BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q I have only two very brief questions. You said that you found out about the shootings in the East. Is there a difference to be made, a distinction to be made between the first part of 1942 and the second part of 1942, or is the statement valid for the whole year, 1942?
A That in the East there were no large scale shootings?
A I did not say that it was so. I only said in my opinion a number of people will have found out about these shootings. I personally found out about them. How the later development, when these matters became less and less important and then only partisans were fought, how at that time it was, I can't testify to now, but at the time in the second half of 1942, the partisan warfare was the so-called point of any discussion, and I believe that on occasions, of course, such an important matter must have been touched on in a discussion, but whether everybody must have learned about these matters, I couldn't say now.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you.
DR. RIEDIGER: Dr. Riediger for Haenach. BY DR. RIEDIGER: the Einsatzgruppen knew the Fuehrer extermination order, you said then that this knowledge was existant as long as such eliminations and shootings actually took place. When do you think that in Einsatzgruppe C these executions were terminated? see any more Jews there. to Einsatz Gruppe C -- in the middle of March a commander had received the command over such a unit, would there have been any Jewish round ups of any kind, and did any shootings, therefore, take place at that time?
that is in the more distant vicinity, and in February, 1942, I never saw any Jews. SK-4b, that is in the middle of March was taken over by a new commander, would he ever have found out about it?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, I do think that the question as put by Dr. Riediger is inadmissible, he has asked one hypothetical question. The witness has answered this hypothetical question in the negative by saying directly that he never was in Gerlowka, which is exactly in the place where Defendant Haensch was, with his H.Q. I do think that a number of further hypothetical questions to the same effect would not give any information, any correct information to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: If the witness was not there, how would he know what conditions were?
DR. RIEDIGER: The witness was with Einsatzgruppe C. Part of this Einsatzgruppe C were Special Kommandos 4a and 4b. Both these kommandos were subordinate to Einsatzgruppe C whose commander was Thomas. But since the Prosecutor objects to this question, I can put it in another way, and I will ask the witness-
Q (By Dr. Riediger) Do you believe that as from the middle of March 1942 in the the area of the Einsatzgruppe SK-4b or 4a, whether at the time any shootings of Jews took place?
THE PRESIDENT: Your Objection?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the objection is the same as to the first question. The witness has stated that in Stalino there were no executions of such kind, that he himself was not in Gerlowka, so he cannot say anything about Gerlowka obviously. I do think he has answered this question. From the part of Dr. Riediger there is no further question Dr. Riediger can ask him. He expressly stated, "I was in Stalino.
There were no such executions. I was not in Gerlowka."
DR. RIEDIGER: I may take the liberty to point out the following. Part of Einsatzgruppe SK-4b in the area of this Einsatzgruppe, it was not only Gerlowka and Stalino but it was a much larger district, and there were a number of other localities, and the question to the witness is to the effect whether in the whole area any executions took place.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, in the whole area of what?
DR. RIEDIGER: In the area of SK-4b, and I take the liberty to point out-
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first we must find out if the witness knows what area was covered by SK-4b during the period that you have in mind. First establish that.
Q (By Dr. Riediger) Witness, do you know the area of SK-4b, I mean geographically speaking? the industrial area, but I can't give any details, and I can't say what localities were part of this particular area. were also within this area?
A I don't know, but I know that it is within the general area of the Southern Russian industrial area of the Don territory. spring of that year?
A I have already answered this question. In those towns which I passed, for instance, Stalino, Makayev, I met no Jews, and I saw none, and I never heard of any executions of Jews. extensive previously that all Jews were eliminated more or less.
MR. HORLICK-HOCKWALD: If your Honors please, the Witness has given everything what the witness knows, but the defense counsel requests answers, yes and no, for an opinion which the witness cannot give if the witness was not there before 1942, and it obviously is a leading question.
to put answers in the mouth of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The leading question matter does not enter here because it is cross-examination, but it isn't clear to the Tribunal that the witness knows the specific area controlled by SK-4b. We would only go so far as to say that it was in the vicinity of the industrial area. That is rather vague.
DR. RIEDIGER: The witness ought to know whether in the areas which came into the field of activities of the Einsatzgruppe, that is Einsatz SK-4a and SK-4b, in the spring of 1942 any executions took place.
THE PRESIDENT: You say he ought to knew. It isn't a question whether he ought to know. It is whether he did know.
Witness, what area was covered by SK-4b; do you know? Do you know of your own knowledge what area was covered by Kommando SK-4b, please?
THE WITNESS: No, not in detail.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then how can you ask him what conditions were in that area when he says he doesn't know the area?
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I went on the assumption that SK-4a came under Einsatzgruppe C, that the witness knew this area because SK-4b was part of the Einsatzgruppe C.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but Einsatzgruppe C covers a much larger area than the mere kommando. You are inquiring about the kommando area, are you not, about SK-4b, that is what you are asking about?
DR. RIEDIGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, then you have to find out if he knows what territory was covered by Kommando SK-4b and if he says he doesn't know, how can he answer your question?
THE WITNESS: I did know the general territory, but I don't know the concrete borders. I know that it was in a general district of the southern Russian industrial area, but I can not say that this particular locality was part of it.
DR. RIEDIGER: This answer is sufficient for me for since it is without the slightest doubt that SK IV-B came under Einsatzgruppe-C, it is of no importance whether the localities are mentioned, but that mainly whether there were any executions which took place at the time in the whole area. I have only one more question for the witness. BY DR. RIEDIGER:
Q The witness just mentioned Stalino. Witness, do you know that Stalino was not in the area of SK IV-B; that Stalino was supposed to belong to SK VI?
A I already stated that I don't remember the exact borders, or the exact names of these commandos, but I know that Moor, Sturmbannfuehrer Moor was the commander in Stalino, because I talked to him. Whether this Commando was called SK-VI, or what it was called, I can not say under oath, but I know that the commando was called Moor.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q Witness, have you ever been in Gorlowka? Gorlawka? Is that correct? ern Russia industrial area, and not especially this locality of Gorlowka.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will be excused, and the defendant Biberstein will be returned to the witness stand immediately.
You may proceed, Mr. Hochwald.
BY MR. HOCHWALD: heide on 25 June 1947, which is your Exhibit No. 3, and another here in Nurnberg, on 2 July 1947, which is prosecution's Exhibit No. 29. Is it correct that the affidavits which you made in Eselheide contained essentially the same facts as the affidavit which was submitted by the Prosecution?
A I didn't quite get the question, whether the contents -
Q (Question repeated to the witness.) essentially the same, is that correct? Nurnberg, it is omitted that executions took place according to a certain procedure. that correct? You have pointed in which incidents the affidavits do not or are not alike?
Q But certain points there are essentially the same, are they not? burg.
A Reward? No, never. affidavit? the affidavit? wrting before you signed the affidavit in Eselheide?
A In Eselheide as I said when signing the affidavit I didn't have my glasses with me, and I did not read the entire affidavit, but I told the interrogator to please read it to me, as "I have confidence in you," and I signed it.
Q But he read it to you aloud, did he not? signed it, and you would have had the possibility to make changes if you would have wanted to do so, is that correct? Eselheide and your first interrogation in Nurnberg? on the proceeding Monday I think I was interrogated in Eselheide.
Q So approximately a week, is that right?
Q Who made your first interrogation in Nurnberg?
A I was only interrogated once. The second time I merely was given the prepared affidavit for my signature, and that was by Mr. Wartenberg, as I have learned here. At the time I didn't know his name. of any kind for any statement which you made in the interrogation or in the affidavit? an interrogation here in Nurnberg? statements from you while you were here in Nurnberg? interrogated very long hours. How long at any one time have you ever been questioned by an interrogator here in Nurnberg?
A That was on Sunday morning. I don't know the exact time.
Q Was it more than two hours? with the interrogation that I didn't look at the watch, and I am very bad at estimations.
Q Was it more than three hours? my time for the meal. excessive time?
A Well, I don't know how long an interrogation had to take. I never had an interrogation before.
Q Were you exhausted? During this interrogation? does not always proceed without leaving any trace of it. hours, were you? interrogated? hours? fess to your activity in Einsatzcommando VI? of your mental faculties?
Q Were you suffering from delusions or hallucinations?
Q So you were in possession of your mental faculties, then? examined Mr. Wartenberg concerning the circumstances of the taking of your affidavit, is that correct?
A Yes. That was the assistant, yes.
Q I wanted to know if you were present, Mr. Biberstein?
Q Were Mr. Wartenberg's statements in accord with the events that took place during your interrogation by him?
A I can not remember any details what Mr. Wartenberg said, but I think I seem to remember that something that he said was not correct? If I am not mistaken, but I can not say exactly, that it was concerned with a correction, or with changes, which I would have liked to have made, and, where he said to me at the time during the interrogation that I would later have an opportunity to make these additions. I think Mr. Wartenberg didn't confirm this here, if I am not mistaken.
Q If I am not mistaken, Mr. Wartenberg said that's entirely possible that a thing he answered you in that way, but can you remember whether it was during the first or during the second interrogation, the second interrogation when the affidavit was presented to you?
Q. If I understood your direct testimony correctly, you stated that you were compelled to tell the whole truth by the nature of the oath which you took. Isn't it true that your religious training and your inner convictions compelled you so strongly to tell the truth in your affidavit that you were unable to resist it?
A. That is probably true of every man because an oath is an important matter and a person has the obligation to testify to the best of his knowledge and to the best of his conscience.
Q. Mr. Biberstein, would you have withheld certain facts if you had been told you are entitled to refuse testimony?
A. Well, I am thinking of mentioning names. Yes, I think I mentioned a few, and I said, -- you see, thats ---
Q. I do not recollect that you -- but with the exception of these names, let's go away from the names. Would you have told the whole story as you told this story in your interrogation and as you signed it in your affidavit even if you would have been told that you are in a position to refuse this?
A. Certainly.
Q. You would have?
A. Probably I would not have mentioned a few things the way I did. That would be possible -- it is possible.
Q. Why?
A. Only because one can construct an incriminating fact out of it for me, because opinions are different about different problems.
Q. Would you tell the Tribunal then you would not have said the truth if you would have been informed that you can refuse testimony?
A. If I get the right to refuse testimony, then I make use of a right which has been given me without my saying an untruth.
Q. I do think the whole truth is just telling the truth without withholding anything, but in this respect we may be of a different opinion. Would you have refused to give testimony about executions which you witnessed?
A. I testified to everything, the other questions are all hypothetical. I testified as far as I could.
Q. Regardless of what inner motives impelled you to relate these facts, in your interrogation here in Nurnberg and in your affidavit, are not these facts as true today as at the time when you, compelled by the oath, related then first to Mr. Wartenberg?
A. As far as I remember, I described matters as I did here to Mr. Wartenberg.
Q. So what you then told in these two affidavits and in your interrogation of 29 June, I think is the date, that is the whole truth without withholding anything -- the whole truth, is that correct?
A. Not the affidavit. The affidavit is only an excerpt.
Q. I said everything together, the two affidavits, one at Bielheide, the one here, and the interrogation of yours of the 29th of June together are the whole truth about that what you have to say about Einsatzgruppe 6, is that correct?
A. No. I did not have the request to relate everything I have experienced. I answered to questions, and if I am not asked about anything, I did not make any testimony about it.
Q. You have testified here that you were told that the withholding of certain facts would be a breach of your oath in the same way as giving a false testimony, and that compelled by this statement, you told your story in this interrogation, is that so?
A. No. I merely answered the questions of the interrogating officer.
Q. That means you have not told the whole truth?
A. I was not asked for the truth, the complete truth.
Q. Is it not true that you have been told by the interrogator that the withholding of certain statements would be as much a branch of oath as giving a false statement?
A. Only if it is in a question which he put to me.
Q. That is how you understood it, is that right?
A. Yes. That is how it is to be understood.
Q. So it is then correct that you understood it in that way?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you answer now the question which you did not answer? These things which you told Mr. Wartenberg are the truth?
THE PRESIDENT: What is the question now. I don't know that I catch the question?
MR. HOCHWALD: I asked him whether he, giving testimony, or relating his story to Mr. Wartenberg, spoke the truth, nothing else?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Do you mean by "complete" the extent?
MR. HOCHWALD: I do not recall to have said "complete". I said the truth. Did you tell Mr. Wartenberg the truth in answer to his questions?
THE WITNESS: It is a strange question. I must confirm it, of course, for I think - - - BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. I am going back now to 1926 . Mr. Biberstein, you told the Tribunal that under the influence of your mother, and of the "Voelkischer Beobachter" you became a member of the Nazi Party in 1926, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you continue in later years to read the "Voelkischer Beobachter"?
A. Yes, as far as it interested me.
Q. Did you read this newspaper or other German newspapers until the end of the war?
A. No. I was not always in Germany.
Q. You had no newspapers in the East?
A. No.
Q. But when you were in Germany you read German newspapers, did you not?
A. I hardly think so. The various political things did not interest me because they were all somehow stereotyped.
Q. Did you ever read the "Angriff" of Dr. Goebbels?
A. In the earlier years, occasionally.
Q. May I ask you what you call the "earlier years"?
A. When I was in Berlin I sometimes bought am "Angriff".
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal just the times, the years which you read it?
A. I do not know, when I was in Berlin , 1935 to 1940.
Q. Did you listen regularly to the German radio?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever listen to the frequent speeches which were made by Hitler?
A. Yes. I heard Hitler's speeches over the radio.
Q. All of them?
A. I cannot say. I don't think so, I was not always in Germany.
Q. In the spring of 1939 you were in the Reich, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall particularly one speech which Hitler made in the spring of 1939 after the occupation of Czechoslovakia ?
A. After the occupation, I do not remember such a speech. As for its content, I assume that he spoke and that he made a statement, but unfortunately I cannot say anything about its content. If I have to give any information about this, I would have to lie. One would have to submit the speech to me so that I could maybe remember one or the other expression, otherwise, I do not know.
Q. Do you remember that Hitler threatened in this particular speech that if war should break out that the European Jews would be exterminated
A. No, I don't remember. I consider this out of the question, since in 1940-41, I heard about a completely different plan about the Jews.
Q. Was it known to you that a national socialist state and a national socialist party were violently anti-semitic?
A. Yes.
Q. Is the name "Streicher" known to you?
A. Unfortunately.
Q. You yesterday gave the Tribunal a description, or was it Friday, I am sorry, -- a description of national socialists and of Hitlerites. To what type do you consider belongs Streicher?
A. I only know Streicher from his papers, otherwise , I know nothing about Streicher.
Q. You cannot say whether he was a national socialist or Hitlerite, is that right?
A. I don't know him personally, I could only judge on the basis of his paper.
Q. Do you refer to the "Stuermer" when you speak about the "newspaper"?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you read this newspaper?
A. In the early days, Yes, but never again afterwards. It was a dirty sheet.
Q. Is it known to you that in November 1938 when the synagogue in Germany was burned that it was Streicher in Nurnberg who led the destruction of then here?
A. I do not know.
Q. You did not learn that in the Ministry of Church Affairs?
A. No. Officially, I certainly didn't.
Q. You were at that time in the Ministry of Church Affairs, that is correct, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. May I presume that in this Ministry, among your colleagues, these events were widely discussed?
A. Yes. In the Ministry I heard from my officials what had happened during the night.
Q. You disapproved of this burning for religious reasons, is that correct?
A. Basically, I didn't.
PRESIDENT: I didn't catch it. Would you please repeat it?
INTERPRETER: I did not on principle approve of this. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. What principle was this, if it was not religious?
A. That was an action which was completely illegal and we lived in an orderly state, and there can't be suddenly overnight some kind of events which contradict every legal order and order in generals.
Q. Did you approve of the other measures against the Jews just for the simple reason that they were legal?
A. Which measures do you mean, Mr. Prosecutor?
Q. The Nurnberg laws, the depriving of professions, of personal property, of citizenship rights, of living in certain quarters, of hundreds and hundreds of things which were known to every German citizen, whether he was an official or not, as every German citizen could read them every day in the German newspaper, hear them every day on the German radio, and see them every day on the street. So will you tell me now whether you approved of these measures just for the simple reason that they were so-called "legal"?
A. First of all, they were law, and secondly, the laws had a certain justification, in my conviction.
Q. Do I understand you correctly that you approved of them then?
A. Well, I did not have any influence specifically on their extent, but that something, had to happen in order to remove certain irregularities within the German people was clear to me and seemed a matter of course to me.
Q. You did approve then of these measures, Please answer with "Yes" or "No".
A. Nuernberg laws, Yes. What else did you mean?
Q. Everything else which was decreed by the German state between 1933 and 1945 against the Jews? It was common knowledge of the German people?
A. No. This was not known, I do not know what you mean by this. You would have to tell me specifically what measures you mean.
Q. For instance, the wearing of the "David Star", which was completely legal in Germany, as it was a decree to work. Did you approve of this decree, completely legal?
A. It was a matter of taste, but that some kind of an insignia would be worn, I did not consider unjust.
Q. You did approve of it then?
A. Yes.
Q. You only disapproved of the burning of the synagogues?
A. Because it was an act of violence.
Q. Did you voice your disapproval to somebody concerning the burning of the synagogues?
A. At home. Certainly, I told my wife about it. Whether we talked about it in the office, I assume so. Yes. I remember at the time I had a conference with a man from the Gestapo Office and we spoke about it and he told me that, "You can gain some merit here". Yes, we have instructions to determine by whom these measures were taken and at this occasion we spoke about them. Mr. Prosecutor, you are smiling, because by now you probably have found out differently, but I also heard about them, but at the time matters were this way, andyou must believe me if I tell you that this was told to me, and that many circles within the people were firmly convinced of the fact that the Fuehrer not only did not know anything about it, but that he was enraged about it.
Q. So, do I understand you that you say that these measures were not ordered by the Nazi State, is that correct?
A. I cannot imagine.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal by whom these measures were ordered and carried out?
A. It was later claimed that it was Goebbels who was alleged to have given these instructions, otherwise, I know nothing.
Q. What did you think who did do that when you heard of it the first day, the first morning after your employees came and told you that that happened?
A. We were told that it was the So.
Q. So you knew as a matter of fact that it was a party organization who carried out these measures?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you also know that the SS participated in the thing?
A. I know that the SS did not participate, but I heard in Berlin that the SS was partly committed in order to limit these measures.
Q. But you know as a matter of fact that a party organization had carried out these measures?
A. Yes. There were quite a few party organizations which did bad things.
Q. You were a member of the Party then, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you not leave the party when you were so much opposed to those measures?
A. The question of leaving is a question which has much deeper roots than that, it could be solved by one single measure. I explained in my direct examination that I joined the Party at the time because it represented a great and lofty ideal, we clung to this ideal with the first love of a young man. That was the first Party I joined.
Q. I do not want to interrupt you, of course, but I do think the Tribunal knows, and I understood perfectly why you did not leave the Party, you were just too much interested in national Socialism in order to do that for just one incident, is that what you wanted to say?
A. No, No, it was an individual incident.
Q. That is what I wanted to say.
A. As I heard, it was not even approved. If somewhere people do stupid things, and I could mention more such things, then one could have left it a long time ago, then one would leave any party, for stupidities are carried on everywhere and human beings for some reasons are always going beyond the limit somewhere.
Q. Did you learn at that time, too, that at the same time when the synagogues were burned great numbers of Jews were arrested and put in concentration camps?
A. No. I did not hear anything about this at the time. I heard it here in the courtroom for the first time.
Q. You joined the SS in 1936, Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You have told the Tribunal that the SS was known at that time as the most ideal and nest unselfish representative of National Socialism and was highly regarded by the population, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. May I assume that you also were of this opinion?
A. Yes, of course, otherwise I wouldn't have said it.
Q. That was in 1936, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you between 1936 and 1945 changed your opinion about the SS?
A. You mean until '45?
Q. Between 1936 when you joined until 1945 when Germany collapsed --May, 1945 to be perfectly correct?
A. No. If I look at the entire matter, I did not.
Q. Will you explain this statement. If you considered the entire matter, you said--if you consider details, what is it then?
A. The important thing about the SS was the Waffen SS, and as far as I am convinced, it belonged to the best German troops there were, whom I always look up to in admiration and gratitude.
Q. What about the other SS organizations?
A. They hardly appeared during the war.
Q. Do you intend to tell the Tribunal that there Was no Gestapo during, the war in Germany, in the occupied countries, for instance?
A. These were not actually SS men, as far as I saw it for they had a professional activity, that is, not so much a Party mission as SS officers.
Q. Is it then correct that it is your opinion that only a member of the so-called "General" SS or later, the Waffen SS, is an SS member at all, and everybody else, whether the Totenkopf, or SD, I don't knew what all organizations existed, was not a member of the SS just for the simple reason that he had a fulltime job with the SS. Will you tell that to the tribunal?
A. As far as I know, the members of the SD and the Gestapo were more or less taken into the SS on a compulsory basis, as a result of their profession.
Q. Would you consider Himmler a member of the SS?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Thank you, that answers my Question. Was Heydrich a member of the SS--Heydrich?
A. Yes, Yes, he was in it.
Q. Was Kaltenbrunner a member of the SS?
A. I said, all the members of the Security Police and the SD were professionally SS officers and SS members.
Q. when you were an official in the ministry of Church Affairs, did you also have to deal with the affairs of the Catholic Church?
A. I said that I had two departments. First of all, I was liaison man to the Gestapo, and there I had to deal with Catholic matters also.
PRESIDENT: Witness, why don't you answer the question directly. You did tell us all that-You heard the Question of Mr. Hochwald, it was very specific. Now, please answer that directly.
THE WITNESS: Yes. As a liaison man to the Gestapo I had to deal with Catholic matters, too; as expert in church matters, I had to deal only with Protestant matters. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal whether it is true or not that National Socialism was strongly opposed to the Catholic Church for the reason of its internationality and of its position in the racial Question?
A. I didn't suite yet the question.
Q. I asked you whether it is true that National Socialism was strongly opposed to the Catholic Church for the reason of its internationality and of its position in the racial Question?