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?
A. No, I have already explained the further development, as I have said myself, I reported to the Chief at Minsk who asked me to come to see him, for, of course, I had admitted, these reproaches were justified, but I could point out to him that I had been very successful at Minsk, and that I had many reasons for my decision on this particular point and I put them over so convincingly that he was very friendly to me. your military superior in time of war and nothing happened as a result except he became very friendly to you?
A. The disapproval of my request came from the G-2, who was a major. I myself was an Obersturmbannfuehrer, therefore, according to the military standing I was a Lieutenant Colonel and therefore, I decided for myself and later on I had this decision of mine sanctioned by the superior officer of the G-2.
Q. Now I asked you just a few moments ago whether you refused or violated the order of your superior officer and did in fact advance, and your answer was "yes". Are you now changing that answer and saying it was not your superior officer?
A. No, when I gave this answer I was trying to draw your attention to the disobedience, of course, the G-2 was not a superior officer in his rank as a major.
Q. In other words, you now change your answer from what you gave me a few moments ago to my question. My question then was that the permission was refused and your superior officer ordered you not to advance; and you said "yes" and I then asked you whether you violated that order of your superior officer and you said "yes" and now you tell us it was not your superior officer. Are you then changing your answer to the two previous questions?
A. I cannot see any change in this. I just wanted to emphasize a certain point, referring to the main point about which we are debating now.
Q. You stated also in your direct examination that you reported to Nebe about events in Polosk, and in this report you emphasized that the city had been completely burned out and that the population was hardly there any more, is that correct? Did you make that report to Nebe?
A. Yes.
Q. You also stated that in reality a considerable part of the population was still there and certainly not all the houses had been burned, did you also state that?
A. Well, I don't know whether I used the expression "considerable", but in any case I said there were sufficient people who would justify the stationing of a Einsatz kommando of the Security Police there.
Q. Therefore, in an official report to your superior officer you reported one thing when you knew the opposite to be true, isn't that correct?
A. I said yesterday when the President dealt with this problem that in my opinion it was not a false report but that it was only colored with a tinge, which I thought I could justify in my own conscience.
Q. You regard that as just a coloring or a tinge, when the facts of the situation are that the city is not burned out and you say it is burned out and the population are largely still there and you say it is not hardly there any more. You don't regard that as anything more than a coloring or tinge, is that what you say?
A. Yes, that is what I said.
Q. Then if you make an official report to your superior officer in which you report one thing and you know the opposite to be true, you regard that as merely a coloring and a tinge?
A. I can only point out again that sharp contracts and the formulations which you are using at the moment, Mr. Prosecutor, do not describe the proper situation.
I must ask you to look at it as I formulated it yesterday, that is, I gave them a slight coloring in order to evade the psychological pressure of a possible execution.
Q. I am giving you your own words as I get it from the official transcript, and the way I read it you reported one thing when you knew the opposite to be true. Now do you deny that? Let me repeat it and make it more simple. You said the city had been completely burned out, was the city completely burned out in fact?
A. Not completely but to a large extent.
Q. Then your statement that the city was completely burned out was false, isn't that so?
A. No, not as far as this is concerned.
Q. Just a moment, you said in your report that the city was completely burned out; you tell me now that the city was not completely burned out, and I ask you, wasn't your report then false and what is your answer?
A. It is the same, that was mentioned by the President already yesterday and the President was satisfied with my statement that I did not regard this as a false report but only a coloring, which was considered justified because of the special situation.
THE PRESIDENT: Well now, witness, I am glad you are happy in thinking I was happy with your answer, but suppose you answer the Prosecutor's question. Now he puts it to you very simply, namely, you reported the city was completely burned out, and in point of fact you say it was not completely burned out. Now he asked you if your report to that extent was not false? Now please answer that.
WITNESS: I do not like to use the expression "falsify" or "false". I would like to say, "slightly exaggerated".
THE PRESIDENT: Does that make you happy, Mr. Prosecutor?
MR. FERENCZ: No, Your Honor, but I think the answer is quite clear.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we will all be happy if we have a little recess of fifteen minutes.
(A short recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. MAYER: Dr. Mayer for the defendant Steimle. Your Honor, I ask that the defendant Steimle be excused tomorrow afternoon from session, so that I may prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Steimle will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow afternoon in accordance with request of his attorney.
DR. MAYER: Thank you, Your Honor.
DR.HOFFMANN: Dr. Hoffmann for the defendant Nosske. Your Honor, I ask that the defendant Nosske be excused for tomorrow all day in order to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Nosske will be excused from attendance in count all day tomorrow. BY MR. FERENCZ: You suggested or stated in your direct examination that you were not a member of the SD, is that correct?
A Yes. Not a fulltime member of the SD.
Q Were you a member of the SD after 1939?
Q Yes or no? Can you answer a very simple question. Were you or were you not a member of the SD after 1939? personnel file of the SD. One could not describe it in a different way. That is why one can not answer yes or no.
Q The question is, were you a member of the SD after 1939? Is your answer yes, because you were a Police Official too, or your answer no, because you were just a police official and not a member of the SD in any form? What is your answer? It is a simple question, and I would appreciate a simple answer.
DR. LUMMENT: Your Honor, may I raise on objection against this question. The Prosecutor should at least explain what he understands by SD.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, I am sure the defendant knows what SD means. If he does not, I will be glad to give him a copy of the IMT judgment to study tonight, but I am quite sure he must know what SD means.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will answer the question. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q Were you or were you not a member of the SD after 1939? organization was analyzed, only the question of fulltime membership was raised, the fulltime membership in the SS, or of the Security Police, or of the General-SS, or of the Waffen-SS. That was the only question under debate. Court to Document Book III-B, page 24. It is Document No-3245. Here you will see at the beginning of the year of 1935, going through the year of 1941, there are six times listed your rank followed by the notation "Leader in SD Main Office." Do you say that all those six reports covering six year period are false?
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor,I consider this question irrelevant for the following reasons: Before the afternoon recess I asked the witness on this vary question, and he gave a detailed and clear reply to it. It is possible that the reply may not have been noticed by Mr. Ferencz, but actually the witness could only repeat exactly what he said this morning, and for that reason I consider the question irrelevant.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the objection stated on the ground of irrelevancy , however, should be quite apparent as not well founded as to his membership in the SD, inasmuch as it has been charged in the indictment as a very relevant point.
THE PRESIDENT: If it was relevant in the direct examination, certainly, it is relevant in the cross examination. The witness will answer the question.
BY MR. FERENCZ: is inaccurate in reporting six times, over a period of six years, that you were a lender in the SD Main Office?
A The manner in which it is written is misleading. The reason is a group leader - Gruppenleiter, in the SD Main Office, as mentioned in the document before us, is a fulltime SD leader, but in this Main Office, which is called SD Main Office, has the tasks of a group leader. He is paid by the SD, therefore, by the Party, and SD officials are his superiors and take care of his promotion. Deviating from this description which I just gave here, all police members who within the assimilation-system received ranks in the SS of equal grade. This was merely shown in order to enable them to keep a personnel file in this SD Main Office. The purpose was that the Chief of the Security Police who simultaneously was the Chief of the SD, would be given the possibility to promote SS personnel, and to promote these police officers in the SS at the same time. Therefore, I have known SS leaders in SS Main Offices which had nothing to do with theSD and the police, just the same way the personnel files were kept of these police members in the SD Main Office, which gave this misleading idea that I was Gruppenleiter in Office I of the Reich Security Main Office, therefore, a State Police authority. you to be a leader in the SD, they are incorrect or misleading?
Q Do you recall an interrogation you had by Mr. Wartenberg on 29 June 1947?
Q What did you tell Mr. Wartenberg about your Gestapo membership at that time?
general?
Q What did you tell Mr. Wartenberg about your membership in the Gestapo when you were interrogated by him on 29 June? Therefore, if you want me to repeat it I can do this briefly. Brief activity with Gestapoleiter in Drotmund; after that Gestapoleiter activity in State Police or rather activity in the Prussian State Police Office; after that for two years active to the State Police Chief in Halle on the Sale River; after that for about two years State Police Chief in Hanover; and then office as State Police Chief in Berlin; after that -
Q That is adequate. I shall ask you the questions more specifically. Didn't you state that in 1954 after the Roehm revolt, that you went into the Prussian Gestapo?
A Shortly before the Roehm revolt?
Q Yes, you went in the Gestapo shortly before 1934. is that correct?
A Shortly before the Roehm revolt; I think it was in June 1934.
Q Didn't you also state in the interrogation that at the beginning of the Russian War, you went as Personnel Referent to Gestapo Headquarters, and remained there until July 1942 with the exception of a short time that you were commander of Einsatzkommando-VII-A? 1942, is that correct?
Q Didn't you also state in the interrogation that in 1945, Ants-IV, or Gestapo sent you to Bad Blankenberg?
A I was sent by Office-I, if one wants to be quite correct. The censorship office which I was supposed to take over there was a matter which was part of Office-IV, the Reich Security Main Office.
Q That was the Gestapo, was it not, Office IV?
A Yes. I myself as I explained this morning, after my return from Greece I had my position in Office I of the Reich Security Main Office.
I also emphasized that Kaltenbrunner's attitude of dislike towards me had the result that they tried to transfer me to the Reich Ministry of Finance. During this time of indecision this transfer to Blankenberg took place, and because of this state of indecision my fulltime job was not transferred. The censorship agency was to become part of OfficeIV; it also employed army officers who were also paid by the Army. All of this opened the question I was supposed to solve, and I already said this morning, if I may conclude, that if I had remained there longer, and if I would have incorporated this censorship office into S-IV, then probably Office-I would have transferred me to Office-IV of the RSHA. not fully explained, and I shall begin with Document Book II-B, page 27; page 29 of the German, Document NO-2844. Here you will see that the total figures of persons liquidated by Vorkommando VII-A up to 20 August were 996. You have told us that you were the commanding officer of Vorkonmando VII_A until the 15th or 17th of August,is that correct? inaccurate, is that correct? page 30, Document NO-2937. You will notice here that it says that the civilian prisoner camp was built in Minsk by the first troops, and almost all male inhabitants were placed in the camp, and the Einsatzgruppe B combed the camp and liquidated over one-thousand Jews, and they continued with daily executions of other Asiatic officials, and so forth. Now you have stated that you were in Minsk from 4 July until 7 July, is that correct?
