A Yes. Snow was still lying and, therefore, the earth was still frozen.
Q Thank you, Witness. Is it known to you that a decomposition of corpses cannot take place if the corpses are frozen?
A That I don't know because -- but sometimes, of course, the sun is very hot. The sun was shining, and if you know the climate of southern Russia and especially this territory, you would know that sometimes in January the sun shines very hotly, and there were hot days in January and February, and then, of course, it became cooler then. It therefore, caused a change, it is possible that on one day it was so hot that one became quite sunburnt in the midst of winter. and a few days after that the grounds frozen again. in January actually thaws the frozen earth there?
A I don't think so. Certainly not in January, but it wasn't January, it was later.
Q You have just said that it was the sun in January? sometimes, but did not say at that time it was January. In order to give you an example of the climate in southern Russia, I gave you that particular example stating that in January it was even very hot in January. On the other hand there were very cool nights in summer, sometimes. Russia. Please answer the following question. Do you think it possible that in spite of the frozen earth corpses underneath could be in decomposition?
they must have bean under the earth for quite some time. The actual chemical process I do not understand, I can only say what I saw at that time, about the chemical details. you have to ask somebody else.
Q Witness, did you know Erlinger? ditch for a mass grave for executed Jews?
A I can't imagine that at that time in 1942 there were any mass executions. I don't know for certain, but I heard nothing about it -- as far as minor executions are concerned, about a hundred people, that has actually taken place. which you mentioned this morning. Is it known to you that at the time Heydrich visited Einsatzgruppe A as well as Einsatzgruppe B?
A I do not know. I only know that he visited Einsatzgruppe C.
Q You know that he visited Einsatzgruppe C? examination that during the second half of 1942 you had been the chief of 1 and 2? I mean I could be called the chief of both these offices. Sturmbannfuehrer Heinz was the leader I with Dr. Thomas?
A Yes. He had this office shortly before, until September approximately and the remainder of the year I was the chief.
quarter? A number of things happened before, but at that time Heydrich was Chief of 1, and 2, and when I came back to Berlin I took over both departments 1 and 2. I believe it must have been September. I did not say that only during the whole second part of the year I was in charge, I only said that during the second part I was the chief of 1 and 2.
Q Were you not in SK 4A for sight week's when this was under the leadership of Dr. Weinmann?
A I can't remember the exact time but approximately two months I stayed at Gharkow, and I visited all the scientific institutes and old museums and scientific institutions. I took part in examination etc, and I started with the institute of atom splitting up to agricultural institutes. All institutes existing in Gharkov were visited by me. I spoke to a number of scientists, professors, artists, and I also met von Radetzky, who introduced me to a number of people, and I lived in the head quarters of the Commander of the Einsatzgruppe. BY THE PRESIDENT: up to agriculture. Did you consider atom splitting very simple?
A No. I said I visited these institutions for the atom splitting up to the smallest agricultural institutions. I saw these. I visited them. I am not a specialist in this field myself, therefore, I could only be informed of What others performed there. I was more interested in other institutes of a more spiritual kind.
BY DR. HEIM: Document No. 5384, you say in the third sentence or Number 2, which in the first page. I quote, "In spring of 1941 I arrived at the office IV". That is the end of my quotation. Can you tell us what office IV of the RSHA meant? Office IV Was that the Criminal Police?
A No, It was Gestapo. I was detailed for this particular office.
Q What did you do there? information service which I had to deal with before. For executive questions, government councillor. Roth was active and another government councillor. Office III the SD was competent for information questions. Can you not give us any more details concerning your activity in Office IV? one office to another. First, it was in the office E. It was in the main department of that, then it came to the information department, then it came to office 2, then to office 3, then for a short while to office 7, then for a short time it came to office 4, and then it left. The task I had to deal with, that is information service for this subject dealing with church matters in the field of the various religions which existed together with these church liaison men whom I have just mentioned, and this task generally was always the same but then, of course, it was detailed a little, one part of it, for instance was given over to office 3, that is religious life as a domestic sphere.
That was given over to office 3, but the actual information service of the various churches was an assignment of office 4, for a short while and as I have already mentioned, I was in the office 6, my task I only had to deal with matters of office 6. Therefore, it changed all the time.
Q I have only another three or four questions. When you made out your affidavits concerning the charges of the defendant Blobel, did you not make a mistake as to the personality concerned? I remembered with great intensity. However, it is thus Dr. Thomas said at the time, as I have already mentioned, that Blobel's film was tearing all the time, i.e, that Blobel physically and psychologically was exhausted and was a broken man so that it is possible that Blobel said something at the time which he did not know any mere afterwards and even that, if I may use that phrase, his film had been torn, but I can only say what Blobel told me at the time himself. voluntarily, or were you asked by the prosecution to make the statement?
MR. HOCHWALD: I do think it is necessary that Dr. Heim specifies a little bit as requested by the prosecution, whether he was questioned by the prosecution or whether the prosecution asked him to make this statement or whatever it is, but I do think this important question should be a little bit more specific.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but Mr. Hochwald, this is cross examination and he can put it in the best possible way that he can for his own client. He can put any question at all practically.
BY DR. HEIM: put to you. shootings of Jews and whether I knew the order. Thereupon, in criminating myself, I declared that I did not know the order, but that I had to assume that such an order was existing, so these were the two points I made. Then I was asked what made me conclude that this order was existing, practically that meant my incriminating myself. I knew of the eastern reports, that means the resorts of the UDSSR which I got until 1944. I also knew it from conversations, for since I was in the East it could not be avoided to be told about it, and then I was questioned for details. There was a second element. I had to answer this question in order to exonerate the defendant Radetzky, who also was charged with it. I had to free him from any charges that may be made against him, but the prosecution had nothing to do with it. last fortnight, to the effect that when you made out the affidavit you only had the choice between incriminating either the defendant, Radetzky or the defendant, Blobel. and that you would rather incriminate the defendant Blobel than the defendant Radetzky?
MR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, I object to this question; it is a result of a discussion that I had with my colleague, Heim, in the course of which he misunderstood me. In this form, as my colleague is putting it here, I, myself, did not tell him.
THE WITNESS: But I want to answer the question. I have stated:
In the case in which it is the question whether two people are guilty or whether one man whom I personally deem innocent, while I knew for certain that the other called himself guilty, that in this case I would, of course, certainly have to speak the truth, that if a psychological incriminate one and declare the other one innocent, I had to say what I considered necessary from my own conscience. By DR. HEIM: the moral quality of a man who being a priest denounces another clergyman.
DR. BERGOLD: Witness, you need not answer the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel desire to cross examine the witness? BY THE PRESIDENT: question that at a particular place there was only a small execution of 100. Do you consider the killing of 100 people as a small matter?
A Not at all. Not at all. I think it is a grays offense, but I only used it in relation to the rather larger mass executions about which the reports speak. I want to object to the opinion that I might regard the execution of 100 people as a negligent matter. with the large figures which had been stated in describing mass murders?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. All right. Proceed please. By DR. RATZ (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT VON RADETZKY). in Charkov and that on that occasion you visited scientific institutions beginning with the Institution for Atom Splitting and going on to Agricultural Institutions and that on that occasion you also met the Defendant Radetzky. I now want to ask you do you know what functions Radetzky had to deal with in Charkov at the time? also by Chief Radetzky himself, as well as other personalities. Radetzky owing to this linguistic capabilities was merely employed as an interpreter. It was late that he was assigned to other tasks, being employed first as a liaison officer between the Einsatz Commander and General Paulus, the then Supreme Commander of the 6th Army. At the same time he was liaison officer with the authorities of the Ukrainian Service Government, mainly the Ukrainian municipalities. This I only know from statements of the SD itself and also from Ukrainian people especially those living in Charkov, a professor of chemistry with whom I had a number of interesting discussions, told me on various occasions -about Radetzky whom he liked very much and to told me that Radetzky was taking care that the town Charkov was supplied with food and that in this manner he was well acquainted with municipal matters in the Ukraine and he was in close touch with himself -- with Professor Katicuitz. when you saw him in Charkov and you spoke to him that he was participating in any executions whatsoever.
A No. I cannot imagine that very well. First of all, I did not hear anything at all myself, of executions at the time, but I think it impossible because Radetzky was fully occupied with his two special tasks. He had to travel between the offices of the SD commanders and the offices of General Paulus and then again he was with the Ukraine administrative offices.
I cannot imagine, therefore, that in addition to this he could have been employed for other matters. about the personality of the Defendant von Radetzky, especially whether you are of the opinion that Radetzky might have placed himself at disposal for execution on his own initiative?
A I don't think so, because Radetzky was one of those people whom one designated as being soft at that time. Of course I don't know him too well, but the impression that I got of him at the time according to this impression, I think it impossible that he in addition to his other tasks, would have pieced himself at disposal for executions. I think it is impossible. Radetzky took part in executions in any way whatsoever?
A I don't think that is possible, for the reason that he was mainly employed as an interpreter previously, as many people told me, and interpreters were at the time a very rare group of people. There were so few people who really knew any languages at the time so that in my opinion one could not take the liberty of sending these interpreters to an executive job.
DR. RATZ: Thank you. Your Honor, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel ready to cross-examine?
Mr. Hochwald, you may cross-examine this witness BY DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: are you a personal enemy of the Defendant Blobel?
DR. HEIM (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT BLOBEL): Your Honor, I object to the adminissibility of this question. The prosecution is asking the witness for a judgment, that is, an opinion, but we are just trying to find out facts.
MR. HOCHLICK-HOCHWALD: Your Honor, the reason why I asked this question was, I just wanted to ascertain whether this question ---
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, the pure truth can come only when the speaker is uninfluenced by emotion or by incorrect observations. You have attempted in your cross-examination to show that the witness could not have spoken the pure truth, because he did not observe carefully. In other words, there was some defect in his observation, physical observation. Now Mr. Hochwald wants to inquire if there was any defect in his intellectual appraisement of the Defendant Blobel, because of any emotional interference which would come from one who is an enemy. The question is entirely in order, Dr. Heim. completely exhausted by all the events in the East and by his activity. This impression became even stronger later on when in 1945 -- it was about Spring -- the first months. or, it might be the last months of 1944, I met the Deputy of Blobel in Yugoslavia, where I -
THE PRESIDENT: Don't make these answers too long. You have answered the question. on this journey by car and he told you the story about the mass grave where the Jews killed by him and his Sonderkommando were burried, did you have the impression then that Blobel was not in possession of his mental faculties? seemed most exhausted but according to what I heard from Thomas I had to come to the conclusion that he was psychologically exhausted as well or at least to a large extent and this condition, according to the judgment of other people, became even stronger towards the end of the war. not deranged mentally, is that correct?
A I don't want to say that I had the impression that he was mentally deranged in any way, but he seemed very nervous and psychologically somewhat weak.
That was my impression. It was my impression that physically and physiologically he was in a bad condition. Where as Thomas used the word, "the film had torn" that would mean that he was somewhat mentally deranged, but in my own observation was not that of a mentally deranged man. these killed Jews, had no reason whatsoever to doubt the correctness of his statement? made to you?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Hochwald, he has stated very clearly now what Blobel said to him, what his observations were that the man was physcially exhausted, somewhat psychologically exhausted, but not mentally affected. That seems to cover it.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: That is what I wanted to cover. Your Honor, personally.
Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) I want to ask you Witness, a few questions about your affidavit to which you swore and signed on the 9th of October, 1947.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Your Honors, this is Document No_5384, for which Exhibit No. 180 was reserved and I would like at this time to offer it in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 180 by the prosecution?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: 180, Prosecution Exhibit 180-
THE PRESIDENT: Prosecution Exhibit 180 -
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: *-* will not be accepted as part of the record.
Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) Is it true, what you stated in this affidavit, that you had opportunities to make changes and corrections in the affidavit?
Q Did you make this statement voluntarily? within my interrogation.
Q Were you promised any rewards?
Q And were you subjected to duress or threat of any kind?
Q I asked you only in connection with the affidavit, Witness. You came to the East at the end of 1941 or beginning of 1943, Is that correct? beginning of 1942. already present at this unit, is that correct? at the time when he arrived I happened not to be present in Kiev.
Q Do you know when he came there?
A I can't say exactly. I can only state that he arrived a short while after I arrived but when exactly that was I don't know, whether it was in summer or fail of 1941.
Q Aren't you mistaken: Wasn't it 1942?
A I mean 1942, of course. I only arrived in January 1942.
deputy in his command in the person of a Sturmbannfuehrer Nehring, is that correct? and this Nehring then came to Rostov.
Q Can you tell the Tribunal when that was? at the end of 1942, in any case in the second half of 1942. It could not have been the first half of 1943.
Q You are not able to give the date a little bit more explicitly? What do you call the second part of 1942? for instance, but I can't give an exact date because I can't do it.
Q Could it have been before the end of October 1943?
A I don't know, but I think it very unlikely. an order that all Jews were to be killed, that means that you never heard about this order officially, but that you know that such an order must have existed, as it was clear from everything that happened in the East, is that correct? of it, but from all the conditions I had to conclude that such an order was in existence.
Q When did you learn first about this fact? How long were you in the East before you learned that? because I had always taken notice of the Eastern reports.
Q So you came there and knew already about it? East without having any knowledge of such an order?
Q Immediately after your arrival? immediately, during the first few days, but very soon after that. Einsatzgruppen, Sonderkommandos, and Einsatzkommandos must have known as a matter of course of the existence of such an order? to answer your question in detail. I can only say what I was told when I arrived in the last and that is that Mueller told me at the time "You are to go to the last," or he said, "You have to go to the last, because you must gain the necessary toughness because actually you should have been called 'Weichel' and not 'Hatrel'. That means "soft" and you have to learn in Russia that a sort of exaggerated comradeship is not a good thing and you will not get on with it in life." Furthermore Mueller told me "In order to get this toughness, you are to take part in the shootings." commanders. Was it known as a matter of course among these people that there was a very high order, an order from very high up. to kill all the Jews? have carried out these measures without having received orders from the highest authority. impression or whether you knew that all these commanders and officers knew as a matter of course of this order. time when the kommando leader is actually in charge of the kommando, if Jews were actually living in the territory that in that case he would just be told about this order by his chief, that is the chief of the Einsatzgruppe. such executions?
of the Einsatzgruppe was competent, the chief, in fact, who was partly in agreement with the Wehrmacht agencies, partly in agreement with the Higher SS and Police leaders who carried out these actions. There were various channels of command. The commander of the Security Police and the SD was on the one side subordinated to the SS and Police Leaders, that is the local leaders. On the other hand however, he came under the command of the Security Police. At the same time he also had contacts with the Wehrmacht, that is, the Army and he had to inform the Wehrmacht about these happenings so that there were various channels of command in relation to each other had not just a one sided subordination to the Einsatzgruppe Chief. It depended entirely on the personality in each case. In some cases the Wehrmacht bothered a lot, in some cases very little and sometimes the Higher SS and Police Leader was not interested at all, and sometimes he was interested in dealing with the matters himself in order to gain some merits, thus there were different channels of command -the Einsatzgruppen, the Sonderkommandos, and the Einsatzkommandos took responsibility for such executions. Can you answer that with yes or no. ority, but he was tied down to the order and to the other authorities. However, he, of course, had a very important voice in this, of course, he had the power of decision, but there were other authorities who also had to decide and to be in agreement. That is, one couldn't say that it was the commander himself on his own authority who was responsible, but there were other authorities responsible too.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we recess, Mr. Hochwald fifteen minutes?
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is agin in session.
DR. MAYER: (for the defendant Klingelhoefer): Your Honor, I would like the defendant Klingelhoefer to be excused tomorrow and the day after tomorrow because I want to prepare his defense with him.
THE PRESIDENT: For tomorrow, did you say?
DR. MAYER: Tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Klingelhoefer will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow, Tuesday and Wednesday.
DR. MAYER: Thank you, your Honor.
DR. RATZ (for the defendant von Radetzky): Your Honor, I also would like the defendant von Radetzky to be excused from attendance in court tomorrow and the day after tomorrow in order to prepare his defense with him.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant von Radetzky will also be excused from attendance in court tomorrow, Tuesday, and Wednesday. the question directly, and do not amplify your answer unless you are called to do so. BY MR. HORLIK-HOCHWALD: responsibility of the different commanders to order executions, and that they were dependent on certain other orders and certain other chain of commando. Is that correct? out of the executions was given by those commanders? by the commanders? As far as I am informed, yes, under the given channels of command which I have already mentioned.
different groups of commanders, according to your experience, commanders who carried out their orders faithfully and correctly; commanders who were unable to carry them out as they were too soft for such jobs, and a third type who, when he received these orders, tried to get himself transferred or to circumvent these orders, you have stated that the defendant Biberstein belonged to the third type, is that correct? and Sonderkommandos who never received such execution orders? people... do you mean the execution of saboteurs, and the like, or do you mean order for the shooting of Jews? Orders for the shooting of Jews, according to my opinion. only such commanders received them in whose area jews were still existing at the time. On the other hand, orders for the executions of saboteurs according to prescribed procedure, and so on, in my opinion all commanders received them, because that was in their field of activities and there was also the possibility for all commanders to have such men in their area. Haensch from 1936 on? gruppe C? first days of January 1942, when I arrived in Kiev, he was not there yet but he must have arrived shortly afterwards. I don't know how many weeks afterwards. And according to my memory he wasn't there for a very long time. In any case when I arrived he wasn't there.
Q To what type of commanders would you count Haensch ... was he type one, type two, or type three, as you have explained to the Tribunal?
types in between but as I know Haensch one can say that he is a very conscientious lawyer, and that in the SD Main Office he with tremendous conscientiousness dealt with disciplinary matters -- in fact, such conscientiousness that some people called it bureaucracy, but I believe that simultaneously he was a very humane and sometimes even soft man, so that I would put him in the second or third category. that Haensch would certainly be a person who would carry out an order to the last letters? Is that correct? conscientious and correct, and as an excerpt dealing with disciplinary matters, as I have stated already in my affidavit, he could be called a fussy person, conscientious to the last degree, and very correct, and in this manner he carried out his order. I am referring to the interrogation which was carried out by the Prosecution on the 16th of July 1947. Did you not, in this interrogation say that Haensch would have been a person who would have carried out every order he received to the last latter? Will you answer this question please with yes or no?
A In this decisive form I cannot remember. I only made the statement that he was very correct in the office procedure, and according to my foiling, and according to my memory, that is all that I said to the lawyers at the time, that he carried out the orders he received very correctly and conscientiously. I know that this statement, of course can be interpreted to the detriment of Haensch, but --
Q That is sifficient, witness, I think. Isn't it true that in Einsatzgruppe C, when Thomas was in command, it was possible for a commander of an Einsatzgruppe who did not want to carry out an execution, to refuse orders?
who could not reconsile with their conscience to carry out such orders, should be sent back to Germany or should be assigned to other tasks. Thus, at the time a numner of people, also commanders, just because they were too soft to carry out orders, were sent back by Thomas to the Reich. But I want to emphasize that this was only so under Thomas. How other commanders, or at least other chiefs of Einsatzgruppen, who had a stronger and more severe discipline, required an unconditional obedience to orders, but in Kiev it was so that people who were too soft were sent back. Also, people - especially SD experts could stay away from executions -answered the question I put to you. Can you tell the Tribunal how long Thomas was in command of Einsatzgruppen C?
in June, 1943, when I left Kiev after having been in the hospital for a very long time, together with Biberstein. He was still the commander of the Einsatzgruppe, and when I arrived in Kiev in January, 1942, he had by then taken over the job, but I think it was then, he then held the rank Chief of the Einsatzgruppe. That is what he was called at the time, and later on he was called Commander of the Security police and SD. is that correct? it was immediately sent back. He was released and came to Vienna. stayed in his position he must have approved and ordered executions? that somebody kept quiet about these matters and tried not to deal with these tasks without expressly refusing it. is that correct?
A He would have sent him home saying that he was too soft. In a number of cases this happened, that Thomas actually sent these people back to Germany.
Q Will you tell me a last question, isn't it a fact that all German personnel of Einsatzgruppen Einsatzkommandos. Sonderkommandos knew that Jews, Communists and other undesirables were being killed without trial?
A How it was until the time, until I came to Russia, I don't know; later on when I myself stayed in Russia, that is from the beginning of 1942, I myself learned personally that just before a number of Jewish executions on a large scale had taken place, and I presume that a number of other people learned it from conversations.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: No further questions.