Q. What aid you Earn concerning the tasks?
A. There I learned that it was the task of the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos to combat enemy sabotage and terror, and to combat enemy intelligence and to carry partisan reconnaissance and SD reporting and information service, as It was done in the Reich; to look after the Ethnic Germans, as far as there were any in existence; and, finally, the difficult task of eliminating Jews, Gypsies, and Communist functionaries and active Communists, on the basis of a Fuehrer order, as far as they could be caught.
Q. Did you have any conversation concerning this task with your Chief?
A. Yes, I had a conversation with Ohlendorf as my superior, a few days later. On that occasion he confirmed these tasks about which I had learned from previous discussions with my comrades and from reading files and reports.
Q. Did he also confirm the order for the shooting of Jews, Gypsies, active Communists?
A. Yes, this also was confirmed by him as an order of the Chief of the state and Superior Commander, Adolf Hitler. Tales hears from him which I had already heard in discussions with comrades, that this order had been made known in Pretzsch and Dueben shortly before they left for Russia, by the Chiefs Streckenbach and Mueller, to all Gruppe chiefs and kommando leaders as an order of Adolf Hitler.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Meyer, would you mind deferring now until after recess for the continuation of the examination?
DR. MEYER: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FICHT: Dr. Ficht representing Hoffmann for Nosske. his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Nosske will be excused all day tomorrow from attendance in court in order that be may prepare his defense.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. MAYER: in Nikolaev, and you said that, apart from looking after the Norwegian Police Minister we who was there as a guest and that your superior, Ohlendorf, you received information concerning your tasks, and that Herr Ohlendorf also confirmed the Fuehrer Order to you. Did you believe in this confirmation by your superior? something that was not true. Apart from that, already during the first few days I got some definite instructions concerning this. All comrades to whom I talked about this remembered very well that Himmler had been in Nikolaev at the beginning of October. According to all my comrades, Himmler also talked to the leaders and the men there. Among other things he said that he knew very well how very difficult it was for every individual to carry out this Fuehrer Order, but this Fuehrer Order had been issued by Adolf Hitler as being absolutely necessary in the fight against Bolshevism, a fight for our very existence, and had to be carried through under all circumstances. Adolf Hitler and he, Himmler, alone were responsible for this order and its execution and not the individual leaders or the men who were forced to carry out these orders during the war at the front under martial law. This speech and this manner or speaking was confirmed to me by Herr Ohlendorf expressly, in his capacity as my superior.
issued by Himmler and not by Hitler?
A I considered it quite impossible, and I still do now. that Himmler could have issued such an order of such tremendous significance on his own authority, but it seemed quite impossible to me that he would tell all leaders and men in his speech that this order was definitely confirmed unless this conformed with actual facts
Q Did any other fact show, that this was a Fuehrer decree?
A Yes, several. First of all I thought it impossible that the office chiefs, Streckenbach and Mueller, should announce such an order before the leaders in Dueben and Pretsch unless it was a Fuehrer Order. Furthermore, already during the first few days, I saw from a few reports which I read in the group staff that this order was to be carried out along a front approximately two thousand kilometers long. Also, this order was to be carried out under the sovereign right and the executive power of four Army group chiefs, and fifteen German Army leaders In addition there was the fact that about sixty or seventy reports, contained in the reports of events were given to various agencies, which showed that this order had been carried out, and that reports even up to 100 copies were passed on to Reich Ministries. The prosecution submitted one here which shows that within one month more than twenty thousand Jews were shot. This report, as I saw myself from the original document was shown to about ten people in the Foreign Office. All this confirmed to me without doubt that this could only be an order by the Supreme Commander and head of the State. 6th or 9th of June, 1941, was given in writing, but the Fuehrer Order was not given in writing? Please comment about this question and refer to the documents NOKW-1076 and NOKW-484.
THE PRESIDENT: What page, please?
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, these documents were not submitted by the prosecution, but I shall introduce both documents in my document book.
I only ask the witness to identify them and to make statements concerning these documents which are of importance to the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer, it would help very much if you could introduce them as you go along.
DR. MAYER: Of course, I only have the two documents at my disposal which belong to the prosecution and were only out at my disposal Actually I have to return both documents to the prosecution. I have so far not had any copies adds.
THE PRESIDENT: MR. Walton couldn't you assist Dr. Mayer in having these documents reproduced immediately so that they can be before the Tribunal while Braune is actually presenting his case?
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, I hesitate to answer that question until I know the length of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
MR. WALTON: I will have to make some estimate because our stenographic force is only so large.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't mean your own personal staff, I meant in the regular procedure, if we could get the reproduction section.
MR. WALTON: I think we had better depend on the stenographic staff for matters of expediency from former experience with the regular channels of reproduction. In this connection, sir, the prosecution would have no objection to his introducing them or treating them in this way if the Court will reserve to the prosecution the right of objection, if such is pertinent, at such tine as the prosecution can examine the particular document.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that right is always reserved to either side when the opposite side presents a document, but we are only saying for the benefit of the defense, in order that the Tribunal can follow the argument which is being presented at the time, it will be quite helpful if we could see the document.
MR. WATSON: Very well. I presume, sir, that Dr. Mayer got these particular documents from the photostatic copies which have been made available to all defense counsel and to all defendants through their counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer, how long are these documents?
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, there is only one very brief point I want to establish by this, and perhaps the witness could read this into the records so that these short notices be made known to the Tribunal. We merely want to establish from the headings of the documents that these orders, which are also extensive orders, only went to the very highest authorities but were not given to lower authorities in writing. That is all I want to prove by these documents. May I ask the Tribunal, with their Permission that the witness read our these passages into the record?
THE PRESIDENT: That is entirely in order, Dr. Mayer, I would only make this suggestion that if you have an extra copy it be given to the interpreter so that the translation won't need to demand entirely upon the oral hearing of the document.
DR. MAYER: That will be rather difficult since I myself did not have any copies made of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you said there were two copies.
DR. MAYER: No, two documents.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, Then release read very slowly.
THE WITNESS: This is Document NOKW-484. The heading is "High Command of the Wehrmacht" and there is a distribution list of about ten agencies. I now quote four lines of this letter signed by General Warlimont. I quote, "It is requested that distribution only be made to the highest commanders of the Army and the Air Force Chiefs, and the further announcements be made to the commanders orally." This is a letter which does not bear a date, but in the second document which has the head, "Commander in Chief of the Army" and which is dated 8 June 1941, there is a reference made and it says, and I quote: "The following order by the OKW of 6 June 1941 is announced." In this second document, NOKW-1076 the Commander in Chief of the Army now forwards this order again, namely this Commissar Order, to a certain circle.
The result is, and it is shown here, that the Commissar Order, to a certain circle. The result is, and it is shown here, that the Commissar Order of the Fuehrer again was only distributed as far as the Commanders in Chief of the Army in writing, but subordinate officers were only informed of this orally. to your highest officers, that is Himmler and Heydrich, in writing?
A Of course I don't know that, but I presume that the order about the shooting of the Jews, gypsies and Communist functionaries was made known to the highest authorities in writing, but apart from that it was to be made known orally, as Streckenback and Lueller had actually done in Dueben and Pretsch. had received a written order by Hitler? must have had this order made known to them, because otherwise the execution of this order would have fallen to the competency of the Armies, under the executive power of the commanders in chief, and the documents show in many cases, that active participation in the carrying out would have been unthinkable. I do not think the Army commanders would have helped to carry out such an order if it had not been a Fuehrer Order. over the commando in Odessa?
A Yes. When I arrived in Odessa during the first days of November, my predecessor confirmed to me that this Fuehrer Order had been announced in Pretsch. He personally was a close friend of Gruppenfuehrer Streckenbach, and he told me that Streckenbach had already expressed in Pretsch that he himself objected to this order but could not change it because it was a Fuehrer Order and that had to be carried out.
as well? me about this statement by Streckehbach, but I am not quite sure of it anymore. defenseless people, women and children?
Q What do you mean by humane reasons? having defenseless People killed and shot, and I cannot imagine that there is any human being who does not feel this inner struggle. this feeling within you? for me to answer this.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q.- Witness, I would just like to refer to your previous answer, and of course, then you will be able to take up the question which your counsel just put to you. You said that you could, not imagine that any human being could execute such an order without having some kind of an inner objection to it. Did I understand you correctly?
A.- Yes, your Honor.
Q.- Do you exclude the possibility that there could be any human being at all that could execute such an order willingly and with entire assurance morally, inwardly, and in every way?
A.- Your Honor, that would nave to be a person without a heart and without a soul.
Q.- Well now, I am merely taking up this statement of yours, and I want to see how you appraise it. You say you cannot imagine a human being, Now, a human being in a walking anatomy. You know what a human being is, a person?
A.- Yes.
Q.- With a brain?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Very well. Don't let us deal in abstractions and say "without a heart and without a soul". You say you cannot imagine a human being affirming such an order. Now, do you stand on that statement?
A.- Yes, that is my opinion, unless it is a person whose whole mentality I cannot understand.
Q.- Well then, you do make an exception then, you say that there could be such a human being?
A.- Well, your Honor, after all there are people who are born as criminals who become mass murderes, these are, of course, exceptions.
Q.- Then if you mean you did not mean your statement when you said you cannot imagine a human being executing such an order without some inner revulsion, that statement is not correct, is it?
A.- I did not think of that exception, your Honor. That is right.
Q.- Then you say that there can be human beings who would kill defenseless people and yet not feel any inner remorse?
A.- Will your Honor permit me to gave an example, which I don't want you to misunderstand. I don't know whether there are cannibals in the world now who do such things which a normal man cannot understand.
Q.- But witness, you made the statement yourself, that you cannot imagine. You even put it into the realm of fantasy, that it would be even possible to conceive that there could be such a person who could kill without some inner revulsion Now, I am only asking you whether you affirm that statement which you made?
A.- No, I have to keep that mentioned limitation, I forgot to think of that.
Q.- All right, Then there are human beings who could kill defenseless people and go about their affairs and sleep of nights?
A.- Whether they can sleep quietly at night, I don't know, but -
Q.- Well, at any rate let us leave out the sleeping business. There are human beings who could kill defenseless people and not give any manifestation of regret in having killed defenseless people?
A.- Yes, I think that is possible.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. MAYER:
Q.- Witness, may I repeat the last question? Was it the feeling of being unethical that caused these inner misgivings of yours?
A.- I already said it is very difficult for me to answer that question because it cannot be separated from the situation at the time and from the total events. I, therefore, ask that I may be permitted to say a few brief sentences about this. I do not hesitate for one moment in normal times to consider the killing of defenseless people unethical, but in modern warfare it is different.
In the First World War already the principle came up that not only armies fought armies but that the entire other people were considered enemies who were to be fought. Already in the First World War on the one side there was the famine blockade and on the other side there was the unlimited U-boat war. This development continued in the Second World War, They have one great line in common. Defenseless people, women and children, sick people and old men are the victims. They are sacrified for one aim in the war, namely the final decision of the war. Those people who believe that these events, starting with the hunger blockade down to the event of the atom bomb are unethical, should ball the events in the last unethical too, but I don't think I am in the position, after really serious considerations, to come to such a decision, We have on both sides measures which, after serious considerations were approved by the supreme war chiefs and the supreme chiefs of state. I am not in the position to decide upon the basic reasons and principles; I cannot judge therefore. Those supreme heads of state, after all, can only come under one judgment.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, just so that I may know your viewpoint on this, and not for the purpose of any way challenging your right to say what you choose, do I understand that you have summed it up this way, that since in modern warfare noncombatants are bound to be killed, and you have illustrated the business of the blockade and the bombing, even including the atom bombing, that because noncombatants are bound to be killed in the prosecution of a war, that, therefore, you could see nothing unethical about the killing of noncombatants in the East? Do I correctly represent what you said?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe I have to explain it a little further. As a comparatively unimportant man in these great events, I cannot judge what considerations and what last necessities moved Adolf Hitler to order that in the East the Jews, gypsies and Communists were to be shot.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
I can not judge here, that it is unethical and criminal on both sides, just because I do not know the very last reasons which caused the supreme commanders of States togive such orders.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then if the Chiefs of States decree a certain program, then it is not for you to say if that program is legal; is that what you are telling us?
THE WITNESS: First, it is my opinion that I am not entitled to judge the highest authorities of a State; I am not competent to tell, but I can not overlook the entire connection and the valid reason which would enable me to judge now: ethical or unethical.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I understood you to say that taking everything into consideration, the nature of modern warfare, and you even gave an illustration from the First World War, that in taking all that into consideration, you don't see how it would be just, to declare that the war in the East was unethical, that is, the methods of the prosecution of the war in the East were unethical. Did I understand you correctly to say that?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, as part of these total events which were so great and so important, not only on this one point but on many other points, I can not pass such a judgment. BY DR. MAYER: agreed with International Law? right nor a duty to examine whether an order agrees with International Law. In Germany, according to German circumstances, neither at the time of the Weimar Republic, nor after 1933, was this possible. From my study of law I remember that already in peacetime not even a judge was entitled to examine whether a law conformed to the International Law or not, but so far as I remember there was only one agency, and this was the National Court. I remember that the officials and the soldiers even more so had Court No. II, Case No. IX.
to carry out such orders and laws, and it was up to the administrative officials to think of the difficulties which might arise, concerning International Law. was also mentioned by the prosecution make it a duty for you to check up on this? the company leader, or, towards a battalion commander, for example. But in every state there is and must be one highest authority where nobody can examine this any further, because Adolph Hitler as the legislator could have changed this any time through a law which could have taken this limitation out of paragraph 47. He had the right to do that in accordance with the Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: That as a matter of fact he did not say so, therefore, it was not in existence, was it?
THE WITNESS: Right, Your Honor, but I think it is not applicable to the Supreme Commander and the Legislator.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
BY DR. MAYER:
Q This order of Hitler you, therefore, consider legal? The supreme head of state had the right by constitution to decide about war or peace and, therefore, as reality showed in modern warfare, to decide about the lives of millions of people. He also had to decide what was necessary in order to win this war. came to such conclusions on your own decision and on your own will, did you carry out the order and act according to the order on your own authority?
A No. I did not carry out this order on my own free will and on my own decision. I would never have acted in such a manner if I had been able to make a decision myself. I considered myself here a small wheel in a large machinery, the connection of which I could not overlook, although it was my absolute duty as a soldier to obey. And, therefore, I had no possibility of evading, avoiding or preventing this order in any way.
BY THE PRESIDENT: issue orders? the war is the only competent authority. the right to issue such orders as he deemed necessary to win the war?
A No, Your Honor. I believe that one has to leave the decision of what is necessary in a war up to the supreme commander. He is responsible for it. of the state to issue such orders as he deemed necessary to Win the war? supreme Head of State according to the constitution. Another question is Court No. II, Case No. IX.
whether one entirely agrees to it.
Q Well, you have merely put it in other words. I said that you intellectually agreed that since Hitler was the supreme chief of the German Reich that ha had the right to issue such orders as he deemed necessary to win the war. That is a logical conclusion on your part, is it not? that right. But, he must be held responsible. the situation in which I was in the east there was no choice for me but to obey.
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, I believe that part of the testimony of the witness did not quite come through in the translation. Seeing the importance of this matter, it seems necessary to me to explain and establish this, because such omissions may help to give this a different sense. I, therefore, ask that the interpreter be so kind and go back three or four sentences and read out the sentence again which left out the statement of the witness "in order to win the war". I ask the witness in particular to take note of this. My colleague, Gawlik, just tells me it concerns the question where this sentence "in order to win the war" was not translated.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Mayer. Why don't you do it this way, just please repeat the question and we will go over that ground again so that there can be no doubt that the witness views acre actually reported?
WITNESS: Well, I don't know which sentence you are referring to.
PRESIDENT: Why don't you ask that question again?
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, I think this will be explained when I see the transcript and then I can correct this with the aid of the English record. Your Honor, it was your own question where this part was left out in the interpretation. The reporter will have it in the English record. It is a question which the President addressed to the witness.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
I, therefore, ask that the reporter would mention this in this report.
PRESIDENT: If you would like to have the reporter read it back now, we will gladly ask her to do so, if you can identify the sentence or give us an idea where that sentence occurred, and then she can read a little before and go through to a little bit afterward.
DR. MAYER: I, myself, of course, did not take stenographic notes so that the actual formation of the question I cannot remember any more in particular, as I eagerly followed the answers by the witness. The question was, as my colleague, Gawlik, just tells me, was whether in the opinion of the witness the supreme head of State would be allowed to issue any order which he considered necessary in order to win the war, and "in order to win the war" was left out on the record.
PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, that is a very important part of the question.
BY THE PRESIDENT: tellectually accept that the supreme ruler of the state, Adolf Hitler, had the right to issue such orders as he deemed necessary to win the war? head of state such power to give such orders which he considers necessary in his inner conviction in order to win the war.
Q Well, then you answered it, "Yes"? personal view of this order and, therefore, I have to say "Yes" from a legal point of view. BY DR. MAYER: object to obeying this order? I was only a small wheel, there was for me no such possibility. To refuse to obey an order in front of the enemy would have only meant death for me. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
meant that as a humane individual you did not like to put into affect an order which would destroy innocent human beings, is that right? thought this was necessary then it was necessary because we have to obey the supreme chief--did you come to that conclusion intellectually? then I, as a small wheel cannot judge and decide that such a thing is not necessary. May I conclude this, Your Honor, I would like to make the same restriction here as on the question of being ethical or unethical, Here again I can only say what is necessary, after all and what is not necessary can only be decided by that man who can overlook the entire situation and who bears the entire responsibility.
Q Yes. You have told us that, and there is no question about your statement in that respect. Now, did it ever occur to you intellectually-let's leave out the sentiment--just intellectually to revolve in your mind without expressing it whether there was the necessity to kill these people or not--did you ever in your brain just try to reason out whether in your own mental laboratory you tried to figure out whether Hitler had a logical reason to say it was necessary to kill these people in order to win the war? as how -
Q Well, no, you didn't answer my question. I only asked you whether you at any time in your own thoughts deliberated as to whether Hitler was right in his conclusion that it was necessary to kill these people in order to win the war? whether this conclusion by Hitler was right or not because-
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Q But, witness, you don't listen to the question. I have only asked you whether you ever thought about it. I am not asking what conclusion you came to. result somehow. I would like to say I considered the order wrong because of the effects which would result from it, but whether it was necessary, whether Hitler considered it necessary in order to win this fight, for our existence, that I cannot judge. war to carry out this order?
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, may I address another question which will probably make the witness understand?
THE PRESIDENT: Surely.
BY DR. MAYER: after you had left the East, from discussions with comrades or from your studies, or from the situation reports that you somehow doubted the necessity of this Fuehrer order? about it, whether it was necessary, but I could not draw any conclusion and I still cannot until now, because I could not understand the conditions and overlook the entire situation. consider what were the motives of this order? necessary was the dispute with Russia which was not only a war between the West and the East, but where he had an enemy who from the very beginning put himself beyond all rules of international law. I would like to say that he thought that the end justified the means that owing to this special situation he drew this conclusion and took this responsibility before God and History.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
you learnt: Did you not go through considerations to the effect that concerning the facts themselves you drew soma conclusions about what might have caused this order to be given? the first day on,the enemy fought beyond all rules of international law. I know that Russia throughout the revolution, fought in the partisan battles, where women, man and children took part and considered this part of the warfare. I can imagine that such considerations caused the supreme head of the state to give such orders with the conviction that against an enemy who fought with such means, the war would be lost right from the start if one fought it on a basis of a Geneva Convention of the Hague Laws of warfare, but this is only an idea. Whether this is so, I don't know. I only know so much, that the order was made known and the reason which was given was that it was a fight for our existence, that the Jews in the East were the decisive bearer of Communism and its illegal manner of fighting. As far as I remember, those were the official reasons which were made known. BY THE PRESIDENT: enemy was fighting illegally, and that Hitler, having this over-all view of everything, could know what to do, do you now tell us that since Hitler had that benefit of knowledge and facts and you yourself knew that the enemy was fighting illegally, that you therefore accepted the order intellectually in order to win the war? considered it necessary, but whether it really was necessary, I cannot judge from my own limited experience. I cannot pass a judgment about orders given by the supreme commander and the head of the state.
Q Let's use an illustration. Suppose a soldier in war, let's say an artillery officer, is ordered to destroy a certain bridge on the theory that by destroying that bridge the enemy may not be able to get supplies. Now, the soldier knows that even if he destroys this bridge, there are Court No. II, Case No. IX.
five other bridges so therefore nothing is accomplished in destroying this one bridge, but since it is an order he destroys the bridge. But in his own mind, he is of the opinion that the order was certainly a very bad order because it didn't achieve and couldn't achieve what it was supposed to do. You can understand that illustration, can't you?
Q All right, we at least got that far. Now, did you at any time reason in your mind whether what Hitler was attempting to do with this order would achieve its objective? judgment whether it achieved its purpose. I cannot judge this.
Q Then you say that it could possible leave achieved its objective?
Q Well, you won't say that it would not achieve its objective and you won't say that it could achieve its objective, but you didn't in your own mind attempt to determine whether there was any sense to the order or not? not decide. I cannot come to any decision, because I simply do not have the basis for it. Your Honor, I am under oath here. I do not know when I say yes or no now what is the right thing to do. What can my conscience answer for?
Q Well, please don't ever entertain in your mind the thought for an instant that attempt is being made to have you answer on, way or another for the purpose of in any way tripping you in your position. It is merely an effort to get at your conclusions, just why you did curtain things. That is the only way the issue can be decided by the Tribunal.
A I understand, Your Honor, and I don't think of anything else,
PRESIDENT: Proceed, Doctor Mayer. BY DR. MAYER:
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
of refusing to obey the order, and you explained that in your opinion a refusal to obey the order by you would have meant death for you. What reasons did you have to believe that? enemy could only result in execution. gruppe you came under a particularly severe martial law? already said about the SS and police jurisdiction, I cannot add anything further.
Q In view of the situation, should you not have made that sacrifice?
A I don't know whether one can expect a man to sacrifice himself to such an extent, end in particular under such circumstances, but such a self-sacrifice would at least have to have some purpose, but any sacrifice would not have helped at all. In my opinion, it would not have stopped this order from being carried out.
Q Could you not evade this task under some pretense? seeing that I was in the East in the middle of these events. by being sick, and, therefore, have made it impossible to be sent to the East? of tasks would be given to me in the Fast, and every soldier knows that one cannot go to a superior and tell him, "I am sick, please send me home," In any case, in my situation it wouldn't have been like that.
Q But didn't you have a possibility of desertion? existence, but I shall certainly not desert and run over to an enemy like the Bolshevists. BY THE PRESIDENT: