spiritual things, did you not? specific problem which we might have discussed. each of you found it through your own theological eyes? any specific details about this conversation because I talked with many people about my observations. churches in Russia, the different denominations? there were still smaller groups, such as the Baptists, the Mennonites, and similar groups, but the Orthodox church was subdivided into three main tendencies.
Q I don't mean for you to give me the description of the various churches, you also naturally discussed the Jewish religion, didn't you - the Jewish church? out of my sphere. There was a completely independent Jewish department. It is true that, before the beginning of the war, I was supposed to direct the Jewish Department 2, but .....
Q Well, now, just a minute. You went to Russia to study the spiritual attitude of the people, and you called on various commando leaders and asked them what they found among the population from the spiritual point of view, that is correct, isn't it?
of the Jewish attitude would come up, would it not, from the spiritual side? it would be the natural thing talking about these various churches, the Orthodox Church, the Baptist Church, and so on, also to say something about the Jewish spiritual attitude in Russia? remote because as far as I know there were very few Jews in this area. had many discussions with him, you were both there awaiting some further orders. You had leisure time, and you talked. Now, in these various conversations it would be a natural thing in talking about those churches, the different religions, to say something about the Jews also, wouldn't that be the natural thing, especially for two theologians in conversation? the Jewish problem was such an unpleasant problem for all of us, and such a delicate problem that if one had nothing direct to do with it, one evaded it. interesting subject to you, would it not, your discussing the spiritual values of a people and there are many Jews among those people - wouldn't you naturally, especially in conversation with a brother theologian, say something about what you found among the Jews, or what people said about the Jews?
Q No, No. We are talking about your conversation with Biberstein. I cannot remember that we discussed this problem in detail.
Q In your report did you talk about the Jews? you did not discuss the Jewish situation in detail, but you did make some reference to the Jewish situation in Russia, didn't you?
A I did not say that I didn't say anything about it, but I merely cannot remember any specific detail. conversations?
A Yes. We discussed various things, but whether during my conversation with Biberstein, I do not know, but in various conversations I had.
Q I am speaking about Biberstein. Now, please, in your conversation with Biberstein, did you not, as two brother theologians, make some reference to the Jewish situation and talk about it, it would be the most natural thing in the world, I see nothing illogical about that? natural, of course, it is very probable that we talked about it.
Q All right, now, if you talked about it, wouldn't the most logical thing in the world be to discuss this business of the execution of the Jews? Wouldn't that be natural? That would be the biggest subject, the Jews were being killed and you didn't approve of it, and wouldn't you mention that to him, you know about this, you didn't see the order, but you had heard about it as you have told us, on the basis of certain facts you came to the conclusion that someone in high office had ordered the Jews be killed, and here you are with your brother theologian discussing things leisurely, and you talk about Jews.
Now, wouldn't it be the most logical thing to talk about this order, about killing the Jews? rather I would have to lie if I said we talked about it because I cannot remember that we did, but it is very possible, in fact, very probable that we talked about it. BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, but you know nothing definite? basis of what the president has said? talked about it, but I cannot remember details. was housed in a special building separate from all the others?
A Yes. It was in its own building under the leadership of Eichmann. This building in the Kurfuerstenstreet was completely separate and was guarded, and no member of any other department of the RSHA was able to enter if he had no proof that he had some official business there. RSHA about the so-called "Jewish Order"? about this order and didn't hear anything. I didn't see the order myself nor did I read it, nor did I hear its wording, but I knew from various facts, or rather, I could conclude from various facts that such an order had been given.
of the RSHA told you positively about the order.
Q Then I have a last question. When did you see Biberstein the last time in Russia?
Q Thank you. Oh pardon me, I have another question. Witness, please give a picture of Biberstein's character as it appeared to you. This is a question which you didn't answer before. I knew from people who know him in his capacity as dean, for example, Brigadier General Hahn, who lived in the same community in which Biberstein was dean, that Biberstein was a great idealist, and he was a national socialist because of full conviction and idealism. I do not consider him as a more ambitious man, but as an absolute idealist. On the basis of the conversations in Kiev, this picture became a little more complete. If I want to mention this, I must go into some detail. I got to know three main groups of people in the Einsatzgruppen. The one group consisted of those who carried out their orders correctly and exactly and for whom the authority who gave the orders was valid, who were very conscious about exact investigations and proceedings the way Thomas reproached Ohlendorf, who either because they were accustomed to comply with the orders exactly or because of their blind adoration of Adolf Hitler carried out the orders and who did not consider themselves competent to criticize these orders in any fashion.
The second group were people who received their orders, but, because they were somewhat different people, soft people, they immediately developed conflicts between their conscience and these orders, who suffered very much, because of these orders and because of their activity. I got to know people who went completely to pieces, who were completely broken and sometimes there were even individual catastrophes. Certain cases -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, now he has mentioned Group No. II. Now if he is going to start to give us a lot of individual cases, I think we might be drifting quite far afield, don't you think? He mentioned a third group. I should like him to start on group 3.
THE WITNESS: The third group consists of people who also developed conflicts about these orders and immediately tried to got out of the kommando as soon as possible or who knew how to evade the orders and who very soon were relieved because they were too soft, as one was telling in general about Brigadier General Schulz. It was said that he was relieved because he was too soft. Whether this is correct I do not know, but that is what people were saying.
Q (By Dr. Bergold) Witness, now it would interest me to have you say something about Biberstein.
A Biberstein belonged to this third group. He tried by all means to get out of these conflicts and to get into some other activity.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I would really like to say, Dr. Bergold, I think we ought to inform Dr. Mayer for the Defendant Braune that in the event the Defendant Biberstein is not well enough to take the stand for the cross-examination which is still pending then, when you have completed with this witness entirely, Dr. Mayer will take up the defense of the Witness Braune.
Very well. The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. RIEDIGER (for defendant Haensch): Your Honor, I would like you to permit me to put a few questions to the witness, for the defendand Haensch.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly you may do so. Just before you begin, I would like to make an announcement for the benefit of Dr. Bergold. Dr. Bergold, it seems that your client will be in condition to come to the courtroom to testify and I think it would be much better if we could dispose of the cross examination today rather than put it off to a later time.
Very well. You may proceed. BY DR. RIEDIGER:
Q Witness, do you know the defendant Haensch?
Q Where did you meet him? Office.
Q When and how, and in what capacity, was he active in this office? my memory, joined the SD Main Office. At that time he was in charge of disciplinary and welfare questions in Office I. If I am not mistaken this department was formed into a Gruppe later on.
Q How long was he in this office, in your opinion? campaign.
Q Do you know when that was? because when, in the beginning of January, I arrived at Kiev he was not yet there. That was during the first days of January. Reich Security Main Office went to the Gruppe leaders of Office I.
A I do not think so. Reports from the East, according to my memory, were only submitted to those people who had something to do with the contents of those reports - that is, the Eastern situation. I myself received the Eastern reports as long as I was active in the Berlin office because on various occasions notices were brought in about connections of the NKWD and the Orthodox clergy and other problems. These were mentioned quite shortly, by the way. According to the secrecy decree, I consider it impossible that a sub-department chief, or Referent of Office I, ever received these reports. Even later, during the first half of 1942, when I was, very briefly, in charge of Departments I and II in Kiev, I did not receive these reports any longer, but only during my activity in Berlin, that is, until the end of 1941. As I said, therefore, according to my experiences I deem it impossible that these department chiefs and Referents of Department I ever received these reports. Russian campaign. Will you please do so now.
A That was in the end of 1941 end the beginning of 1942. At the end of 1941 I received the order to go to Russia and in the beginning of 1942, the beginning of January, I arrived in Kiev.
DR. RIEDIGER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel desiring to cross examine the witness will please step to the podium. BY DR. HEIM (for the defendant Blobel): examination, you arrived at the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942.
Q Where were you during the first half of 1942?
A I was partly in Kiev, partly on the way; but I always arrived back in Kiev.
that time? because I was subordinated to him.
Q That suffices, witness. Witness, do you know where SK 4-a was stationed at that time?
Q Do you know who was the leader of SK 4-a at that time?
A I do not know. I am not acquainted with the figures. I always had a bad memory for figures, and if you tell me now where the SK-4 was stationed I might be able to find it because my memory for locations is better than my memory for figures.
Q Do you know where Blobel was at that time? remember - he was at Charkov.
Q Do you know how long he was there? mately... it was either at the beginning of March - in fact, it is very probable it was in the beginning of March - that Heydrich was in Kiev, and on that occasion Blobel was also in Kiev, and he told me that Heydrich had informed him that he was going to be relieved and that he had a new assignment for him, but that before this would take place he would go on recreation leave.
Q Do you know when Blobel arrived back in Berlin?
A I assume, if he wasn't in Berlin before this transfer, that he must have arrived in Berlin immediately after. That must have been in March or April - presumably, at least, and he must have gone on recreation leave after that. Any way, he was not in Kiev at that time. This visit of Heydrich was a short while before he was shot. According to my memory Heydrich was shot at the end of April 1942. The visit, therefore, was before that. At the same time there is another date which I remember. That is the fact that Heydrich at that time said, "Hartel, your three months in Russia are almost over now.
I shall fetch you back to Berlin very soon. I shall no longer need you here." But this transfer did not come about because Heydrich was shot. According to this, therefore, I can assume that the visit must have been approximately at the beginning of March because he said that three months of my assignment would be over soon.
Q Did you know Dr. Thomas, witness?
A Yes. I knew him. I had known him since the first beginnings of his activities in the SD. It was in Wiesbaden at that time. I think he held the rank of Hauptscharfuhrer, or something of that sort, and I certainly watched his rapid promotion to Gruppenfuehrer.
Q Witness, do you know that Dr. Thomas had an estate in the vicinity of Kiev, by the name of Birkenhof? put at the disposal of Dr. Thomas? not move until Spring 1942. That is my estimate. Of course, I am not quite certain but he wont there quite often in winter already because it was being worked upon; but I believe that he only moved in in Spring. the Prosecution. In this affidavit you maintain, under number 3, that in March or April 1942 you met the defendant Blobel in Kiev and that on that occasion you had a little drive to the estate of Dr. Thomas.
A Yes, yes...along that road, in the direction of the estate... because that was the usual road if one wanted to go into the neighborhood for some fresh air...it was quite beautiful as far as landscape was concerned, and if one did not want to take the other possibility, over the Dneper, one went there because the Dneper road was really not so good, and there was a lot of traffic there, one could not go there so quickly. If one wanted to get some fresh air this was the best road, in the direction of the estate.
the first half of 1942, Blobel had been... that according to your opinion he had been in the vicinity of Charkov. beginning of 1942.
Q Where was Blobel in February or March or April 1942?
Q When did he go on leave? because he said that Heydrich had told him that he would go into a new assignment but before that he would go on leave, because physically Blobel was in a bad condition, and even psychologically he seemed somewhat exhausted and Thomas told me at that time, in his own way of speaking... he said that with Blobel the film constantly tears -- that means that psychologically he was extensively exhausted because he could no longer carry out decent work. in Kiev in the presence of Heydrich... you saw him there.
A Yes, at least during those days. I cannot remember it exactly. It must have been during those days because the conversation revolved around this subject about Heydrich's activities. that, or just once?
A I do not remember. In any case, I don't remember any discussions lasting any length of time. Blobel to Birkenhof? according to my memory, at the beginning of March. Originally I thought that it might have been a little later than that, but now, realizing the connections I believe that according to what Heydrich said at that time it cannot have been later than the beginning of April because Heydrich was no longer living then, and it could not have been in February, in my opinion, because at the latest or the earliest day it could have been the last day of February because Heydrich said to me on that occasion that my three months are almost up and he would take me back to Berlin.
From that I must conclude that it must have been at the beginning of March.
Q Witness, did you go by car?
Q Was that the service car of the Defendant Blobel?
A No, I believe not. I think it must have been an office car.
Q Witness, did you meet Dr. Thomas on his estate at Birkenhof? Thomas or some such person, but it was only our intention to have some fresh air, and I don't think that Thomas on that occasion lived at Birkenhof yet. statement, I mean, to the effect that you took a common drive to get to the estate. I did not say in the affidavit that I went for a discussion with Thomas. We just drove along the road because it was the nicest and the most comfortable road, and that is why we went there. That was the locality where one could go if one wanted to leave the town for a bit and where one could have some fresh air. pointed out a place to you in the vicinity of the cemetery saying that Jews had been buried there who had been executed by him and his commando.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, can you refer us to that document?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I only have the document number. The document number is NO-5384.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, this document was offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 180 during the cross-examination of Defendant Blobel, but the Tribunal ruled that the exhibit should be accepted after the examination of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: So it was only offered for identification then.
THE PRESIDENT: So that we physically do not possess it?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: The copy was handed to the Tribunal, and I do think that also the exhibit is in the archives of the General Secretary, but I am sure that your Honors have received copies of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q (By Dr. Heim) Witness, I repeat my question. In your document, you said, I quote. It is on Page 1 of the original document, Page 2 of the German copy, "On a common drive to the estate of the Commander in Chief in Kiev, Dr. Thomas, in the vicinity of the town near a cemetery, Blobel pointed out a place to me, told me that Jews had been buried there whom he had shot with his commando." That is the end of my quotation. Witness, is this statement exactly - is it correct as it is put in the affidavit?
Q In the affidavit it says, furthermore, I quota, "There was an old tank ditch which was dug Later." That is the end of my quotation.
THE PRESIDENT: Not which was dug later, which was later filled in. There is a great difference.
THE INTERPRETER: Yes, that is a mistake on my part, I think, my mistake. I didn't hear. Which was patched later or filled in, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Q (By Dr. Heim) Witness, if that had been a ditch and had been filled in, how could you see that it had been a tank ditch? a shattering impression on me at the time. It was snowy, and on one particular spot we touched the spot, the earth still exploded. There were some kind of eruptions , a kind of explosion, and I asked Blobel what that was, and he said, "Here my Jews are buried." And it was that in this tank ditch there were so many corpses heaped up that when they disintegrated, the dirt over this ditch, this earth, of course, tore on occasions.
Q Witness, you haven't answered my question. How could you see that on this point former tank ditches had been? buried whom he had executed with his commando?
Q Or did he say to you, as you just said, "Here my Jews are buried"?
A He said, "Here my Jews - here are my Jews." And when I asked him, he told me that this was tank ditch, had been a tank ditch, and that there were two points in the vicinity of Kiev, the one place which we were just touching, and there was another place or another spot which I do not know and I did not know, and I didn't ask for, and he told me that on this spot he had shot Jews with his commando, and thus the explanation, "Here are my Jews," has to be understood.
Q If I understood you correctly, Dr. Hartel, you contend that Blobel, on that occasion, told you that the Jews buried there had been shot by his commando on his order in his presence?
Q Have you not been under a disciplinary punishment once?
Q Was there no disciplinary procedure against you in 1943?
A That wan't a disciplinary procedure. Then there was only a preliminary investigation against me. In 1941 there were two disciplinary procedures. One ended with four days' house arrest. I had to remain in my apartment for four days. The second ended without any result because I was sent into the Einsatz assignment. reproached with being after the female personnel of the German offices? the Sturmbannfuehrer Hilf was asked to carry out a preliminary investigation, and when a number of female witnesses were heard he came to the conclusion that during my whole stay in Russia I had never had intimate sexual relations with any female member of the personnel, but only sometimes, of course, hearty friendly relations, but without any intimate connection.
The reason for my recall to Berlin, as you have just touched upon, since you put this confessor question, was the following. I had expressed a number of misgivings to Thomas by writing concerning his activity and his kind of a administration, his way of administration, and these misgivings, of course, were highly unpleasant to him. Therefore, he looked for a reason, a pretext, in fact, to got rid of me, and when he dismissed me - you, of course, force me through your question to say so - when he dismissed me in fact he said, "You go back to Berlin. I warn you not to mention any word whatsoever about me or against me in Berlin. If you say the slightest detail about me in Berlin I shall, within a few hours, arrive in Berlin, and I shall eliminate you."
Q Witness, that is enough. I now want to confirm and I want to establish the fact that I have nothing to do with confessing. That used to be your concern in former times.
Q Witness, were you interned in Hammelburg in the internment camp?
Q Did you lecture on religious matters on that occasion? the CIC, partly supported by material of the American Protestant priest, and sometimes even in the camp of Westheim and supported by material of the CIC officer, I lectured with the basic tendency of tolerance. The basic tendency of these lectures was the sentence by Nikolaus Kusanus that all religions of humanity are rays of devine light and that the individual religions of humanity, only in, of course, its various degrees and various kinds, display device wisdom and devine completeness, and in every lecture I pointed out this thought of tolerance, and therefore admittedly I was
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment please, Dr. Heim. It seems that we are going far afield.
You have questioned him about his private sex life; you have questioned him about his fresh-air trips. Now you are going to have him repeat to us his lectures. I am afraid we don't have time to listen to all those lectures.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I have a few questions to put which refer merely to the credibility of the witness. I did not intend to have the witness repeat his lecture which he has given, and I would like to ask the witness to give brief answers to the questions I put to him and only answer the question and do not make any other remarks.
Q (By Dr. Heim) Witness, did your lectures not attack Christianity and religion?
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, this question certainly is not admissible. The witness has said that he has lectured with the permission of the CIC, with the permission or support of American authorities. If Dr. Heim wants to challenge him on that he can prove he had not the permission to lecture, but I do think it is absolutely incorrect to ask the witness this question which Dr. Heim just put.
DR. BERGOLD: I subscribe to the opinion of the Prosecutor. I think this is not a part of the subject that the witness should be asked about, and I think the content matter os his lectures is reasonable but has nothing to do with the actual subject, and I should like this question not be be admitted.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, the content matter of these lectures has not been criticized by myself, but I only asked the witness whether his lectures attacked Christianity, as I deem this question concerning credibility very important.
DR. BERGOLD: I may just say that my colleague is wrong. If anybody thinks that this lecture has a damaging effect and the witness thinks that the lecture is not damaging Christianity, the lawyer cannot prove anything at all. He can only prove that another authority or another person can be of a different opinion, but this does not speak against or for the credibility of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, it would seem that the majority is against you. You have the Prosecution and the defense firmly allied against you on this point.
DR. HEIM: I understand.
THE PRESIDENT: That isn't so sad for you as it is that the Tribunal also is against you on this point. You see, Dr. Heim, I know you are attacking the credibility of the witness, and that is entirely proper, but to question him on what he talked about in a religious lecture, and in an attempt to draw from his answer something unfavorable to the witness, you would need to assume that the person deciding that question would have to have a certain religious attitude on that particular point, and naturally we are not here to pass upon religious attitudes. We are here to ascertain the facts in an absolutely impartial manner insofar as those facts appertain to the charges in the indictment. The objection in sustained from both sides. Proceed with your next question, Dr. Heim.