13 November 1947_A_MSD_24_3_Arminger (Lea) the papers.
Q You didn't know he was a very resolute man? some instances it was said that he was not resolute and soft.
Q So you thought he might soften in his attitude about the Jews? That's what you were hoping for?
A "Soft" is not the right expression here.
A I was hoping --- May I continue? he had given, or at least restrict in.
Q Do you know whether he ever did restrict it or revoke it?
Q Who told you this?
A I cannot remember exactly who it was. It might have been the Chief of my office in the RSHA, but this is not quite certain.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed Dr. Von Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SANDBERGER): would revoke this order?
THE PRESIDENT: He has covered that now. You don't need to ask a question just because you have it on your book there, if it has already been discussed.
DR. VON STEIN: No, Your Honor, I ask this question, because the Tribunal just asked this question about Hitler and a possibility of revoking the order and I asked the defendant this question.
THE PRESIDENT: He gave his views on it. He hoped that Hitler would revoke the order. He was living in hope. You can't blame a man for living in hope.
13 November 1947_A_MSD_24_4_Arminger (Lea)
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, this answer is not sufficient. I would like to extend this answer and --
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we'll see what you get now. You ask the question.
Q (By Dr. Von Stein) Witness, you have told the High Tribunal that you had the hope that Hitler would after all revoke this order concerning the Jews. Could you give us any thoughts which induced you to adopt this hope? hope that the reaction abroad in reference to the execution of such measures in the Eastern front would be so strong that the German diplomats would report about this in such terms that Hitler in regard for the reaction abroad would come to change his opinion, not in reference to his opinion but in reference to the Jews, that is, the danger of the Jews in reference to Bolshovism, but in the sense that in the sense that in consideration of the reverse reacgion abroad would be stronger.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Stein. Now you may like this answer. You may think it is pretty good and that's the reason why you want to have him keep telling you this same answer, but I heard all that take place yesterday. I have that here in my notes. He hoped the order would be revoked, and he considered the thoughts --- I have it here in my notes that he hoped the order would be revoked. He considered the thought that if the order were executed the reaction would be so strong that Hitler would be compelled to revoke the order. Now he is merely giving you some warmed up --- warmed over agin, nothing fresh in this answer.
DR. VON STEIN: No, Your Honor. The question was a result of the High Tribunal's question whether he hoped that the delays would--
THE PRESIDENT: It doesn't mean that because the Tribunal asks a question that you must begin at the beginning all over again. This question has been answered. Let us go on to something else.
13 November 1947_A_MSD_24_5_Arminger (Lea) Q (By Dr. Von Stein) Witness, what thought did you yourself have about the questions of the order, in view of your own person?
than that.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Counsel, even he is tired of that same question now.
Q (By Dr. Von Stein) Witness, you said before, when explaining the contradictions in the Operational Report III that you were not in Estonia when the report was made out and sent out. When was the Reval report which is contained in Operational Report III sent out from Reval?
A It was within the monthly report for September. The monthly report had to be sent out, had to be in Riga at the latest on the 30th of September, that is why it must have been made out on the 28th of September.
Q Where were you at that time? south of Leningrad for the purpose of doing auxilary service and helping the Army.
Q Since when were you absent from Estonia?
Q Why did you leave Estonia? beginning of the assignment. I was not Director of the Security Police at the time as my most important position. At this time during the second half of September the main job which I had, which I had to do for the 18th Army was, of course, not in Estonia, but in the combat area of the 18th Army, that is to say, in the area south of Leningrad. Everything else also was of secondary importance to the Army. The Army headquarters demanded that I was to be present with a subkommando in the combat area. Stahlecker gave a corresponding order.
Q When did you return to Reval from the combat area?
13 November 1947_A_MSD_24_6_Arminger (Lea) October. in Estonia? deptuy. these reports go on automatically without you? nor did I make any reports to Reval. In Reval everything went on without me. According to the conditions there, because of bridges having been blown up or for other reasons, the distance Reval Leningrad was about 10 hours by car. Between Leningrad and the Estonian frontier, there was a Russian Army corps. Therefore, the traffic between the details south of Leningrad and Estonia was very difficult and I wag not constantly at one place, but I was on the road frequently and difficult to get in touch with. On the Order of Stahlecker, my deputy who remained in Reval had complete power to continue my office there. That I was supposed to command my office in Reval from my office near Leningrad would have been almost impossible, just as impossible as when an infantry division is divided into two parts and one half is 300 kilometres away from the other and the communications are bad. Then the commander cannot command the part which is 300 kilometres away.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Stein, I think perhaps this might be a good point at which to recess until tomorrow morning. The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 14 November 1947 at 0930 hours.)
of America, against Otto Ohlendorf, et al.,
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America, and this Honorable Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed Dr. von Stein. BR. DR. VON STEIN:
Q. We were discussing the operational report No.111. Witness, didn't you have any knowledge of this report, or of the facts mentioned in it?
A. In the period of time which was the last to be discussed yesterday, that is, when I was with my subcommando south of Leningrad, the period between 11 September and about the 3 October, I had no knowledge of this report , and of the facts reported in it only sofar as they had been ordered before my departure on approximately 11 September, namely, that the general internment of the Estonian Jews was to take place during the following weeks.
Q. That did your deputy report to you when you returned to Reval between the 3rd and 5th of October about the question of the executions of 450 male Jews contained in this report?
A. He told me the following: Around approximately 26 September there had been a telephone call from Department IV of Einsatzgruppe in Riga, with an order of Stahlecker that in the monthly report which was going to be given within the next two days everything was to be reported what had so far been done with regard to measures against the Jews, including all special treatment so far taken. My deputy answered that so far no special treatment had been undertaken. Thereupon, another telephone call came after a short time from Department IV in Riga with the strict order of Stahlecker to immediately undertake special treatment of considerable number of Jews, and to report about this immediately in the monthly report about to be made out, that is, within two days.
Q. What did your deputy do thereupon?
A. He passed the order on for immediate executions, namely , of those executions which are mentioned in this report. He passed this order onto the Estonian Home Guard, to the Central Offices of the Home Guard in Reval, and he had the executions supervised by German officials of Department IV.
Q. What happened to the Jews who were interned?
A. They were transferred in 3 November 1942, upon my orders from Camp Harku near Reval to Pleskau.
Q. What reasons induced you to take this step?
A. In October and November 1941, Stahlecker again ordered the carrying out of the executions. It was of special importance to him to be able to report tint Estonia was free of Jews. Since I knew that it would be decisive for him to be able to make this formal report, I tried to bring the Jews into a camp which was outside of Estonia, thereby he was in a position to report that Estonia was free of Jews. Another point of view was that the introduction of a civilian administration in Estonia was to be expected very soon, at the beginning of December, 1941. The installation of the civilian administration was to be connected with the High SS and Police Leader. I knew that the latter was a confidant of Jeckeln, and that for this reason alone it would be impossible that the 500 Jews would remain in a camp near Reval.
Q. What finally did happen to these internees?
A. In the second half of January, or in the first half of February the Higher SS and Police Leader Jeckeln travelled through Pleskau.
He heard by a coincidence that there were about 500 Jews fromEstonia in this camp in Pleskau. He was very much irritated by this, and gave the order to the subcommando-leader in a very severe and emphatic form to carry out the executions of these 400 or 450 Jews immediately. The subcommando-leader did this immediately without my knowledge.
Q. When did you hear of this operation of Jeckeln's ?
A. A few days after this event I came by coincidence through Pleskau on an official trip. On this occasionthe subcommando reported to me about this action.
Q. Can you remember the date?
A. I cannot remember the exact date, since I have no definite documents for this. But it must have been in the second half of January or in the first half of February.
Q. What makes you conclude this?
A.I remember that between this event and the death of Stahlecker, a few weeks passed, but during this time I no longer spoke to Stahlecker for at that time Stahlecker was in Lokvia for six to eight weeks, that is, with a commando of Einsatzgruppe-A with the 16th Army, north of Welikie Luki, and there Stahlecker had the military command himself of this commando. In the middle of March 1942 he was severely wounded there, and died shortly afterwards.
Q. Witness, you have testified that the main part of your personal work was not concerned with Security Police matters , but with other fields? Do tell us what these were?
A. In the first three months, that is to say , from July to September 1941, until the first days of October I was mainly commandoleader for the 18th Army, and to a very large extent occupied with the Auxilliary service for G-II of the 18th Army. This was the primary task from the viewpoint of the Army. For this reason I had during most of my time a constant liaison officer with Army Headquarters. In the
Q. In order to picture your political and critical mission, please give a few examples with which you were concerned, especially, and primarily in your reports?
A. Primarily I worked for the equalization in the status of the Estonians with the Germans, in principle and in practice. I tried to influence the German agencies, especially the German Civilian Administration in order to increase the automony to be granted to the Estonians in the economic field. I believe that this question will not be of interest here in detail.
Q. Your total mission in Estonia ten was to look after the security of this area. Will you please tell us how far these missions you have just described to us are concerned with the security of this area, that is, with the missions which were given to you?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Stein, you said in the very beginning of your question, "Your total mission in Estonia then was to look after the security of this area." Now that is stated as a fact, is it?
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. VON STEIN: Witness.
THE WITNESS: The work of Department II about which I just spoke was to try through their Political and Critical Reports, to show all those points which contributed to the discontent of the population, and to fight all these tendencies on the part of the German Administration, which would lead to such discontent. The line of thought in reference to the security of the area was that the security of the area taken care of through our Estonian forces would be all the better, the less there was discontent on the part of the population with regard to the burden of the war. Therefore the question of the equal status of the Estonians and the Germans was not only a material question but also a psychological one. I think that answers the question.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I have no further questions on direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Any defense counsel desire to cross examine the witness?
DR. GICK: Dr. Gick for the defendant Strauch. BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, were you in the beginning of November 1941 when Strauch was ordered to take up duties in Riga, leader of Special commando I-A with headquarters in Reval?
A. Yes.
Q. Could Strauch, who had been appointed commander of the security Police in Riga have, in your opinion, lead the Einsatzkommando II from Riga?
A. In this time, in November 1941, this was not possible. In the course of the Summer 1941 Stahlecker had collected all parts of Einsatzko mando II and III. All those who were not needed to fill the area of the 4th Army, and later into the 16th and 18th Armies; later on these elements of Einsatzkommandos II and III were committed with the 16th and 18th Armies, that is to say, also in the areas south of Leningrad, and in the area of Locknia, north of Welirie Luki. These commandos were lead directly by Einsatzgruppe-A, and not from the rear area in Riga or anywhere else.
Q. The Staff of Einsatzgruppe-A was in Krasnbgvardeisk?
A. The Staff of Einsatzgruppe-A was in Krasnbgvardeisk, yes.
Q. Witness, when was the agency of command of the Security Police and SD for Latvia installed in Riga?
A. What was automatic together with the introduction of the civil administration. When that happened in Latvia, I don't know exactly. It must have been around July or August.
Q. July or August 1941?
A. Yes, 1941.
Q. Since Latvia is the southern neighbor of your area, Estonia, you probably knew the name of the then commander in Riga. Did you know at this time that Strauch was commander of the Sipo and the SD in Riga?
A. I must say here that during this entire period in the fall of 1941, that is also in November 1941, to which your question refers I was not in Riga and had no official contact with the agency of the command of the Security Police and SD in Riga. At that time in November 1941, evidently through a coincidence, I didn't hear anything of Strauch being the commander there. My recollection is only that first Sturmbannfuehrer Barth was commander in Latvia, and then after him Dr. Lange.
DR. GLANCY: Just a moment. The witness is attempting to testify to something which he has just admitted he couldn't possibly know. He is going by recollection. He says he had no contact with Riga at that time and he heard nothing about it; therefore, he cannot be qualified to answer.
THE PRESIDENT: What about that, Dr. Gick?
DR. GICK: The question refers to whether the witness had knowledge of this and the witness has to give us the reasons for this, and the reasons are essential.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask him what is the basis of his knowledge. BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, since Latvia was your neighboring area, would you have had to find out that Strauch was commander of the Security Police and the SD in Riga if he had been commander there for a lengthy time?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Dr. Gick. I don't know why you put it in such a hypothetical form, "if" and "suppose." Just ask him if he did know that Strauch was in Riga and had charge of a certain outfit.
DR. GICK: Your Honor, I think the witness has already answered this question. He did not know. Thereupon, I made it hypothetical, would he have had to know it.
THE PRESIDENT: He answered that, "yes."
DR. GICK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, in effect he didn't know but he should know.
DR. GICK: Actually, he didn't know; at least, that is what he says, but -----
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, did you know or didn't you know?
THE WITNESS: I did not know that in November 1941 Strauch was commander in Riga.
THE PRESIDENT: What furthermore do you want than that? That is very definite.
DR. GICK: Yes, the question suffices, but I only wanted to know why he did not know. The question was answered by the witness. I have no further questions in this respect. BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, did you know that in Latvia all Jewish matters were in the hands of the chief of Department 4, with the commander of the Security Police and SD for the Eastern Area Lange?
DR. GLANCY: Just a moment. I would like to know which commando the witness was in command of. He can't be an expert on two. He tells us he was much occupied with many, many different, diverse affairs in Estonia. He left Latvia, to the best of my knowledge, around the 4th of July, the 5th of July.
THE PRESIDENT: Just what is your specific purpose here, Dr. Gick? What is it you are trying to get from the witness?
DR. GICK: I wanted to find out from the witness whether on the basis of his knowledge of the conditions in Latvia and in Estonia, which are after all connected, whether he knew or knows by whom the Jewish matters were handled, and the witness has this knowledge, and therefore he can answer the question.
DR. GLANCY: The witness has gone to great lengths in his direct examination to impress upon the Tribunal that he spent only an hour or so on the morning of the 4th of July with Stahlecker.
THE PRESIDENT: Fifteen minutes he was with Stahlecker.
DR. GLANCY: Thank you, Your Honor, fifteen minutes. In that time even a person of giant intellect cannot absorb so much.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you know he doesn't have a giant intellect?
DR. GLANCY: That I don't know, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: All right now, if he knows, he will tell us; if he doesn't know then he can't tell us. So now ask the witness if he knows. If he knows about this Jewish situation in Latvia, he is qualified to answer. Find out if he knows. BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, did you know how the Jewish questions were handled in Latvia, and by whom they were handled?
A. About conditions in Latvia itself during the time which you have in mind, I don't know any details. But with regard to the handling of the Jewish matters in the staff of Einsatzgruppe A in Riga or with the commander of the Security Police and SD in Riga, I knew that the Chief of Department 4, Dr. Lange, apart of Stahlecker, was the driving force with regard to the Jewish question. And this was at the time when the first Einsatzkommando leader of Einsatzkommando 2 Bartach was in Riga. Otherwise, I don't know any more about this question.
Q. Do you also know that Dr. Lange, after he had become command er in Latvia, continued to handle these Jewish matters?
A. Do you mean in the staff of the R D S. ?
Q. Yes, on the staff of the commander.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Witness, in the document Book 3 A, page 17, Exhibit 110, Document No. 3372 -- there is your affidavit of the 19th of November, 1945, --In this affidavit, under No. 4, you said that Strauch had participated in the Jewish persecutions in Minsk. How did you come to make this statement?
A. This is an interrogation of November, 1945. During the course of which I was asked, among other things, for names of people who had anything to do with Jewish Questions. During these interrogations, we did not speak of any specific events or of any occurrences apart from my own case, but we spoke exclusively of names. In this case, when the name Strauch was mentioned, there was no talk of any specific event.
Q. This affidavit was taken by Mr. Wartenberg. You heard here in court how Mr. Wartenberg described the procedure of taking down affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you are going to ask a long question on a fact which is not established. You said that this affidavit was taken by Wartenberg. It was not taken by Wartenberg. Do you have the affidavit there before you?
DR. GICK: Yes, I have it with me.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, who took the affidavit?
DR. GICK: I read here, English, "Subscribed and sworn to before us at Oberoursel, Germany, 19 November 1945. Signed, Rudolf Urbach and Rolf Wartenberg."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it seems that Wartenberg only translated the document. Dr. Glancy, isn't that the situation or isn't it? There is a phrase even in Wartenberg's declaration which is a little confusing, we must admit.
DR. GICK: Perhaps the witness can clarify the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, all right, who took this affidavit, witness, from you?
THE WITNESS: Both of these officers, Captain Urbach and 1st Lt. Wartenberg, were both present. Mr. Wartenberg had carried out the interrogation, the interrogation which led to the interview, and called Captain Urbach in and both participated in the taking of the oath. They were both present.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon. You may proceed, Dr. Gick. BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, would you please describe how this interrogation was carried on?
A. The procedure wasn't exactly the same as it was here in the courthouse and as it was described by Mr. Wartenberg; that is to say, no oath was taken before the interrogation as it was done here, and it was not recognizable that this was a matter of an affidavit. It could not be seen either that the possibility would be granted to refuse the testimony or to refuse giving such an affidavit.
Q. Was this affidavit submitted to you after preliminary discussion, all written our, ready for your signature?
A. It was brought in by Mr. Wartenberg in a typewritten form, like the others. He brought in four statements on that day.
Q. Therefore, you cannot and could not designate Strauch as being in connection with any definite measures concerning Jews in Minsk?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gick, that is not a question, it is a statement. You will have to put a question to the witness. BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, may I ask you to give an answer about this?
THE PRESIDENT: No, you can't, because that was a very leading question. You practically gave the answer yourself. You must put a question to the witness, not a statement.
DR. GICK: Your Honor, am I not in cross examination? I am ask--ing the question in cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, I beg your pardon. Dr. Von Stein has been here so long a time that I thought it was still the direct examination in effect. The question will be permitted. You may answer that statement question.
DR. GICK: May I please repeat the question, Your Honor? BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, therefore you couldn't and cannot mention Strauch in connection with any concrete measures against Jews in Minsk?
A. No, I cannot, and this statement was not supposed to express that, either. During the interrogation, we did not speak of any definite fact, only of the fact that Strauch was commander in Minsk. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, you signed this statement voluntarily, didn't you?
A. I wasn't under immediate pressure.
Q. You signed this statement voluntarily, didn't you?
A. In such a case, it is a relative question, this being voluntary.
Q. Did you sign this statement voluntarily?
A. I did not refuse because of force.
Q. Did you sign this statement voluntarily?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, now. The fact that you were not sworn, although the statement very definitely indicates that you were sworn, would have no effect on your telling the truth, would it? Let me put it another way. The statement declares that you made the statement under oath.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you make it under oath?
A. Yes.
Q. Then what is declared here in this statement is correct, is it not?
A. To the best of my knowledge.
DR. GICK: Your Honor, my I say here that the witness has made a statement about this matter which I was able to get from the witness by questioning him.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not quite clear to the tribunal. Please make it a little clearer what you have in mind.
DR. GICK: I mean to say, Your Honor, that the witness here on my questions has given a clarifying answer about the point at issue in the affidavit is to be interpreted. And that was the purpose of my question.
THE PRESIDENT: I still don't know what you are trying to put over to the Tribunal. You say you put him a question. Very well, and he answered it. Now, what is it you are complaining about? I don't quite understand you.
DR. GICK: I beg your pardon, Your Honor, I don't want to complain. I merely wanted to point out that today the witness has given us an explanation to this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: And the explanation is what he just told the Tribunal, that to the best of his knowledge and belief what he put into the statement is correct.
DR. GICK: Yes, that is what he said here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, are you satisfied with that?
DR. GICK: Yes, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: All right then.
DR. WALTON: Your Honor, it may shed some light on this. I gathered from the good Doctor's remarks that he was trying to plead entrapment.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Walton, Dr. Gick is satisfied; Sandberger is satisfied; the Tribunal is satisfied, so why stir up muddy waters?
MR. WALTON: Maybe he pleads entrapment on cross examination. I couldn't tell him how to proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: You are entirely at ease? You are satisfied, Dr. Gick?
DR. GICK: Yes, Your Honor.
BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, over and about the more knowledge of Strauch's presence in Minsk -- did you have yet any real knowledge about the conditions and circumstances in Minsk?
A. No, I had no such knowledge as I never was in Minsk, and Strauch was never in Reval. During the entire time during which Strauch was in Minsk, no mutual official conference ever took place with the B.D.S. in Riga where we might have been both present. During this ontire period, I only met Strauch once or twice by coincidence in Riga. We only exchanged a few unimportant words; at any rate, we discussed nothing official. In other respects, I had no knowledge of events in Minsk either.
Q. What does the question mark mean after the name "Strauch" where the designation "SS and Police Leader" occurs under No. 4 of the document?
A. This question mark means that here, at the request of Mr. Wartenberg, the name of the SS and Police Leader in Minsk was to be put in as being mainly responsible for the orders of Jeckeln. But I could not remember the name, so that this space had to remain blank.
Q. In Document Book 3 A, German page 15, Document No. 3681-I don't know the exhibit number--how did this statement come about with regard to agencies of the Security Police and SD in the Ostland in which it is noted commander in White Puthenia, Strauch---
DR. GLANCY: May it please the Tribunal, if he is adapting this as his own testimony, I wish he would introduce it. We have never introduced this document. It is not before the court; however, we have no objection to its introduction by the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Gick, you will be permitted to cross examine from the document, but if you intend to have the Tribunal accept it as a document, then you would need to introduce it yourself, because it has not been introduced.
DR. GICK: I beg your pardon, I did not know that this had not yet been introduced as an exhibit of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: No, it has not been introduced, out we will allow you to question from it since it bears Sandberger's name and therefore is relevant.
DR. GICK: May I repeat the question then? BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, in this document which is in Document Book 3 A, German Page 15, and which bears the number 3681, there is a sketch on which it is noted "Commander of the Security Police for White Ruthenia, Strauch, around the first of November, 1942." How was this sketch made out?
A. During an interrogation, I was asked for about five or six names of leading personalities in the area of the Eastern Area, and the interrogating, officer took them down and put them into a sketch which he was making at the same time. As far as I remember, the name Strauch was not mentioned. During the next interrogation, the sketch as it is submitted hero, was submitted to me for my signature and then the name Strauch was put in in the box headed Einsatzkommando 2. I objected to this, that as far as I know Strauch was not the commanding officer of Einsatzkommando 2, but that he was commander of the Security Police for white Ruthenia. Thereupon, I was requested by the interrogating officer to put the name Strauch into the box headed White Ruthenia and I was also requested to give the dates which have reference to this sketch. I answered that this sketch the way it is now refers to many various dates, and therefore I was requested to specify the various dates and put them in. I answered that I really could not remember from when on Strauch has been commander in White Ruthenia, that I could only remember that it was--must have been--sometime in the winter of 1941 to 1942. The interrogating officer said that the exact date was of importance and we agreed that we would put in about from the first of January, 1942.
had a very general recollection that somewhere in the winter, '41-'42 Strauch was there.
DR. GICK: Thank you, I have no further questions.
DR. SCHWARZ: Dr. Schwarz for the Defendant Jost. BY DR. SCHWARZ:
Q Witness, I would like to ask you a few questions. Mr. Jost was your commander and Einsatzgruppe chief, I think, from the end of March to August or beginning of September, 1942. When was your first official contact with Jost? refer to the treatment of Jews?
A Yes. We briefly mentioned the Jewish question also. question at the time? wanted to make the attempt to achieve that an exception be made for the Reich Commissioner Eastland or the Baltic States as far as the Jewish measures or the Hitler Order were concerned. Therefore, right from the beginning he wished that for the time being nothing should happen to the Jews.
Q What did you say yourself to this? Jews existed. I briefly implied to him how this had happened, and I also told him that from my part I considered this Jewish order as impossible. conversation with the Higher SS and Police Leader, Jeckeln? statement made by Jocelyn to the effect that Jeckeln would possibly even have SS men shot who were not spiritually up to the demands of carrying these measures out.