, I would like to make the following remarks. It was published at the beginning of the war and contained more severe punishment regulations. Especially, it concerned the socalled undermining of military strength. The reason I mention this here is that during the later years of the war in Germany the utterance of a more doubt of German victory or just a more doubt that the Fuehrer was right was deemed undermining German military strength and was punished with death. October 1939 by which special legal jurisdiction was being granted-
THE PRESIDENT: Where do you have the decree you just referred to, namely that the expression of doubt in the Fuehrer's perfection could result in a death sentence?
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, does this mean '2 or '3?
THE PRESIDENT: You have just said, Dr. Lummert, that in the latter days of the war that even an expression of doubt in the Fuehrer's infallability could result in death. Now where is that decree?
DR. LUMMERT: This is not a decree, your Honor, but this I remember as I was active as a lawyer during the war.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, are you, in effect, taking the witness stand now, Dr. Lummert?
DR. LUMMERT: No, no. Your Honor. That was neither a witness' statement nor a legal argument, but it was just an explanation to paragraph 5, No. 1, on page 6 of the Document Book.
This paragraph was used in this particular sense.
THE PRESIDENT: What is meant by paragraph 3 on page 6, which reads: "In addition to the death penalty, a penitentiary sentence is also admissible." Did they put the corpse in the penitentiary?
DR. LUMMERT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you catch my question, Dr. Lummert?
DR. LUMMERT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think you did.
DR. LUMMERT: Yes, Your Honor, the sense of it is, in addition to the death punishment also the property can be confiscated.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no. It says in addition to the death penalty a penitentiary sentence is also -
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, I am very sorry. There is a mistake here, a typographical error. It should read, instead of "In addition to the death punishment and the penitentiary sentence" -- "Or the penitentiary sentence, confiscation of property is also admissible."
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. LUMMERT: The third paragraph,of Document 1 concerns a special jurisdiction which also applied at the beginning of the war for members of the SS and members of the police, and other who were active in special assignments.
military law and with military jurisdiction, There was only just one difference. This difference was mentioned by the defendant Ohlendorf when he was on the witness stand. I may perhaps remind the Tribunal that the defendant Ohlendorf said -- it is in the English record 523, in the German 533 - "if war jurisdiction was very severe so the jurisdiction of SS was even more cruel." No. 6. That is page 3 in the center of the page. There it says that the SS and Police jurisdiction also concerned itself with police institutions in special assignment. The Einsatzgruppen whom we are dealing with here in these proceedings, and the Einsatz- and Special Kommandos were such police institutions employed in special assignment. I may mention here that this special assignment, this term is sometimes translated "on special, assignment" and sometimes "on special tasks," Both translations are correct and they mean the same. In German it is always "im besonderen Einsatz."
The next regulation which is No. 4, is on page 11, supplements the third decree and provided a special court in Munich as Highest SS and Police jurisdiction authority. contains a decree of Himmler as Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police of the Spring of 1940, This decree was to the effect that the entire German police for the duration of the war was employed in the sense that has been mentioned before. The point therefore was that since 1940 the Special SS and the Police jurisdiction was valid for the entire German police, no matter whether the police was acting inside or outside Germany, Therefore, the severe penal regulations were valid for the police since Spring 1940 without restrictions of time or place. 2 and 3. I can deal with them in a very short way. Document 2 is an affidavit by the witness Soechting concerning a remark made by Heydrich which he had made in the year 1937.
He was then Chief of the Security Police and the SD. Heydrich on that occasion said and now I quote from page 14 of the document, "Nobody ever leaves the Security Police unless we don't want him any more. In such a case, however, he may leave through a concentration camp." This remark was the answer to applications of members of the Security Police,especially of the Intelligence Deportment,who had asked to be released, from a speech of Himmler of 1943, in which he responds and refers to former remarks. The document was introduced as evidence in the IMT Trial. Himmler on that occasion said, I quote, page 16, center of Document 1: "If within the sphere of your knowledge should there be anyone who is disloyal to the fuehrer or to ourselves even if it is only in thought, you must see to it that this man is thrown out of the organization and we will see to it that he departs this life." That is the end of my quotation. "that obedience must be carried out without reserve and blindly." These words of Himmler, of course, only refer to members of the SS, but Himmler was at the same time Chief of the German Police and in the year 1938 already had established a close contact between the Police and the SS.
I should also like to refer to Blume Document No. 10.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lummert, by the introduction of these documents which tend to show that it was impossible for one to disobey an order or in any way to modify it, do we understand that you submit that your client did obey the order?
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, it is correct-
THE PRESIDENT: That he did disobey the Fuehrer Order?
DR. LUMMERTT: Your Honor, these quotations are merely meant to show that the defendant acted under force.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that then he did obey the order? Witness, we will put the question to you. There have now been introduced in evid ence various documents which are copies of official decrees of the hierarchy in Germany during the war. These decrees all tend to show that if one disobeyed or qualified an order that serious consequences would follow. Do we understand that you did follow the order so that you would not come into conflict with these decrees?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, in Vitobsk, for instance, as I described.
THE PRESIDENT: You did executes the Fuehrer Order?
THE WITNESS: Yes, however not to its full extent, but-
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, just a moment. Then you did not execute the Fuehrer Order?
THE WITNESS: Not to its full extent.
THE PRESIDENT: Then why are you submitting all these documents as to the great difficulty you would incur if you did not obey the order. extent indicated by that order?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, according to these documents, you should be dead right now for having disobeyed an order?
THE WITNESS: The modified way which I gave this order odd. not come before an SS and Military Court or Police Court, It did not come to any proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, these decrees in no way disturbed or affected you, is that right?
THE WITNESS: Of course, without this duress which was behind me I could, have followed my own intelligence and I would not have had carried out any shootings.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, please listen to the questions and answer directly. You received a Fuehrer Order which called upon you to perform certain executions.
Bid you execute that order?
THE WITNESS: Hot to its full extent.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you modified the order which was given to you?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:You did not execute the order which was given to you?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Then according to this decree you should have been court-martialled and shot, is that right?
THE WITNESS: If the matter had come before the court it would have been possible that the court would have drawn such conclusions, but I acted in a manner which one can call evasive, so that in such an action I would have been able to defend myself.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, so therefore all those decrees in no way distubed you, did they? You weren't court-martialled?
THE WITNESS: I said Your Honor, that there were particularly favorable circumstances so that nothing came of it.
THE PRESIDENT: I asked you whether you were court-martialled?
THE WITNESS: No,
THE PRESIDENT: Then these decrees in no way took hold upon you?
THE WITNESS: They were never used, Your Honor,
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, so far as your case is concerned, all these documents are irrelevant, is that right?
THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor, because I knew them and knowledge of these facts caused me to act in cases where I could see no way out to evade a direct order I remind you of the case of Vitobsk, for instance, where I tried to postpone the carrying out of the order until I got a new order by teletype message and, of course, now I had the last alternative, which, before I had evaded temporarily by joining the front troops.
THE PRESIDENT: You were ordered to execute all Jews, isn't that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is right.
Q. And according to your statement, you did not execute all Jews?
A. No.
Q. So, therefore, you did not follow the Fuehrer Decree?
A. No, not to that extent.
Q. You were very fond of Hitler at the time, weren't you?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. You adored Hitler?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. Then, why did you not follow out his order which was very expressly given to you?
A. For the first time, I was confronted with the fact that all my thoughts and my feelings could not follow the order of the Fuehrer.
Q. Then you had sworn undying allegiance to Hitler, hadn't you?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. And according to this oath which you took you were not permitted to change or modify any order... isn't that right?
A. No, your Honor.
Q. You were not permitted to change any order which was given to you by Hitler?
A. According to this oath, not.
Q. No. Then you were not faithful to Hitler when you changed his order?
A. I have had a baa conscience too, your Honor.
Q. You we re not faithful to Hitler when you did not obey his order. Answer that question.
A. Yes, you can call it that.
Q. You lied to Hitler?
A. Your Honor, I tried to find a way out-
Q. You did not obey the order that Hitler gave you?
A. In an advance kommando there were possibilities of following the Hitler order without being confronted with immediately an alternative. And this is what I tried, I tried to find consolation in the thought that I was doing my duty after all, without carrying out this special order.
Q. But you told us you did not follow out the order as it was given to you. How, you either must stand by that, or not. You told us very clearly you did not execute the order as it was given to you. Now, please give me that answer again. Yes or no. Did you follow out the Hitler order to execute all Jews?
A. No.
Q. Very well. Then to that extent you repudiated Hitler?
A. Yes, and I was suffering from a bad conscience, because I did not do my duty.
Q. All right, And you lied to Hitler, You did not follow out the oath which you took to Hitler?
A. Your Honor, the assignment was not only to shoot Jews.
Q. Answer that question, now. You have told us that you did not follow out the order. So that when you did not follow out the order, you lied to Hitler, you did not follow the oath. Answer that.
A. I did not feel it in this manner.
Q. You did not follow out the oath?
A. I deviated from the actual duties which were mine in Russia because I was still thinking that I was doing my duty, because in advance kommandos-
Q. Yes, we have heard all that... We got your explanation. But I an making it more simple. You took an oath to follow Hitler, to obey his orders explicitly...
COURT II Case IX Now, you have voluntarily told us, from the witness stand, that you did not obey that order completely. You attempted to modify it; you tried to get into a situation where you could change it; you tried to evade it. You told us all that. So, therefore, you did not follow Hitler implicitly?
A. Yes; it was the first time that I deviated from a Fuehrer order.
Q. Yes, Therefore, you were not true to the oath which you made to Hitler?
A. Yes, in this particular moment I deviated from the path of my duty.
Q. You lied to your adored leader?
A. Your Honor-
Q. Please answer that question. You told an untruth, by your deeds, to your adored leader. By your actions, not by words... but by your actions you told a lie, an untruth, to your adored leader, Adolf Hitler... Answer that!
A. One can formulate it so, your Honor.
Q. Yes so to that extent you repudiated Adolf Hitler-to that extent, that little bit.
A. Yes.
Q. Yes, So, therefore, Adolf Hitler to you was not infallible?
A. Yes. That was the first feeling I had.
Q. Now, how do you feel about Adolf Hitler today? Do you still think he was the perfect man you believed him to be before you lied to him?
A. The results of politics speak against it, your Honor.
Q. You had told us that when you marched into Russia you believed it was entirely justifiable because you thought Russia was going to attack Germany?
A. Yes.
Q. And you thought that all these other countries which I enumerated to you... Poland, and Holland, and Belgium, - and all the other countriese... you thought they were going to attack Germany?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you think that the little country of Luxembourg was going to attack Germany?
A. No; but it could be a territory of combat for other powers.
Q. So you thought it was entirely justifiable for Germany to march into Luxembourg?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. So, therefore, you justified everything which Hitler did up until June 1941?
A. Yes.
Q. So you believed in Hitler, in everything, with the exception of part of this order which he gave you?
A. This was the first doubt, yes.
Q. Yes. So the only time you disagreed with Hitler was when it might in some way affect you, your own fate?
A. The motive, your Honor - was not only my own fate, but the reasons for my behavior were the psychological and moral doubts which had to come up when carrying out this order.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. BY DR. LUMMERT:
Q. Your Honor, in conclusion, Document Book III. I only want to say that what Himmler said regarding the SS was also equally valied for the German police.
May I make a suggestion, your Honor. The ten documents in Document Book I, Blume, have not yet been numbered, they have no exhibit number. I would suggest that the exhibit COURT II CASE IX numbers be the same as the document numbers, which is the most simple way - which was also used in the proceedings before the IMT.
THE PRESIDENT: That system will be followed.
DR. LUMMERT: In that case, your Honor, I have no further questions in the direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may now cross-examine the witness. BY DR. ULMER (for the Defendant Six):
Q. Dr. Blume, when and where did you meet Dr. Six after the outbreak of the Russian campaign?
A. On the 6th or 7th of July at Minsk.
Q. What were you told about the tasks of Dr. Six?
A. My Kommando was moving towards Moscow. When I said good-bye to Nebe in Minsk, the Kommando was just about to cross the last resistance the so-called "Stalinlinie", and thought they would march to Moscow. For this reason, Nebe, when I said good-bye to him informed me to the effect that the so-called Kommando Moscow under Standartenfuehrer had been created -- the task of which was the safeguarding and maintenance of evidence material and documents in Moscow. Therefore, I did not have to prepare for this special purpose. He also cold me that the kommando had received special interpreters, and departmental experts, who knew circumstances and conditions. I remember this because I informed my men about these facts - the fact that we had competitors now, and that I expected that they would do everything in their power to arrive in Moscow before this advance kommando.
Q. How can I understand this? What do you mean "competitors?" Do you mean another Einsatzkommando, or do you mean only competitors as far as speed went?
A. I am only referring to the speed in reaching the aim.
Q. In your direct examination, Dr. Blume, which has already been read by the Prosecution, you used a term which I would like you to explain . In your examination, your testimony, you spoke about the sector , or the territory Six, or the sector or territory of the Advance Kommando Moscow. I would like you to tell us what you mean by this expression.
A. I would like to state first that this does not concern testimony but the transcript which were not signed by myself.
It was aremark which I made, and it referred to the fact that I rejected a reproach of the interrogator that I had stayed at Smolensk during this advance. I said that I had only remained at Smolensk for one day; and as I knew that the Advance Kommando Moscow took over with the safeguarding and maintenance of files and other materials in the Soviet House at Smolensk, after I had been there, I tried to express -- that Six was the competent authority at Smolensk, for the neighboring army, there can be no doubt , was the Special Kommando 7-b. I do not know anything about the local competence of the Advance Kommando Moscow.
Q. And you never learned about the competence, or, shall we say, the parallel or lateral competence of the Advance Kommando Moscow , in the sphere of tasks of an Einsatzkommando?
A. No, I never heard anything about it,
DR. ULMER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel wish to cross-examine? BY DR. MINSEL(Assistant to Dr. Gick, for the Defendant Strauch):
Q. witness, during the time of the drafting of Strauch to Latvia, and also later during the time of his transfer to White Ruthenia, you were personal Referent in the Reich Security Main Office. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it also correct that Strauch, after he had been appointed commander of the SD and the Security Police in Riga, that he rang you you upon the RSHA at Berlin and he said that he hadbroken his arm a short while ago, that the fracture had not been healed yet, and he was still receiving ambulant treatment, so that he could not occupy his position yet?
A. Yes, I remember this telephone call. Strauch asked for postponement of his being on duty, because his arm fracture had not not healed yet.
As the period he asked for was very short, I granted it to him that he should take his time , let us say a week, until he would have to take over his office.
Q. Witness, can you say anything as to the further circumstance of the transfer of Strauch from Riga to Minsk?
A. I only know that as far as this transfer of Strauch is concerned, considerable confusion was prevailing. He had hardly arrived in Riga, when, for reasons that are no longer known to me, the necessity came up to transfer a certain Dr. Lange in his position and recall him to Minsk; and Strauch broke his arm again when this plan was to be carried out, and in my opinion Streckenbach then decided that Strauch should have his arm healed definitely now -- he should do that at home, before he was to take over his office.
DR. MINSEL: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel wish to cross examine? If not, Mr. Ferencz will take up the cross examination on behalf of the Prosecution. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q. Defendant Blume, there are, first , a few points I would like to clarify. You stated in your direct examination that when you were interrogated in the British zone, you were beaten by some of the people who held you in custody? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever make any statement under duress?
A. No.
Q. Has anything been introduced in this Court which you did not voluntarily give, without any force or violence?
THE PRESIDENT: Please repeat the answer.
A. I said that in my direct examination this morning by my Defense lawyer I have emphasized the fact that the statements I made to Mr. Warten berg were not made under duress.
Q. By Mr. Ferencz) Inother words, there has not been introduced in Court here, any statement which you did not voluntarily make?
A. No. Everything was given voluntarily.
Q. Do you think it was an American authority who beat you while you were in confinement?
A. No. I know that it was not an American authority.
THE PRESIDENT: He did say that it was a British subject.
Q. (By Mr. Ferencz) You have told us that you were present in Duben and Pretsch when the Hitler order to kill all the Jews was passed on to the kommando leaders, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us, please, which of the defendants in this case you heard protesting against that order?
A. Yes. I have already said that the office chiefs themselves who were in the same official relations with Streckenbach, shouted while this lecture was given, and Ohlendorf was one of them. Furthermore, I also tried to give a general, impression which I had. I cannot of course, remember the individual people who expressed their disaproval.
Q. You do remember Ohlendorf shouting disapproval? Do you remember what he shouted?
A. During my interrogation I tried to express that I believe I have heard shoutings of that kind, cat-calls, saying, "How is this to be done!!! that is impossible!!! - -
Q. You say you believe that Ohlendorf shouted, "This is impossible". You are not sure that you heard him say that?
A. I can only emphasize again that the impressions of the situation then, are just general impressions, and as such they are not in front of me now in detail.
Q. Then you do not remember specifically any of these defendants protesting the extermination order?
A. I said already, that in the case of Ohlendorf Ican confirm it -- or, I believe I can do so because the number of those who had this particularly high rank was very small.
Q. You don't remember anything specific about any other . Is that correct?
A. I can give no details.
Q. You stated also that the general task of extermination was explained , but the details were left to the kommando leaders. Is that correct?
A. As far as the carrying out goes, yes. We did not get any detailed instructions as to the carrying out.
Q. You say there that the kommando leaders themselves must be responsible for how these general orders were actually carried out. Is that correct.
A. I have said that we were left to our fate -- that is, I want to express by this that the general order was passed on to us, but unfortunately, we were not told how this order was to be carried out in detail.
Q. Therefore, it was the responsibility of the Einsatzkommando leaders as to how they carried out this Fuehrer order. Is that correct?
A. Yes, unless they did not get any special orders from their group leaders.
Q. You stated in your direct examination that in several localities you were kept busy collecting archives and documents for the purpose of study. That's correct, isn't it.
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Was that part of the task of all Einsatzkommandos?
A. Yes, certainly . We had to take care that interesting and relevant Communist material would be seized and used.
Q. Why, then would there be any need for a kommando whose special function it was to collect archives?
A. You are thinking of Advance Kommando Moscow?
Q. Yes.
A. Apart from what I have stated before concerning the individual details of Vorkommando Moscow I have no knowledge, but the expression "Vorkommando" Moscow, shows that it means the seizure of very important material. Material in Moscow, the Communist capital. That does not change the fact that, of course, every kommando had the task of collecting Communist material which it found, and to safeguard it, to translate it, and to report things to the RSHA which might be of interest to
Q. Are you able to state as a fact that you know that Vorkommando Moscow had the sole function of collecting archives?
A. I have already said that apart from the statement of Nebe which I just mentioned, I never heard anything about the Advance Kommando Moscow. I must ask you to be satisfied with this as I have nothing more to add.
Q. Then you actually don't know what the function of Vorkommando Moscow was?
A. The statement Nebe made to me dealt with this particular assignment but all I know about it is from what Nebe told me as I have already said.
Q. Do you recall meeting with Nebe and Six and some other persons in Warsaw?
A. No, nothing about this is known to me. A conference there is not known to me.
Q. Do you recall meeting there in the presence of a Police Commissioner named Muller?
A. I take it that it must be Police Kommissar Muller who has been talked about here before?
Q. That is correct.
A. We then went to Warsaw for assignment and in passing through Warsaw in the evening we were received by the named Muller. He invited us and we sat at his fire place and we talked a little. I think that happened the only evening when I was in Warsaw.
Q. Who else was present at that meeting?
A. I don't remember any details.
Q. Was Nebe there?
A. Yes, I think he was because Nebe was there at the same time I was there.
Q. Was Six there?
A. Six, I did not see.
Q. Isn't it a fact that the Vorkommando Moscow was part of Einsatz Gruppe B?
A. I cannot say it, apart from this discussion which I reported about I never had anything to do with Vorkommando Moscow and I never was in contact with it during this short time.
Q. In that discussion with Nebe, didn't he say Vorkommando Moscow is part of my Einsatz Group? How was it he talked about it if it was not a part of his Einsatz Group? other conclusion. I only received knowledge of the existence of this Kommando and the information that I would no longer have to deal with the safeguarding and maintenance of material in Moscow, and with this my interest ceased. As to questions of subordination I did not trouble about because they were not very interesting to me or at least not at that time.
Q. You mean he came to you and told you about Vorkommando Moscow which was a completely new name to you and you didn't ask him what it was, who it was attached to and what it was doing around there, is that what you are trying to say?
A. Nebe told me what assignment it had to deal with or at least insofar as I considered this new assignment concerning myself. This was all that interested me.
Q. You stated in your direct examination that in Wilna you went to G-2 of the Army Command and requested permission to advance with the troops, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And you stated that the permission was refused and your superior officer ordered you not to advance, is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. You also stated that you violated that order of your superior officer and did in fact advance on 2 July, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you ever court martialed for violating the order of your superior in time of war?