THE WITNESS: By all meanshe listened to it. He must have heard it, because I heard it, and I was sitting across the table.
THE PRESIDENT: And you say Himmler made no reply?
THE WITNESS: That is right, Himmler made no reply, and I considered that as an answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Did Himmler by any action, by any facial expression, reprove Ohlendorf for having made the suggestion which he did?
THE WITNESS: He was evidently dissatisfied by turning to his righthand neighbor, and he didn't react at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you say he didn't react at all. You mean he didn't react favorably?
THE WITNESS: I mean by this, Your Honor, that he merely didn't give an answer, but turned definitely to his righthand neighbor in order to discuss something else.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he turned to his righthand neighbor and spoke about something else?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is right. That I must assume.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning. Do you have something to say, Mr. Walton? No. The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 0930 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 17 November 1947) 0930-1630, Justice Michael A. Musmanno,
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Witness, from Document Book III_D, Page 34 of the English, Page 60 of the German book I submit to you Exhibit 158, Document No-2859. This is your affidavit. In this affidavit you have said the following: "Since I took an officer's training course in the Army, my chief, Ohlendorf, ordered me to concern myself with questions of training within the unit." Can you explain these statements in detail? two days before, I assembled the drivers of the entire Einsatzgruppe in order to organize a motorized march column, because these drivers were not trained for driving in a motorized column. For this purpose I conducted several driving tests. During the advance of the column to the garrison I also saw to it that this motorized column proceeded in good order. After reaching our garrison I no longer had anything to do with this training since the commandos were now distributed. The men were all trained. The members of the Security Police had been trained in the school in Pretsch. The members of the Waffen-SS had been trained in their units, and the men of the police had also been trained, in their units.
Q What do you mean "by the expression "training"?
Q What kind of training is this? column, for every officer who was in a motorized unit knows that this is not taken for granted.
Q Were you ever deputy of the Chief of Einsatzgruppe D?
Q From Document Book III_D, Page 1 of the English Document Book, Page 1 of the German, I submit to you Exhibit 148, Document NO. 2856. This is Ohlendorf's affidavit of the 2nd of April, 1947. In this affidavit Ohlendorf has made the following statements: "Since he" -- and this means you -- "was the senior officer in point of service after me, he was entrusted by me with the duties of a deputy during my absence." When Ohlendorf was examined on the witness stand he said the following about this point. This is the transcript of the 9th of October, 1947, Page 577 of the German transcript. I don't know the page in the English transcript. "This means that he was my deputy in the staff of the Einsatzgruppe, "but not the deputy for the entire area of the Einsatzgruppe." Please comment on this. commando leaders Seetzen and Mueller had higher ranks, and two commando leaders had the same rank, As far as my sphere 3 is concerned I represented Ohlendorf in it in the staff of the Einsatzgruppe. That is, for the SD reports and for the liaison with the Army, As far as any executive missions are concerned, I was not competent for them during my time. Page 141 of the German text. I submit to you Exhibit 28, Document NO3055. This is Schubert's affidavit. In this affidavit Schubert states the following: "In October 1941 I was assigned to the Einsatzgruppe D. Ohlendorf was the chief of the Einsatzgruppe and Willy Seibert his deputy."
Are these statements correct? to my position in the staff, which he must have been thinking of when he said this, but this does not include a competence as deputy as far as dealing with the commando leaders was concerned. German. I submit to you Exhibit 4, Document NO. 2716. This is Schubert's affidavit of the 4th of February, 1947. Under No. 8 Schubert said the following: "When Ohlendorf was absent from the staff of the Einsatzgruppe no reports were sent to Berlin. As a rule his deputy Seibert accompanied him on these tours of inspection and I was ordered to look after the house', without, however, being allowed to solve any problems which might occur. I have never been initiated into secret orders and when Ohlendorf and Seibert were absent from the staff, no decisions could be made." Is it correct that no decisions could be made when Ohlendorf and you were absent from the staff? himself when he said this, for if Ohlendorf whom I usually accompanied was absent from the staff of the Einsatzgruppe, then no decisions could actually be made by Schubert in any manner, but this also shows that no current decisions were to be made in the staff, for otherwise the chief of the Einsatzgruppe would have had to appoint an authorized deputy during his absence. D with other agencies in the Army? the senior regimental commander. This regimental commander cannot worry about the usual business transactions in the staff, but in the staff the divisional commander is represented by the senior staff officer for these transactions.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, do you not have in the German Army a vice-divisional commander?
THE WITNESS: No, as far as I know there is no vice-divisional commander.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q. (By Dr. Gawlik) From Document Book III-D, Page 34 of the English, Page 60 of the German, I submit to you Exhibit 158, Document NO-2859. This is your affidavit of the 1st of April, 1947. In this affidavit you have said the following; "I never was appointed Ohlendorf's deputy for Einsatzgruppe D." Is this statement correct?
A. Yes, the statement is correct.
Q. In this affidavit you further stated, "However, I regarded myself as his deputy in all matters which Chief 3 had to work cut. As senior officer on the staff of the Einsatzgruppe I took over all tasks within the group whenever Ohlendorf was absent from the group." What do you mean by tasks of the group?
A. Tasks within the group meant within the staff. That was not the usual, customary use of the word, but an inclusion of the commandos would have been a wrong conclusion.
Q. In what matters were you the deputy of Ohlendorf within the staff during his absence?
A. In the staff I was the deputy for my sphere, for the SD reports, and for the liaison with the Army, and during his absence I was deputy for the current transactions of the staff.
Q. Were you also the deputy for my executive missions?
A. No, I have already said that for executive missions I was competent neither when Ohlendorf was present nor when he was absent.
DR. KOESSEL: Dr. Koessel deputising for Dr. Hoffmann for the Defendant Nosske.
The Defendant Nosske is sick and asks that he be excused for a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will take Defendant Nosske out because of his illness.
Q. (By Dr. Gawlik) the staff when Ohlendorf was absent from the group?
A. For this purpose the missions of the staff would have to be described briefly. It was not that current requests of the commandos had to be handled which would have made it necessary to come to immediate decisions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik; the Defendant Schulz will be excused for a few moments.
A. (continuing) This was especially true of the executive missions. The orders had been given clearly. The additional orders of the 11th Army were known to the commandos. They were announced publicly everywhere, and the directives for carrying out executions had been regulated by the chief of the Einsatzgruppe at the beginning, May I briefly describe a day as it passed, as it went on when Ohlendorf was on leave between March and the second half of April, 1942? I had to collect the reports coming from the commandos. I had to discuss these reports with the agencies, Thus, every day appointments for conferences were made, for there was not only one Army agency but five to six. Visitors from these agencies had to be received. In the meantime the Army had called up and asked for an immediate submission of the result of the partisan reconnaissance mission of the last few days, and may I add that these months were the climax in the partisan warfare in the Crimea. I had to compile these reports too, and to submit them to the Staff for Partisan Warfare of the Eleventh Army. Just in these very weeks it happened that I was ordered to three or four front assignments of the Army, and often I was not with the staff for about two or three days myself.
I can prove these front assignments. After my return reports which had come in in the meantime had to be worked on again.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, these reports which you received, from the commandos, did they cover all activities of the commandos?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That would include executions?
THE WITNESS: I also received reports and passed on reports which included executions, where it was reported that commandos had carried out executions.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q. (By Dr. Gawlik) Was during Ohlendorf's absence the group staff active at all in reference to executions?
A. The group staff hardly became active when Ohlendorf was there, and when Ohlendorf was not there any work with executions or any inspections of executions did not take place.
Q. Perhaps you can comment in this connection on this: Were the executions missions of the staff or were they in other fields?
A. The group staff, during my entire presence in Russia., did not have to carry out any executions. Therefore, it never occurs in documents. We did not have to deal with such questions in the staff.
Q. Did you ever during Ohlendorf's absence give any executive orders to the leaders of the special and Einsatz Kommandos?
A. No, I did not.
Q. According to page 236 of the German record, the prosecution has interpreted your affidavit as follows: Seibert says in his affidavit that in certain questions he was the deputy of Ohlendorf. Is this interpretation correct?
A. I agree to this interpretation by the prosecution, for it is not said that I was complete deputy of Ohlendorf but only for certain questions. For certain questions means for those fields which I have already listed in my own affidavit, namely, for the SD reports and for the liaison with the Army.
Q. Did executive questions belong to this list of questions which you had to deal with?
A. No, as I have already said, they did not.
Q. Who was deputy in the place of the group staff when you accompanied Ohlendorf on his trips?
A. At the garrison of the staff there was no authorized deputy in the staff during these official trips for the entire Einsatzgruppe, If Ohlendorf was on official trips I usually accompanied him, and it certainly would, have been senseless to take along his deputy on all these many COURT II CASE IX trips, for just during these periods of absence a deputy in all matters would have had to remain at the garrison or at the headquarters of the staff, especially since these official trips often lasted one week.
Because of the large distances in Russia and becuase of the bad road conditions, may I add here that if it rained we could not proceed for one or two days because 80% of the roads were merely field paths.
Q. Who was Ohlendorf's deputy at the end of April and in May, 1942, when Ohlendorf was in Prague?
A. When Ohlendorf went to Prague, end of April, beginning of May, 1942, I accompanied him. I participated in the conference in Prague which lasted several days. In this time too there was no deputy for all questions with the headquarters of the staff.
Q. According to page 236 of the German record the prosecution has said that you were Ohlendorf's chief of staff for security questions. Is that statement correct?
A. There was never a chief of staff for security questions with Einsatzgruppe D. Therefore, I could never have been it.
Q. Were you ever chief of staff of the Einsatzgruppe D?
A. During my entire presence in Russia there never was a chief of staff or a leader of the staff in the Einsatzgruppe D?
Q. Did you ever handle any security questions in Einsatzgruppe D?
A. I do not know exactly what is meant by security questions. As far as any orders or measures are concerned about the security of the operational area, I did not deal with such. Of course, I worked on reports from the Kommandos which also concerned the security in the entire area.
Q. What do you mean by working on reports?
A. The Kommandos sent the reports to the group, that is, the staff. What I mean by this is that these reports were compiled, by me and were submitted to the chief of the Einsatzgruppe as a draft. As far as they were concerned with summarized activity reports all reports were, as far as I remember, signed by the chief of the Einsatzgruppe and they were then sent on to the RSHA.
Q. Did I understand you correctly that you meant by working on reports that you compiled the reports from the Kommandos and then passed them on to the superior agencies; is that correct?
A. I must distinguish between my own work and the SD reports. Here, whenever reports came in I questioned the Kommandos, I laid down directives, I decided what matter was to be treated in the reports and how it was to be treated. These statements, which also included executions, were included by me in the situation reports in many cases. Otherwise, I had nothing to do with handling this matter,
Q. Is it correct then that your work was only concerned with making out the reports?
A. That is correct, for I would not have been in a position to make any inquiry or to even make decisions about facts in these reports, because I was not trained for this and because there were no other trained officers in the group. The staff did not have one single interrogating officer.
Q. Did your work also include the ordering or carrying out of security measures?
A. No, I heard about these measures afterwards through reports.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, I don't understand your statement. The staff did not have a single interrogating officer.
THE WITNESS: Yes, a director 4 in a staff, as I heard later from other Einsatzgruppe, usually had several executive officers to handle such questions and interrogating officers were included in this.
THE PRESIDENT: My question was whether the table of organization in the German Army includes a designation "interrogating officer".
THE WITNESS: In the Army, certainly not, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, in your organization, Security Police and Security Service?
THE WITNESS: In the Security Police there were officers who carried out interrogations....
THE PRESIDENT: That isn't the question that I put. Certainly there were officers who carried out interrogations. I want to know if there was a certain position, a certain title called interrogating officer?
THE WITNESS: I know of no such title, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, why do you say that the staff did not have a single interrogating officer? Any officer is capable of interrogating, isn't he?
THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. An officer who came from Office 3 to make out reports for the SD was not entitled to carry out an interrogation at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Supposing a Russian prisoner were brought to you and you were the only one there. Could you interrogate him?
THE WITNESS: I certainly could have done.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you interrogate him?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this never happened....
THE PRESIDENT: If a Russian prisoner were brought to you and you were the only officer around, would you interrogate him?
THE WITNESS: Certainly I would have asked-him where he COURT II CASE IX had come from.
...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you would, have Interrogated him. You would have got from him as much information as you could.
THE WITNESS: The information which would, have showed me by which unit he would have to be interrogated further.
THE PRESIDENT: But you would have asked him questions?
THE WITNESS: Yes, of course, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: So that any officer with a little bit of intelligence, and he would have had to have some intelligence in order to become an officer, would certainly be capable of interrogating?
THE WITNESS: In this respect, your Honor, as you express it, certainly. When I was testifying I had in mind that for these interrogations carried on by the Security Police, officers had been specially trained, but in the form in which you put it, your Honor, it was of course true.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Dr. Gawlik.
Q (By dr. Gawlik) Where does the expression "interrogating officer" come from, witness?
A I am no expert. It may be that I have used an entirely wrong expression. I imagine an executive officer.
Q What did you want to say by using the expression "interrogating officer"? What did you mean by it? to carry out executive missions and does and is trained for it. More than an interrogation is necessary for that.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, in order to clarify this matter I would like to say a few words. We have a different procedure than in America and our criminal matters are first handled by the police and there are certain officials with the criminal police, and then from '33 to '45 there were certain officials with the Secret State Police who were specially trained in interrogations, and those were called interrogation officers. They carried out interrogations of defendants with witnesses present. And only then passed matters on to the prosecution authorities. They had been especially trained for this to carry out interrogations.
THE PRESIDENT: But the witness has now just stated that by an interrogating officer he meant one who was competent to carry out executive missions.
DR. GAWLIK: We designated this as an executive mission. This has nothing to do with executions. We designated the whole mission of the police as an executive function.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I wasn't referring to executions when I said executive mission, but an executive mission would certainly go far beyond that of interrogation.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, of course, there were other tasks concerned with that, but the entire prosecution of a criminal action, the investigation of a criminal action of course there is more to it than interrogation -- but the technique of interrogation this belongs to the executive function.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, if it is broader than merely interrogating, and the witness would so indicate, I do not understand how so important an organization as an Einsatzgruppe headquaters would not have that type of an officer. Can you explain that to us, witness?
THE WITNESS: I can explain this, your Honor. Ohlendorf, as chief of the Einsatzgruppe, had these executive missions carried out by the Kommandos. No prisoner was ever brought to the staff. No civilian prisoner either during the entire time that I was in Russia, where there would have been a necessity for interrogating him. Only thus can it be understood that no authorized deputy was with staff at certain times. Otherwise it would have been completely impossible.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Dr. Gawlik.
Q (By Dr. Gawlik) Was there ever an expert for executive missions with the staff? of the Russian assignment, Office 1 of RSHA detailed a Chief 4 who immediately after the Russian invasion received a Kommando, after Ohlendorf had conferred with the chief of Office 1; and this man was never replaced.
Q Who was this? From which office did this man come? Mueller, and an official who had been only active in the security police. matters? 1936 until the end of the war, I never was active in any other department, not even in an information service. Therefore, I never received such training. tion has claimed that you were the senior officer within the group. Is that statement correct?
A I was not the senior officer in the Einsatzgruppe. The Kommando leaders, Standartenfuehrers Setzen abd Mueller, had higher ranks. of the German, I submit to you exhibit 159, document NOKW-629. This is a report of the 9th of October, 1941, to the headquaters of the Air Force. This is signed by you as an acting deputy and from document book 3-D, I submit to you, on page 39 of the English and 69 of the German, exhibit 160, document NOKW-628. This is a report of the 16th of April, 1942, This report is also signed by you as a deputy. In the German book this is missing. The letter IV as a deputy are missing, but in the original it is mentioned. I ask you now, was Ohlendorf absent during the time listed? remember that, but I do not want to doubt it for I have seen from the documents that Ohlendorf was on an official trip, but this happened very frequently. Sometimes it was short, sometimes for a lengthy period. In April, that is, in the second document, Ohlendorf was in Berlin on leave.
Q Concerning the first document, I have another question. If Ohlendorf was absent at all, can you comment on whether it was a short absence or a long absence? I said, I don't even remember it, and any kind of question of being his deputy did not even come up. April, 1942, his deputy, that is, Ohlendorf's deputy?
A No, I was not Ohlendorf's deputy.
Q It was first divided. First describe the October '41 situation and then the April situation. for my sphere, the SD reports and the liaison with the Army, and in this capacity I signed this document and this happened also if Ohlendorfwas there.
It was not the reason that he was absent but this happened if he was present too. In the manner in which Ohlendorf worked this is no special in Office 3 one of his department chiefs for his field had the right to sign documents for Ohlendorf as a representative for his particular sphere of work, but he did not become the representative for the entire Office 3. interpreted. In April, 1942 the same facts existed, but at this time I was in the staff as the senior officer and I was Ohlendorf's deputy for the current transactions of the staff. But this has nothing to do with the signature.
Q And who was the actual deputy of Ohlendorf. in 1942? is, from the middle of March to the second half of April, Ohlendorf had ordered that the Kommando leaders were to represent him in their different spheres.
Q Did Ohlendorf have anyone deputy at all; or, to clarify this point how many deputies were there? said, the commando leaders represented him in their spheres because Ohlendorf was of the opinion as he had been during the entire years of his activity that he could only be represented by a man who knows his area well himself. German; this is page 39 of the English, your Honor; this is Exhibit 160, NOKW 628. This is the report of the 16th April, 1942. Here a transfer of sub-commandos is mentioned. Did you order the transfer of these subcommandos?
A No, I did not. They were ordered by the commander to which these sub-commandos belonged. commandos? reports of the commando. commandos?
Q How about when Ohlendorf was absent? subordinated to the commando to which they belonged, Jews, gypsies or communists. BY THE PRESIDENT: for general direction in their activities?
Q To whom did the commando leaders turn for general directions?
Q When Ohlendorf was absent? army corps to which they had been attached; or, if it was a matter of an important general directive, they had to get in touch with Ohlendorf, and this was possible because we had radio communication with Ohlendorf. no matter where he might be, he still commanded the entire Einsatzgruppen? quiries by commando leaders or their request for new directives did not occur during this time at all, but if they had occurred, a decision would have been made by way of this radio communication.
Q Suppose that you were unable to reach him; suppose a commando leader was unable to reach him when he went to Prague; he might be enroute; he might be in a plane; he might be anywhere; that he could not be reached, and a decision had to be made. To whom would the commando leader turn for direction and guidance? responsibility for the security of the area. help this commando leader in reaching a decision? made. to what the other commando leaders were doing. Wouldn't he have to clear through the Einsatzgruppen headquarters? mean? to know what the other commandos were doing; he would naturally turn to the headquarters, the Einsatzgruppen headquarters to find out just what was being done in all the other commandos.
Now, to whom would he turn at the headquarters for direction and guidance? the other commandos in the orderly room in order to see how this commando solved a question. would look at these reports and then advise the commando leader who was making the inquiry. staff...
Q Some one would have to take the authority. Now, who would at the headquarters receive this inquiry from the commando leader in the field and would make the necessary investigation, and then finally transmit a message to the commando leaders? Who would do this at headquarters?
A If the commando commander came to the staff in Ohlendorf's absence, then I certainly would have said in this case: in the orderly room there are the reports of the commandos there; you have the possibility of looking at them and of seeing how the commando worked it out.
Q Let's suppose he didn't come personally, but contacted by radio or sent a message by courier, addressed to Ohlendorf; Ohlendorf isn't there, and it is impossible for Ohlendorf to be reached, and this commando leader must know just what the situation is among the other commando leaders. He is confronted with a problem; he wants to solve it; he needs information; he needs guidance. How, who at headquarters would help him out? these reports to take along to his commando leader.
Q Who would give him the reports to take along? I cannot say off-hand.
Q what rank did the adjutant have?
Q Yes. Then you out-ranked the adjutant. the guidance. to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q May I ask you a question about this, witness. What do you mean by help. Does that mean that you had given the commando leader a decision; that you would have to decide the matter? Or, that you could have been able to give the commando leader advice. decision, and that I could not have given any advice in any field which I did not work on; but it could have been only a matter of giving the commando leader a report from another commando, but how he then decides, whether he depends upon the decision made by the other commando, that was up to hiw own responsibility. if Ohlendorf was absent for a lengthy time? with me, made a large number of trips, when no authorized deputy was with the staff.
Q Witness, you did not understand me. Look at this sketch here. Who was Ohlendorf's deputy when Ohlendorf was absent; if he was absent for a longer period of time, who were the deputies?