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?
papers, and collecting archives, is that correct? inhabitants of the town, and putting them into the camp,and the execution by Einsatzgruppe B of over one thousand people?
Q You don't know anything about that; you were in Minsk during the month of July, during the period while this was taking place, but you don't know anything about that?
A I don't know whether this happened during that time. The term "by the troops who first passed through there", this expression might mean a time which starts at a period when I had already left. In any case, I don't know about the civilian prison camp which was combed out by the Security Police or by the Group during those three days while I was in Minsk, I don't know anything about that.
Q Would you turn to Page 28 of the same document book. I don't know the German number. It is Document NO-4537 (B). You will notice under Einsatzkommando 7a -
A I beg your pardon, I haven't got it.
Q It is the next to the last page of Document NO-4537 (E) , which should he just a few pages before the document we have just been looking at.
A Do you mean page 32?
Q I don't know the German page. It is the report of 3 July 1941 under Einsatzkommando 7a, Document 4537 (E). time, were you not?
A You are talking about the report on Wilna? the Communist Party were liquidated. That was done under your command, was it not? ed particularly that I considered this report to be wrong. I also tried to explain it.
your command and you said "Yes". Do you change your answer?
A No. I always emphasized and made it very clear that my kommando did not carry out any shootings in Wilna. out executions in Wilna is wrong? Blume Document Book, page 63. I don't know what page it is of the German, but it is a report of 2 July. It is page 63. It is the report of 2 July at which time you were in command of Einsatzkommando 7a, and it it says that operation started for the arrest of Communists and Jews, and approximately 8,000 Jews in Wilna. Does that mean that 5,000 Jews in Wilna were arrested? report does not talk of the arrest of 5,000 Jews, but the figure, 8,000 obviously is, according to the German wording, an objective statement of the figure of the Jews living in Wilna. Concerning the first sentense where it says that Sonderkommando 7a carried out an operation of arrest against Communists and Jews, I want to explain it like this Already this morning I described - or was it Friday - that I visited the local kommando in Wilna, I talked to this man when discussing security questions with him. I pointed out to him that in the interest of security the arrests of Communists in Wilna should he carried out and arranged by him, and that it was necessary that the Jews living in Wilna be put into ghettos and supervised there. I reported about this to Nebe and he formulated it as is written here. Wilna, and that they be put into a ghetto, is that correct? it was done because he was remaining there and he had under him the Secret Field Police for this purpose.
that correct?
A "Order" is not the right expression because he was not subordinate to me. I merely informed him that this security measure was expected of him. kill all the Jews, did you not? into a ghetto, you knew that they would all be killed in accordance with the Hitler order, did you not? modify the Hitler order. in Wilna. That is, I did what I thought was possible in order not to evade the Fuehrer order very much. Anything beyond that I could not avoid. and put them into a ghetto, and yon knew at that time that there was an order outstanding to have all the Jews killed?
Q Didn't you know that in ordering them to be arrested and put into a ghetto you were assisting in the murder of defenseless people? the actual carrying out of this order would never come about or that at least it would be rescinded. My attempt in Vibosk proves this. why did you go out of your way to instruct somebody,who, you say, was not your subordinate, to arrest all the Jews. Why didn't you just let them escape?
and I only tried to evade the order to such an extent as I personally considered it intenable.
Q In other words, you didn't care if somebody else killed the Jews and if you helped them to do it as long as you didn't have to carry it out yourself, is that correct? draw that conclusion. I would have been glad if there had been an other possibility. kill the Jews or if the Jews were not killed, yet you instructed somebody who was not your subordinate to arrest them and put them in a ghetto.
A Well, I tried to explain it before: in carrying out the order I did what I considered justifiable. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Witness - Pardon me, Mr. Ferencz. In answer to Mr. Ferencz's question as to why you did a certain thing in Wilna , well, you did there what you did in Vitobsk, but Vitobsk followed Wilna. You were in Wilna in the early part of July or latter part of June and didn't reach the other city for another two weeks. That is true, isn't it?
Q Yes, well, then you couldn't use What you did in Vitobsk as a precedent for what you did in Wilna since it followed in point of timee. to believe this, what my ideas were, from the very beginning. Of course, this report by me on the Jews was only made in Vitobsk. My emphasis is merely to point out what feelings and ideas led me from the very beginning.
QWell, I don't think that you have answered Mr. Ferencz's question which was very specific, namely, if you did not want to see defense less Jews executed and you wished to evade that part of the Fuehrer order why did you in Wilna go out of your way to instruct someone who was not subordinate to you to arrest Jews end place them in a ghetto where, being isolated, they could very easily be subject to the Fuehrer order of execution.
Now, please answer that question directly and don't refer us to Vitobsk.
That part of the Fuehrer Order which I considered right and possible, I thought I had to carry out here. If I had not done anything, it would have been an absolute and complete refusal to obey which I could not do and which I did not do. place where there could be no doubt as to their identity that they could become subject to the Fuehrer Order which ordered their execution. hopes for a alteration of this order existed as ever. extent of having them collected, hoping that after they had been collected that then through some chance they might not be killed? BY MR. FERENCZ: Sec. Is that the same place as is shown in our documents to be Lachowicze?
A In my document?
Q No, you referred to your Kommando being in Loswitha See. The documents refer to a place spelled L-a-c-h-o-w-i-c-z-e. Is that the same place?
A I cannot say that. I only know the lake under the name of Loswitha Lake, L-o-s-w-i-t-h-a, but may I ask you which documents you are referring to? from the top, there is the word, Lachowicze. Is that the same place as what you described as Loswitha See? Is thus the Russian spelling for it, or is that another place?
A I still have not found the report. I hardly think so, because that is a completely different word. It doesn't say there is a lake. There is a locality that is named -
and saboteurs were shot by your kommando, is that correct?
A No, I did not say that. I talked about the fact, that during the time of my command after Smolensk, approximately 20 partisans and saboteurs were shot by my kommando. There not only the time on the Loswitha Lake is concerned. had told the farmers not to bring in the harvest. Do you recall that ? think so, is that correct?
Q Tell me, what sort of a trial did these men have? selves and also through wetnesses who were questioned. I then personally judged then end sentenced them.
Q How long did the trial last? omitted. Of course, it depended on where those men had stopped the farmer's from bringing in the harvest.
Q How long did the trial last? shot under your command? decision.
Q what did the accused say in their defense? witnesses proved the opposite. Apart from that , they could not prove where they came from. Obviously they had been sent over by the Russians.
Q Tell me with what crimes were those men charged? make them destroy the harvest; that is, only to keep back as much as they needed for their personal consumption. In other words, they wanted to make impossible for the German Army to get food from the country. their countrymen not to assist an aggressive invader? That was a crime which you deemed punishable by death? helped in seizing such men.
Q Answer my question, please. My question is: These men were charged with trying to have their countrymen refuse to assist an aggressive invader, and you consider this a crime punishable by death? It was an appack on the possibility of the German Army to carry out the Russian campaign successfully.
Q Are yoy familiar with the rules of war? which decreed that saboteurs and functionairies were to be shot. the Nazi invaders as a saboteurs, because he refused to help the Nazis and that was worthy of the death sentence which you invoked?
Q Are you familiar with the rules of war? Order. That was my war Law.
Q You don't know any other war law than the Fuehrer Order? You followed none other, is that correct?
A You are thinking of the Hague Convention?
and disregarded any other rules of war? Convention would allow such a possibility, but according to the situation in the East and the attitude of most of the people themselves
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, are you leaving this incident?
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I just wanted to ask one question. Witness, when you related your episode before you said that the crime of the men was that they had told the farmers not to bring in the harvest. Did I understand you correctly?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I ordered it.
THE PRESIDENT: So that whatever they did, it was confined to what they said? It was a matter of what they said?
THE WITNESS: Of course, people were threatened too and in the manner of the partisan combatting in Russia, one could expect that partisans who could not carry out their orders, because the population refused to help them, could be used as reprisals.
THE PRESIDENT: You told us when you volunteered this story that these three men had told the farmers not to bring in the harvest. Now is that what you told us on Friday?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and do you still stand on that?
THE WITNESS: I want to extent my statement by saying what I just said.
THE PRESIDENT: But whatever they did,was confined to a speech. They themselvesdid not set fire to any harvest or in any way destroy the harvest?
THE WITNESS: No, they merely asked for this under threats.
Q (By Mr. Ferencz) I call your attention now to Document Book II-B, page 24 of the English, page 24 of the German. Here is says which 74 persons were shot. Was that once under your command? out during my time.
Q In that event, we'll turn to some things you admitted yesterday. You stated in your direct testimony that on about the 7th of July members of Einsatzkommando 7a, which was under your command at that time, executed about 50 or 60 persons in Minsk, is that correct? is that correct?