THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FICHT: Dr. Ficht for Biberstein.
Your Honor, I only want to formulate my motion. I object to the submission of this document as evidence for the following reasons: First, because the 24-hour period has not been adhered to; secondly, because Mr. Wartenberg was here on the witness stand, and the Prosecution could have addressed appropriate questions to Mr. Wartenberg; and thirdly, because this is a transcript not signed by anyone, a transcript of an interrogation signed neither by Mr. Wartenberg nor by Herr Biberstein, and I am not able, through cross-examination of Mr. Wartenberg, to show inconsistencies in this long transcript. As for the question of the President, why I object to this after having asked for this document, may I mention that I am objecting now because the prosecution did not give us the document until now and therefore wanted to gain a tactical advantage by using it in cross-examination. That is why I object.
THE PRESIDENT: The 24-hour rule, if one side insists on it, must be adhered to, so, therefore, the document will not be introduced as evidence now. It may, however, be used in cross-examination of the witness.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Do you have a copy, witness?
(The witness was handed a copy of the document)
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honors will turn to Page No. 13, which is also Page N o. 13 in German -Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) You were asked, Herr Biberstein, by Mr. Wartenberg, "How many people have been executed during this time?" It was the time when you were in command. Your answer was, "I cannot say with any certainty. I had to submit the reports less in writing than by radio."
Next questions: "How many then?" Answer: "I mentioned there from two to three thousand." Is that correct?
A This "there" refers to the two to three thousand mentioned in the Eselheide affidavit.
Q Witness, will you look again at this thing? There are many questions before which were asked you. None of them refers to the Eselheide affidavit. You said something about an Eselheide affidavit but in a completely different connection, and there is a sentence, an answer just before you said, where you said, "I had to submit the reports." So it seems to me completely impossible that you, by the word "there" meant the Eselheide affidavit, which is not mentioned in this connection at all. Will you, witness, change your testimony to the effect that not you -- that not Nehring or Heidelberger made these reports to Einsatzgruppe C but you?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Hochwald, why not find out first if this transcript is correct. Now, Witness, you read -- Witness, please, you have seen in the document which Mr. Hochwald has submitted to you a list of questions and answers, yes?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, do they conform to what actually transpired in the interrogation? Did you actually give the answers which appear in this paper?
THE WITNESS: I don't know exactly any more. I said before that if I talked about two to three thousand, it always referred to this figure which I gave at Eselheide, and I also assume that I said here that an affidavit was made in Eselheide where I mentioned the figure two to three thousand, and that is why it is here.
THE PRESIDENT: But did you actually give the answer which appears on Page 13, "I mentioned in the reports from two to three thousand"?
THE WITNESS: This answer is not given here. It says here, I said so, "there".
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, the correct translation would be, "I mentioned there", instead of "I mentioned in the reports."
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, proceed. Proceed, Mr. Hochwald. BY MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD:
Q Did you give these answers to these questions?
A I cannot say that any more in this connection. I repeat that if I talked about two to three thousand, I only thought of those two to three thousand, which I had mentioned in Eselheide. Not that I suddenly made a difference here and said here that I had reported two or three thousand to Kiev; it is the same figure which I gave in Eselheide. There I said two to three thousand. that you had to submit reports?
Q You, not the Kommando. You said here, "I had to submit the reports."
A I was the leader of that kommando, and "I" is equivalent to "Kommando". that you, and not Nehring or Heidelberger, submitted these reports to Einsatzgruppe C, is that correct?
A That I did that? No. I is the kommando. I was the kommando leader, and after all I am responsible for the kommando.
DR. FICHT: Dr. Ficht for Biberstein. whether the witness wishes to change his testimony. In my opinion it has not been established yet that he made any different statement.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, Dr. Ficht is mistaken. I asked him whether he wanted to change his testimony in direct examination that not he but Nehring and Heidelberger made these reports. That was my question, and I do think that Dr. Ficht will agree with no on that, that the witness has repeatedly said here that reports to Einsatzgruppe C were made, first by Heidelberger, and later by Nehring. So my question is whether he wants to change his testimony and say that these reports were made by him.
DR. FICHT: Your Honor, my statement only referred to those questions which are contained in this document. That was the way I understood it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q (BY MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD) So, do you want to change your testimony, that Nehring and Heidelberger made these reports?
A No, I do not want to change my opinion. I say this is a false interpretation of the word "I". Something is interpreted that I did not express, because "I" is the kommando. number of two to three thousand? Do you want to admit that a number of two to three thousand was given by you on the basis of your recollection of these reports which you made, and that the estimate of two to three thousand therefore is correct?
thousand to Kiev, neither I nor the kommando. The figure two to three thousand always refers only to the question, "How many did the kommando execute during that time?" this two to three thousand were executed by your command in the time when you were in command of Einsatzkommando 6? question of the President, I explained that I cannot give the figure of those executed by the kommando. own answers given to Mr. Wartenberg, you do not change your testimony here?
A I do not understand how I should change it. Please give me more detailed information.
THE PRESIDENT: He has said he does not change it, that he stands on it.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: No further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any question, Doctor?
DR. FICHT: Just a few, your Honor. BY DR. FICHT: about the discussion with Heydrich. You were asked to the effect as if you had said during the direct examination that you know very well what an Einsatz assignment meant. What did you imagine an Einsatz assignment to be, or what did you say during the direct examination to that effect?
that actually I did not know what an Einsatz assignment meant. I only know that it was abroad and probably involved State Police tasks.
Q Did you mean the Einsatzkommandos by this?
A No, I did not know any details about Einsatzkommandos; I know that it would be an Einsatz assignment abroad.
Q Wasn't it like this in Germany, that the word "Einsatzassignment" was used generally if a soldier was assigned to some soldierly task?
A Yes. Also one says that officials have assignments given to them. That is a general expression for a special task. the State Police office in Oppeln, did you not refuse at the beginning, as you said in the direct examination, to take over this post? knowledge to be in charge of a State Police office. I pointed out from what profession I came. I pointed out that I was not a lawyer, not a trained police official, and that I wasn't even an officer.
you this office? which you made concerning the exact interrogation and examination in Rostov. You said that investigations were carried out here about the defendants themselves. Did you not have witnesses then?
Q Were these only odd sheets, or were they whole files? weren't they? took in such cases. I want to ask you now, surely according to the documents you saw, it took at least several days, such an investigation?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Just a minute, if the Tribunal please. The witness has said that he is unable to give an estimate. I do object against the question for the simple reason that Dr. Ficht gave a very strong lead by saying several days. I do think the question is not admissible.
DR. FICHT: Your Honor, I withdraw this question because that is sufficient for me. I have no further questions about the crossexamination. I only would like to reserve the right that if this document is to be submitted after all, to be able to address further questions to the witness in the witness stand.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do think Dr. Ficht should be able to put the questions out of the interrogation now to the Defendant Biberstein. It is the general rule in cross-examination, always as long as the witness is on the stand, that questions are put to him. The prosecution declares that the prosecution intends to offer the document as Prosecution Exhibit 183 as soon as the 24 hours are expired.
DR. FICHT: Your Honor, for purely practical reasons I cannot do this because this transcript is so long that in the recess I was only able to read through it once.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Dr. Ficht, you may, if you desire, crossexamine, rather redirect your examination on any part of that document which was used by the prosecution in the cross-examination. Now, the rest of it we will decide later, but Mr. Hochwald did direct several questions to the witness on the document.
DR. FICHT: Your Honor, in that case may I address one further question?
Q (By Dr. Ficht) Witness, do you have the document in front of you?
Q Would you look at Page 5, please? I don't know whether it is the same here. There it says, "We shall make our own affidavit," as a question, yes. And before that there is a sentence which first starts with a different subject but in the end refers to this. May I read this?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ficht, now you are going into something which I don't think Mr. Hochwald mentioned in the cross-examination. Now it would appear that you are having a redirect examination on the on the document generally. If you intend to do that, that is entirely proper.
DR. FICHT: Your Honor, I only know that one point, because I noticed this particularly and because it is also connected with the questions asked by the prosecution, namely the Eselheide affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q (By Dr. Ficht) It says here, the second part, if I may come to that now, "I have already given an affidavit about this, but you only read this to me, and I believe that there is a word too much written in it, one word or two too many in fact." Then there is a second question, "We shall make our own affidavit." That is what Mr. Wartenberg said.
I now ask you, Witness, what did you mean by saying, "There is a word or two too many in it"?
A This referred to the word, "No more Jews in Rostov."
Q No, I mean in general. Which testimony?
Q The Eselheide affidavit? Isn't that mentioned here?
DR. FICHT: I have no further Questions now, your Honor. I hope no further cross-examination will be necessary. I only make this reservation just in case.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY THE PRESIDENT: means of the gas van, the execution which you witnessed, you didn't specify who the individuals were that you saw. Were there any women in the gas van?
Q Were there any children?
Q I see. When you first testified, that is during the first few hours of your testimony here, you asked - or rather you stated , that one of the reasons why you joined the National Socialist Party was that you were quite disturbed about the Versailles Treaty?
Q You are student of history, are you not?
Q But you have read history? of history.
Q And you said that the Versailles Treaty was one-sided?
other side?
Q Now, which Versailles Treaty did you refer to? in 1871?
Q Was that one-sided? conditions to the one he is victorious over, but it always depends how much chance they give the opponent to start over again. one-sided? simply is forced to accept the treaty of the victor.
THE PRESIDENT: That was purely on the matter of history and had nothing to do with the trial. Thank you very much. The defendant will now be -
Q (By the President) Witness, fudge Speight has asked that you tell us, if you will, just what you meant by a spot check of the reports which were sent in from your kommando. a few cases out of a great number and examines them. I went there and took a few fils out of a great number of files and took them along and read them through and then returned them. I call that spot checks.
Q About how often would you do that?
A I cannot say anything definite about that: occasionally. of reports to check on?
more than I could carry. I picked them out at random.
Q Yes, and then did you check on them for accuracy? general regulations had been followed in the way the whole files were drawn up. would you check to see that that number was correct?
A The figure in the report and in the files?
A No, I assumed that that was right. That is not so important. To me it was more important that the procedure as such, as far as I could see was carried out in the proper manner, and I gained that impression during the spot checks which I made. the actual facts?
A No, I did not do that. Department IV was responsible for this, and I did not think that they could change the figures at all, and I saw no reason for doing this. Why should they falsify the figures?
THE PRESIDENT: All right, thank you. The witness will be returned to the dock, and the Defendant Braune will be taken to the witness box.
(Witness excused).
ERNST BRAUNE, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
DR. MAYER: Dr. Erich M. Mayer for Braune. Your Honor, I ask that the defendant be examined by me as a witness on his own behalf.
JUDGE DIXON: Defendant, raise your right hand and repeat after me, the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
JUDGE DIXON: You may be seated.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Payer, what is the pronunciation of the defendant's name? I think perhaps I mispronounced it very badly.
DR. MAYER: Browna.
THE PRESIDENT: Just Brown?
DR. MAYER: Browna.
DR. FICHT: Dr. Ficht for Bibwrstein.
I beg your pardon, your Honor. I ask that Biberstein be execused for this afternoon so that his medical treatment my be continued. He is under medical care just now.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Defendant Biberstein will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
Q Witness, please tell the Tribunal your full name?
Q When and where were you born? in Thuringia.
Q From where did your parents originate? my mother comes from Thuringia of a farmer's family.
Q Are you married, and if so, how many children do you have? years of age. school? the elementary school from 1915 until 1920.
Q Where did you go to school after that? attended this from 1920 until 1928, and in 1929 I graduated there. activity? older students were very depressed at the time about the political situation, and the weakness among our people. political events which you will always remember? age, I saw how the Communists from the neighboring town would come to our village and take the cattle from the farmers. I would like to say that the Communists in Central Germany already were very strong at that time.
Q What did you do after your graduation? in Bonn, and then the Summer Term of 1930 in Munich, and the final terms from the Ball of 1930 until the Summer of 1932 in Jena.
On 9 July 1932 I passed my Referendar examination. time?
A Our professional prospects were very "poor," I wanted to become an educator, but my teachers advised me against it, because there was no chance of ever getting a job as a teacher. possibilities in the legal field?
A No, it was not better for the lawyers, either. At the time in Prussia alone there were about six-thousand surplus assessors and it was not rare that in the large cities trained lawyers served as cab drivers and porters. My teachers advised me to study this subject because it was their opinion that the legal profession offered most varied opportunities all the way around, and, therefore, I became a lawyer.
Q Your father was a minor employee. Did he have the financial means to let you study? to send me to high school, and to let me study. Already as an older student I gave lessons myself in order to earn a little money, and as a student from the first term onwards, and during the holidays I worked for a lawyer in order to help to pay partly for my studies. the first time? several students and myself attended a National Socialist meeting, and joined them. the attendance at that meeting?
A I must say I was very much impressed and enthusiastic. We students had mostly national views; we suffered greatly from the political dissension and weakness in Germany; class struggle and class hatred governed public life.
The moral decay increased. For the first time I came across a movement here which didn't want to separate people. They didn't want to emphasize class differences. but they emphasized that all Germans were alike, who were bound together by fate, and they belonged together; but I got the deepest impressions from the fact that here for the first time a movement tried to combine nationalism and socialism. impression which you then gained, did you continue to attend meetings of the NSDAP? from conversations and by reading the newspapers I continued to take an interest in National Socialism. My next meeting I attended in the Summer of 1930. I remember this so exactly because it was the first public meeting where I heard Adolph Hitler speak. At the time Hitler opened the campaign for the historic election in September 1930. With the election in 1930 the National Socialist movement increased from twelve to one-hundred and seven delegates in the Reichstag.
Q During that election did you vote for the NSDAP?
Q When did you join the NSDAP? was 15 May, and I was accepted in the membership book on 1 July 1931.
Q Why did you join? Bolshevism was gaining strongly in Germany, and I, as a convinced National Socialist, which I was at the time, wanted to be active in the political happenings.
Q After that, when did you join the SA?
Q Were you active in the Party life then? meethings, marches, distributed leaflets, and advertised the movement from house to house. One of the nicest political tasks I ever had at the time was in a small farm village near Jena which was assigned to me, where together with a comrade, I promoted National Socialism, and I shall never forget how the people in this village, the poor farm workers and the rich farmers with their farms, who previously were almost enemies, came together under our ideas, and finally marched side by side. Sturm to which you belonged? Sturm unit; the Reichbanner, or the Iron Front, the combination of Communists and Social Democrats at the time at least twenty to thirty times as many members as we did. you Wave a rank in the SA? I have a rank. I was a simple SA man.
Q When did you finish your studies? examination as a Referendar.
Q In Jena? what were your prospects in the profession?
A The prospects had become worse rather than better. The conditions which I indicated before had become worse and in that time in Germany there were seven million unemployed. The referendar exams were made more difficult during my time, about fifty percent of all candidates failed.
Q When did you pass your Doctor's exam? I wrote my doctor's thesis, and on 27 January, and not on 27 February as shown in the SS personnel files, I passed my Doctor's exam in Jena with, the doctor's thesis, Zwangsvollstreckrung, distraint.
Q What did you do after the doctor's exam? at the local court with the district attorney in Sonderhausen. From the Fall of 1933 until April 1934 I was at the County Court in Meiningen as referendar, and, from April 1934 until the Fall of 1934 I worked for a lawyer.
Q When did you join the SD?
Q At the time were you already a member of the SS?
A No, as before I was a member of the SA. I was a SA Obertruppfuehrer, that is the same rank, if you compare it to a military rank, as sergeant.
Q Did you ever belong to the General SS, or the Allgemeine-SS? I was immediately transferred to the SD. I thus became a member of the SS formation, the SD.
Q Through whom did you get to the SD? cause why I went there. He wrote to me that I should visit him in Berlin, and I did that. There he introduced me to Professor Hoehn.
Q Who was Professor Hoehn, whom you just mentioned? special professor for State and constitutional law at the University of Heidelberg. He was a lecturer there. I knew him from my time as a student in Jena, because ther he prepared me for my exams as a referendar.
Q What did Professor Hoehn tell you during that first meeting? What did he tell you about the SD? set up a new department in the SD. This department, in contrast to the work which so fax was to deal with the various opponents of Optional Socialism was to handle the different domestic spheres, that is, the situation concerning law, administration, education, economics, public health, science and the arts, and so forth. new department should he founded? stronger, to says yes from the lowliest to the highest, and to say that everything was under control. Apart from that there was a tendency that a steadily growing number of leaders ceased to criticize at all, and demanded that everybody obey unconditionally. Thus, the leadership of the Reich didn't get an objective impression of the actual situation in the different spheres, and of the feelings and needs of the German people, and didn't hear anything about the effects of its measures; all of that made it necessary that an information service be established, and in particular, as public criticism didn't exist very much any more. Already then, Hoehn expressed the idea that this information service after all should be subordinated to theSupreme Commander of the State in order to give him a chance to hear about all difficulties, and all power struggles and all the troubles within the State.
Q Why did Professor Hoehn choose you in particular? he picked me was my critical views, my search for the truth, and my tendency not to say yes, to everything I was told.
Hoehn described to you through discussion and explained to you? very strongly, because I was also convinced that this development which I tried to indicate before was not a fortunate development, and that it didn't conform in every sense to what we had struggled for during the time of our fight. had gained during the time of your fight? and I can only indicate it. I know that they were not enthusiastic at the time about the inflating development of the various units. An innumerable amount of people joined the movement, and a great number didn't quite know what National Socialism actually was? and, again, people had influence in this movement who really were a danger; a danger insofar as we were afraid that our ideas might be misunderstood in a way. Also, due to the power which many people had suddenly acquired overnight, they could not quite digest it, and it went to their heads, and the tendency grew to demand that what they did should be accepted without criticism. In all those matters there was a, certain danger, and at the time I was convinced that through objective and extensive reporting, sources of dangers and misdevelopments would be shown up on the National State, and in that way we would be able to help to stop them.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
doubt about the National Socialist idea and its truth in your mind?
A No. They never awakened any doubts. We had the opinion that these were growing pains; after all every revolutionary, spiritual movement has to go through this.
Q This didn't keep you from joining the SD on a full-time basis? joined the SD, believing that I would be able to do my small part to do away with these bad conditions. Hoehn at the time? I would be dealing with the legal and administrative questions in the SD. These were, therefore, questions which concerned my own profession, and I hoped to be able to increase my knowledge and to enlarge it. cision?
A Yes, there were also economic reasons. I already said that my parents were not in very good financial condition, and at the time I was happy to be able to earn my own living.
Q When did you start to work for the SD?
Q I must correct something there, witness. Surely you mean 1934?
Q What official situation did you find when you joined the SD? in its very early beginnings, and, actually I found the following situation: outside of Professor Hoehn who travelled to Heidelberg twice a week to give lectures, there were two referendars and I active in this department. Apart from that there were three assistants. We had neither a file department nor a file cabinet, nor did we have a record department according to subject matter. All the documents consisted of two or three Court No. II, Case No. IX.