A. As far as I knew, these were not the reasons, why the National Socialist state was supposed to have had a hostile attitude against the Catholic Church.
Q. Is it true that National Socialism was opposed to the Catholic Church?
A. The National Socialist as such? No. There were innumerable Catholics in the Nazi Party.
Q. Then I do not think that you answered the Question. I asked you, whether National Socialism was opposed to the church, not to certain Catholic members of the church who preferred to join an antichurch party. It has nothing to do with the individual.
A. No.
Q. But I am speaking now is the organization of the Catholic Church in Germany.
A. Against the organization of the Catholic Church as such, National Socialism had no hostile attitude, for I have already said that even the members of the Catholic Church were members of the Party.
Q. All right, now, I just asked you that I did not want to ask you about individuals but about a complete organization--but I do not think it is such an important Question, so I will have the question.
PRESIDENT: He is going to give that to you whether you want it or not, so there is no use your trying to refuse it. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. Did you once learn when you were an official in the Ministry or later that in Germany program for the extermination of insane and feeble-minded existed, the so-called Euthansia program?
A. Yes, I heard about that.
Q. Where did you learn about it?
A. If you ask me where and when, I could not give any exact answer, and I cannot say when this was first mentioned. I could not state it specifically because this was outside of my sphere.
Q. Was it known to you that this program was violently opposed by the Catholic and by the Protestant Church?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you, having been a Protestant minister, approve of this program?
A. This question is very crucial, and I cannot merely answer this with "Yes" or "No". I personally asked myself this question frequently, and I came to the conclusion that if I personally had a child which was incurable, I would have given my approval as a father to have this child freed from his sufferings in this manner. Certainly, I know the philosophy of the church that in every insane person it sees a divine will, namely, that the child would yet special love, but I personally came to the conviction that it would be a greater love of your neighbor to prevent the birth of such poor people, and if these who have legal responsibility for these people give their approval to put an end to the suffering by way of Euthanasia, the suffering of these people who no longer are human beings, that they be eliminated in this fashion, I did not have anything against this from my religious point of view, but this question is so difficult and so important that to judge it one has to be an attorney in order to know what conclusions to draw and what consequences this could lead to.
Q. I did not ask you about the consequences, but I do understand your answer, that in spite of the fact that you knew that there were strong religious objections you approved of the Euthanasia program in principle, is that correct, is that what you just explained to the Tribunal?
A I mean, one cannot act against the will of the relatives, I'm against that, but with the approval of the family would favor it. Moreover, this has been a contraversy among physicians for decades and many points of view have been expressed on the subject.
TEE PRESIDENT: Witness, did you know that in many instances invalids were executed because they could not work?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't know that?
THE WITNESS: Because they did not want to work?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no, because they could, not work. They were invalids, they weren't insane and they weren't completely helpless, but they could not work. Did you know that in many cases they were executed?
THE WITNESS: No, never.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you see that the euthanasia program could lead to very grave abuses and that people could be killed not for medical reasons, but for ideological reasons, could you see that?
THE WITHESS: No, I would never have considered, it possible, because this could only concern a case when the physicians are convinced to the best of their knowledge that this human being cannot be cured.
THE PRESIDENT: And do you know that physicians could, sign a statement indicating that the invalid was to be executed although the physician knew that the invalid did not fall into that category of incurable? Did you know that?
TEE WITNESS: No, I do not consider that possible, because a physician has an obligation towards life and this question always played a big role among physicians and was a matter of conscience, and I am convinced that even though it was forbidden physicians did something like that here or there; I could, tell something from my own time as a priest. Of course, I don't know the details, but I saw the most varied illnesses -
THE PRESIDENT: That is enough. You answered the question. Proceed, Mr. Hochwald. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q Thank you. Did you know that concentration camps existed in Germany?
Q When did you learn for the first time that such camps existed? detail, but I think it happened right after 1933, because thus a bloody revolution in Germany was prevented, as it happened in other countries where it resulted in the deaths of thousands.
Q Which concentration camps did you know about? Dachau, Buchenwald, Oranienburg, Auschwitz, and Lublin?
A That is asking too much. At what time?
Q Let's say 1940. had an official who lived in Oranienburg and thus I got acquainted with an SS officer who was on duty there. Later, of course, I got to know the names of various concentration camps, since they were made generally public.
Q Did you know that Auschwitz was a concentration camp? the Gestapo office in Oppeln that prisoners of war who were Bolshevists were sent to Auschwitz?
Q It was known to you?
A Yes, but not what they were supposed to do there. In Auschwitz there were many buildings being put up and many people were sent there to work there.
not? were sent to concentration camps, isn't that a logical effect of what you said? office in Oppeln that Jews were sent to the Theresienstadt in Czechoslovakia, did you know that?
Q Were they sent from Oppeln at the time when you were there?
A Yes. I have already said during my interrogation that a transport went there on instructions from Berlin. so-called model ghetto, a town which had been when to the Jews completely, in which they were by themselves and in which they had their own municipal institutions without other people being there. liberty or that they were imprisoned there?
A They were not in prison. They lived in houses like any other human being.
Q Were they at liberty to leave the place?
A I don't know the directives, because I wasn't there. the Gestapo in Oppeln? Were you of the opinion that the Jews were resettled in Theresienstadt and when they did not like to stay in Theresienstadt they could take the next railway and go by train back to Berlin or back to Oppeln, or back to I don't know where they came from?
had about Jews and I could understand if they were collected in order to send them to Madagascar. whether these Jews who were sent to Theresienstadt had committed any crimes?
A No, no, not at all, that wasn't the point. This was the solution of that question which had for many years played a role in Germany. that these people were deprived of their personal liberty, is that what you want to tell the Tribunal? A No, that's only a temporary condition. The misfortune of the Jewish people is that they have no homeland on this earth. Q I do not think that you answered the question, but I do think it is unnecessary to answer this question. You have told the Tribunal and just referred to it now that before you were appointed Chief of the Gestapo in Oppeln you went to the RSHA in order to get acquainted with the different departments of this organization, is that correct? you saw the Jewish Department concerning the resettlement of the Jews in Madagascar?
Q When exactly was that? When was that? Jewish Department of the RSHA?
Q Do you know what the task of this Adolf Eichmann was?
A Yes, he was an expert for Jewish questions. That is why he described this plan to me.
the Jews, out to exterminate all of them?Wasn't that the official task he had received?
A No, I hear this for the first time. Then, he wouldn't have been able to tell me this or he would have deceived me. for the first time now?
A What?
Q That Eichmann had the task to exterminate all the Jews?
Q You heard that just now in this courtroom for the first time? on it and what it was I don't know. I only saw this man once and never again. Oppeln, you volunteered to carry out this job, is that correct? refuse this assignment? Didn't you say that in direct examination? been unpleasant for me. One could refuse any order, but one would also have to know what was behind it. Furthermore, I was under military law and I was detailed by the Army to take further orders from the Security Police and SD: As I said in the examination, I had reported to the military administration as a soldier and I personally could, only have wished that I would not have gotten this deferred status. choice between a position with an Einsatzkommando and a position with the Gestapo Office in Oppeln, is that correct?
A No, no. The two things are not opposed to each other. These were two different questions.
First I was asked whether I wanted to go to the Einsatzgruppe and I said no, and mentioned, the reasons
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, may I interrupt, please. Dr. Bergold, would you please come to the podium?
DR. BERGOLD (Attorney for the defendant Biberstein): Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think, Dr. Bergold, you could come here tomorrow morning and still get away in tine for your other appointment. You see, we are in a very peculiar situation here now. We are in the very midst of a cross-examination and we can't let a dry go by.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I know that, but I thought that the witness could be cross-examined this morning and the whole thing dragged out for a pretty long time and because Hartel was brought to court another day was lost and now my own hopes and calculations are all wrong.
THE PRESIDENT: What time must you be at your appointment?
DR. BERGOLD: At 8:30, I must leave with a car; otherwise I would have to leave by train at six, but I am getting a car, Your Honor. I don't went to make any difficulties for the Tribunal. I hope that Dr. Ficht when I sent away for some job will return, as we agreed, and that perhaps we can reserve the right for me to conduct my redirect examination when I get back.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. BERGOLD: I entrust my fate to the Tribunal; so that no questions will be admitted which are inadmissible and I trust in my opponent, that he will be correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will Dr. Ficht be here tomorrow morning? You are sure of that?
DR. BERGOLD: I hope that he will be here. I hope so. I sent him away with a definite order, and one cannot know today whether the communications are such that a plan can be carried out to completion. The communications are not certain. Trains may be late, so that he may not come at the right time, but he is to appear here.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do think that if the Tribunal reserves the right of redirect examination to Dr. Bergold for a later date and Dr. Bergold appoints one of his colleagues as his deputy for tomorrow, objections against questions on the part of the prosecution can naturally only be on just a formal basis. An objection on a formal basis can be raised by any one of the defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, suppose we agree upon this plan. We hope that Dr. Ficht Will be here tomorrow. If he is here, of course he will handle the situation completely, and we will always reserve the right to you, Dr. Bergold, to call your client for any question which you wish to put to him because of what has arisen in the cross-examination. In the event Dr. Ficht cannot be here, we would appreciate your appointing one of your colleagues to stand by for the purpose of controlling objections which might be in order during the crossexamination.
DR. BERGOLD: I ask that my colleague Belser would take over this job.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, and I assure you that you have selected a very able attorney to handle your affairs in your absence, because we know Dr. Belser very well. thirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 25 November 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Otto Ohlendorf, et al., defendants, Sitting at Justice Michael A. Musmanno presiding.
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.
DR. RIEDIGER: Dr. Riediger for the defendant Haensch. Your Honor, I should like the Defendant Defendant Haensch to be excused all day today, and to be taken to Room 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Haensch will be excused from attendance in court all day today. He will be immediately taken under guard to Room 57 so he may confer with his attorney. Mr. Hochwald, you may resume the cross examination.
MR. HOCHWALD: May it please the Tribunal. BY MR. HOCHWALD: spoke about the question whether you took voluntarily the position as Chief of the Gestapo in Oppeln, and you have already told the Tribunal that you didn't. Now in the meantime I have obtained a copy of the transcript. If Your Honor please, this is not yet the mimeograph copy which I have. I have only a carbon copy, and for identification I can only say it was the afternoon session of 20 November 1947, immediately after the afternoon recess, that is at 1515 hours. Witness, you were asked by your counsel about your discussion with Heydrich on May 5, 1941, and you said there that Heydrich received you in a very friendly manner, and asked you would you not like to be put in an Einsatz assignment.
Also you had no idea what such an assignment would be, and you asked him not to put you into such a position by pointing out that you had served in the First and in the Second World War, and that you just had returned from the Western Campaign. Then you said Heydrich agreed to this, and said that actually he had intended me to be a police director or a police president but owing to my knowledge of the church and church politics, he considered it suitable to employ me in his office. The question of your counsel then was, what did he suggest in this connection, and, you said, he suggested to me I should take over the State Police Office. Doesn't that indicate, Herr Biberstein, that you actually had the choice between taking the position in an Einsatzkommando, of which according to your own testimony you didn't know anything, or, the office of the State Police in Oppeln, of which you didn't know anything, either. Would you tell the Tribunal whether you were forced by Heydrich to take this position in Oppeln?
A This question, Mr. Prosecutor, which you just asked me I had already answered in my direct examination as far as I know. I said I think that I could have refused that but what would have happened then I must have had in "inkling of" because I was under military law and by military order I could be employed in other tasks of war, and had been put at the disposal of the SD and the Chief of Security Police. What I just read to you was that what you said about it.
Will you tell the Tribunal whether it is not true from your own testimony that you actually had the choice to take this position?
A The choice between what offices? Police Office in the Gestapo Office in Oppeln. between these two agencies. The first question of Heydrich's as to giving the assignment had nothing to do with the second matter. is that correct?
Q All right. Why where you then not in a position to refuse the second one?
A The second assignment? He said in the second assignment, that he wanted to make me a police director, and apart from that I told him on the first occasion - you forget this - that I was not the man for this job, therefore, we compromised, and I accepted this compromise suggestion, and I had no other choice, and that is not voluntarily. I didn't go to him voluntarily at all. suggestion, so if you had to agree your voluntarity is, in my opinion, quite obvious, but possibly you are not - - Oppeln, you testified that you were also Political Referent to the Regierungspraesident, is that correct?
Political Referent in more detail? for families who had children. I had a number of files which dealt with this question only.
Q Which question is that? which even non-employees or people who were not officials could receive money for children through this welfare. That was the assignment of the Landrat, District counsel. These files would come in as complaints to the Regierungspraesident, and I handled a great number of these files together with the Vice-president in the government office in Oppeln. I was not fully employed there.
THE PRESIDENT: Why not place the microphone on the left side, since naturally he will look towards the crossexaminer. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q It was your only task as Political Referent? In any case there were not many tasks. I, of course, consulted with the Vice-president, on occasions when we want through the files and discussed them, but I can not remember at the moment any details. In any case, there were no "exciting"matters to deal with. described a political one? objected to the granting of this child welfare support. to the Regierungspraesident, is that correct?
A Well, I don't know, I only saw the files, and in the discussions which I had with the vice-president these files were handled, and that is all.
I can not remember anything else. the Regierungspraesident was in charge of the entire police force in the District of Oppeln?
A Mr. Prosecutor, if you are going to ask me details about the channels of command, you will find no unable to give an exact answer. I can only speak about my impressions and not about the legal and actual matters. what you did as Chief of the Gestapo, you said, I didn't do a thing but I was Political Referent to the Regierungspraesident, I was active in this field, and I asked you, what did you do in this field, and the answer to my question was again negative; so may I then assume that all the time you were in Oppeln you just didn't do a thing, is that correct? That you didn't know what happened in the Gestapo; you didn't know what happened at the Regierungspraesident; you do not know the chain of command; you just do not know a thing which happened in Oppeln, is that correct?
A Mr. Prosecutor - -
DR. FIRCHT: Dr. Ficht for the defendant Biberstein. Your Honor, I would like to object to this question, insofar as the statements of the Prosecutor are not correct. The witness didn't say that he didn't do anything when he was in this Gestapo Office or the State Police Office. On the contrary he told in detail his activity. It is not that he denied it that definitely, but in my opinion the facts as of his own statement which are now being discussed are misunderstood, or at least a little distorted.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right. The cross-examiner always attempts to take the worst possible interpretation from what his victim has said, and it is up to the man who is on the fire to extract himself as best he can. That is what cross-examination is. It is a very cruel process.
THE WITNESS: May I say something about the last statement which was mentioned by the Prosecutor. If it has not yet been brought out from my direct examination, I want to emphasize again that during this whole period I hold a very miserable position, and I would like to consider whether it is not understandable how a human being with my training feels in such a position. It was the most unfortunate and unhappy time of my life. There was only one hope and that was that Heydrich gave me only a year in this activity after which I could leave this job. It is not so unnatural that I should have felt unhappy there and remained inactive. I should like to consider this.
your life, is that correct? Einsatzkommando 6 was more agreeable than in Oppeln? periods. It is one concept for me, that is, my activity with the SD and the security police. I always combined these activities and regarded them as one.
Q How long were you in Oppeln? two minutes ago that this was the most unhappy year of your life. You have been another year in the Einsatzgruppen. May I assume then that your first remark was just referring to your activities in Oppeln?
A You misunderstood me, Mr. Prosecutor. It is absolutely clear for me and I emphasize this, that far be it from me to distinguish between the state police and the assignment in the cast. I have said quite clearly, and I have explained my attitude to the Einsatz; in my direct examination I gave details of it. It had its consequences, too, but I must emphasize again that I did not want to leave the Einsatz alone; I did not only want to be dismissed from the Einsatz alone but also from the assignment of the state police, and I always combined these two. office in Oppeln in your time had a special department for Jewish affairs?
Q Was this department under your supervision?
A Yes. It was part of the Gestapo state police in Oppeln. reported to the commander of Einsatzgruppe C, Thomas, in Kiev, is that correct? in your new assignment, you reported to the commander of Einsatzgruppe C, Thomas, is that correct?
Q When was that, Herr Biberstein?
Q The first days of September, what days in September? days. I stayed in Kiev. I presume I must have left Oppeln on the 3rd or 4th of the month, so on the 6th I would have arrived in Kiev. the commend?
Q You took over the commando 6? Kommando 6 was?
Q How many subkommandos? Novocherkassk, and Schachty.
Q How many officers were in the commando?
these eight officers, how many of them were at the subcommandos how many of them were at your headquarters, just how was the thing distributed? commando consisted of the staff and the four subcammandos. In the staff there was the Einsatzkommando leader, his deputy, and the leader of 1 and 2, an officer, also the leader of 3 and 4, an officer. They were also leaders, officers. Then there was also one officer at the outpost Schachty, and one in Novo-Tscherkask. And then there was another officer in Solchose. that correct?
A Nine, yes. Yes, and that would make nine officers. I had miscounted. in each subcommando?
Q Then only three?
A No. At my time there was no officer stationed at Taganrog. He was only a Sturmscharfuehrer, who was a noncommissioned officer at that time. officers at the subcommandos, is that correct -- six officers at headquarters and three officers at subcommandos, is that what you said -- I only want to keep the record straight. If you are mistaken, you can make a correction. Is that correct?
A I must count again. I left somebody out, and I want to point out that my heart attack which I had on Friday has not been fully cured yet. This is not supposed to be an excuse though. I am trying hard to follow and I am trying to answer all the questions.
As I said, deputy officer, 1, 2, 3, 4. That is five officers in the staff. Then one in Solchose, one in Schachty, and one in NovoTscherkask. There are only eight. and three officers in subcommandos, and there was a fourth subcommando which was under the command of a noncommissioned officer?
A No. He was wearing an officers' cap.
Q Warrant officer?
A He had the insignia of an officer and an officer's cap, but he had not quite the officers' rank.
THE PRESIDENT: You may not have In the German army an officer who is known as a "warrant officer" in the American Army. A warrant officer is one who holds a commission from the War Department and not from the ruler or the chief executive officer of the country, which would be the President in the United States. He is higher than a noncommissioned officer, and not quite a commissioned officer. We call it a warrant officer. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q How many officers were in Office 4, Herr Biberstein? was the chief of the subcommando Rostov. As I have already said in my direct examination, he was the only one. were carrying out investigations and passed sentences and ordered executions?
A Only from the subcommando up. It depended on the position that the person concerned held. An administrative officer was not entitled to do so.
Q My question is, how many of these could do it. You have enumerated to the Tribunal that you had eight officers, together with you, that you were eight. In office 4 there was only one. In every subcommando, with the exception of one, was only one. In one there was no commissioned officer at all. My question is now, who of these persons was entitled to carry out investigations, entitled to pass sentences, and to order executions?
Q All in all?
A Yes. The others were not entitled to do it. subcommando leaders and the leader 4?
A No. The leader 4, as I said, in Taganrog there was no officer. In Schachty and Novo Tscherkask, and Rostov. There were five. Aid then Nehring and, of course, I also was authorized.
Q Five?
Q How many people carried out executions? out -- you mean shootings? That I don't know. That are the subcommandos, Schachty, Novo Tscherkask, and Rostov.
Q How strong were the three commandos? You do not know?
A That I cannot say. The men were detailed for these assignments. instructions about your task as commander of Einsatzkommando 6, is that correct?