A Your Honor,I should like to correct something. I did not repeat Blobel's statement.May I just repeat what I said? It was this. I read the copy of a transcript from a case which is pending here now. I said that according to that transcript -
Q I know what you said. Now, please don't take up a lot of time repeating. I heard what you said. Do you have that transcript?
A I do not have it with me. I don't know whether my comrade Blobel has it. Maybe he has.
DR. KOHR: Your Honor, perhaps I can clarify this matter. Dr. Kohr for the defendant Blobel, deputizing for Dr. Heim. that there had been an order according to which for one killed American two hundred hostages were to be taken, it is correct that the defendant Blobel had to apologize for having made that statement.
THE PRESIDENT: He didn't have to. I wish to correct you. He didn't have to apologize. He apologized voluntarily.
DR. KOHR: Yes, because he could not maintain the statement that he had actually read that himself. In the mean time from the transcript Of the case against - from the Southeast case. We have found out that a witness was examined under oath there, his name was Wollny. He was formerly a German officer, and that witness in his testimony confirmed that in a small town in Thuringia in the Harz Mountains in Horensen, he read an order according to which for one killed American two hundred Germans were to be taken as hostages. In our Document Book II we shall submit extracts from that transcript, and we shall introduce it in evidence, and it is evident that Dr. Braune has just referred to that extract from the transcript taken down in the case against the Southeast Generals. I believe that this has clarified the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: No, it hasn't clarified it at all. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q How, witness, you say that Paul Blobel handed you a transcript?
THE PRESIDENT: Now I will ask you, counsel, how did Paul Blobel get this transcript, do you know?
DR. KOHR: He got it from us.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. And when you gave him this transcript to read, did you call his attention to this particular statement which is now under discussion?
DR. KOHR: After his testimony -
THE PRESIDENT: No, before his testimony.
DR. KOHR: No, no. He only heard that it in the course of the conversation, and it has only afterwards that we found that in the Southeast case actually than have been proved.
THE PRESIDENT: Did Blobel actually have the transcript?
DR. KOHR: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Who gave him transcript?
DR. KOHR: He got it from defense counsel, Dr. Heim.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim then got this transcript and took it to Blobel,is that what you are telling me?
DR. KOHR: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And had Dr. Heim talk to Blobel about this particular incident before Blobel testified?
DR. KOHR: No.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the purpose of his giving this transcript to Blobel?
DR. KOHR: The purpose evidently was in order to produce evidence, to bring proof afterwards that Blobel had first of all talked about a rumor only, but that in the meantime it had been proved, that in the Southeast case against the generals that point had been corroborated by a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, you are using words -- I don't know whether the translation is coming through in accordance with what you say. You say it was proved and then corroborated and confirmed.
Now, those are very strong words, and I went to call your attention to the fact, counsel that unless you are able to establish the correctness of what you are saying that you should not use such conclusive phraseology. Now, I will ask you, since you apparently are volunteering this, de you believe, did you such an order, did you, yourself, see such an order?
DR. KOHR: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you cannot, say that anything was proved, can you?
DR. KOHR: No, nor do I want to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, let's make that clear.
DR. KOHR: And I want to clarify was that such an extract from a transcript exists. Whether the witness himself spoke the truth or not, that I cannot determine.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then please do not use the word "prove", because that suggests that judicially it has been determined and established as fact that a certain proposition is correct, and on that you can say nothing. That is true, is it not?
DR. KOHR: No, I can't. All I can do is say that a witness is the case against the generals testified to that, and beyond that I don't want to say anything. I merely believed that I had to clarify the matter because the name of the defendant Blobel had been mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: What you clarify is simply this, that is same way it came to Blobel's attention, and you now explain that it was because a copy of a transcript was handed to him by Dr. Heim, and that in this transcript there appeared a statement made by a witness that he knew of such an alleged order. Is that correct, do I sum up your position?
DR. KOHR: Not that Bible knew of it, but merely that testimony by a witness concerning that quota of one for two hundred then exists.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, that a witness did make that statement.
DR. KOHR: Yes, that is what I wanted to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Correct. You yourself know nothing of this order.
DR. KOHR: I myself have no knowledge of the matter at that time....
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now we will turn back to the witness. So that your information was obtained from Blobel, is that correct, or from the transcript?
THE WITNESS: Not from Blobel but from the transcript that he had given to me, and that is how I put it, your Honor. That is what I said.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, yes. And you are quoting from a statement made by a witness?
THE WITNESS: Yes, from a statement made under oath by a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, did you know this witness?
THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, I cannot give any opinion about him.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, when you say this statement was made by him under oath, you place great stock in the statement "under oath", don't you?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I can say no more but that I have read that statement made under oath and that is all I wanted to say.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't know who the man was, do you?
THE WITNESS: No, I don't, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't know, whether he was telling the truth or not?
THE WITNESS: I cannot exclude the possibility that he committed perjury.
THE PRESIDENT: So far as you are concerned he could be the biggest liar in the world, so far as you personally know?
THE WITNESS: Theoretically that is possible, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You do not yourself know of any such order?
THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, nor did I say so.
THE PRESIDENT: No, and you never heard of such an order it all the years that you were in the armed forces when your country was at war?
THE WITNESS: No not from the West, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We just want to make it clear on the record that these statements cannot be made recklessly, and when anyone quotes a statements of that kind he must indicate the source. We do not in any way criticize the witness for what he said. He had the right to say that and to his credit he did give the source of his information. He only made one mistake in putting it in such a way as if it represented fact which, as it now develops, has not in any way been established, and he goes no further than did Blobel, who here in Court admitted that he knew nothing about any such order and because of having stated it in the way he did, he apologized.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, may I just add one more sentence? If I remember correctly I did not maintain that this was a fact. I merely said that I had read that testimony. that is what I said.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will indicate your statement.
THE WITNESS: Very well, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not that you put it in those words but in the argumentation with counsel it seemed a casual observer might have got the impression that you were attempting to assert that as fact, but now it is clear, where you got this and you do not yourself assert that statement as a fact and that closes the incident you may proceed Mr. Walton.
THE WITNESS: No, I did not wish to assert that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. WALTON: One that has been told to be about what that testimony actually was. I would like to ask him two question. He said he read the transcript of the testimony. If your Honor's ruling is final that the incident is closed I will proceed on, but -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think it is closed. The witness has very clearly stated how he happened to learn of such a rumor or statement. He knows nothing about it and has very clearly and emphatically so stated it, did not know about it during the war and does not exclude the possibility that the man who made this statement may have committed perjury.
MR. WALTON: Yes, sir Q. (By Mr. Walton) Dr. Braune, you stated on direct examination that when you, rather than the three SS leaders, but that, when you alone went to Eupatoria and you reported to the Wehrmacht Colonel, he was at a loss to understand why you were there because your presence was not needed.
Is that what he has told you?
A. No, Mr. Prosecutor, that referred not to my person but by that he wanted to say that a special order and a special delegate from the Army, such as Major Riesen was not required because, without such an order and without such a special delegate, he would have adopted the same measures in accordance with the situation. That did not refer to my person.
Q. Well, he, in effect, told you that your presence there was superfluous, didn't he?
A. No, that's what he said to Major Riesen, when Major Riesen told him with what orders he had got from the Commanderin-Chief. He then said in reply to Major Riesen, "In that case the Commander-in-Chief did not need to send you. I would have done that at my own initiative, for all of them are franctireurs and snipers."
Q. Well, why didn't you get in touch with your headquarters and explain the situation that your presence was more or less superfluous and ask for further directions or ask couldn't you come back to headquarters where you were needed?
A. I believe I also said that among other things it was my mission to choose from those 1500 persons who had been arrested, those people who were known to have served in the German Wehrmacht and our subkommando, and in effect I with my subkommando, I think I can say that we saved the lives of those three hundred men, for if I had not been sent along the original order from the Commander-in-Chief would have been carried out and all the men would have been shot, including those three hundred.
Q. In screening your suspects was the denunciation of your former local Russian employees sufficient to cause a suspect to be included in this 1184 selected for execution?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, that sellction was made by my subkommando leader, together with some people who knew the place -I don't know whether they were Russians or Tartars, or whether they were Volksdeutsche, ethnic Germans, people who knew their way about the place. It is possible that also people from the Wehrmacht took part, and those people found out who of the men were reliable and they selected them. I could not make any decisions, for I did not know one single one of these people. I had to rely on my men.
Q. All right. The denunciation of the people you trusted plus the decision of your subkommando leader was sufficient for their execution, wasn't it?
A. No, it was the other way around, Mr. Prosecutor. The Commander-in-Chief of the Army had ordered that those men, who had been arrested and who were fit for military service, were to be shot without exception, and now my subkommando, in spite of that order, picked out three hundred men who were not shot; that is to say, my people adopted the measure which Was a limitation comparing it with the order from the Commanderin-Chief.
My can did not have to decide in such a way that they could have said, "These 1184 men are to be shot." That was the order that had come from the Commander-in-Chief.
Q. Who gave the order to fire upon all these people, Doctor, at the place of execution?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I have already pointed out that contrary to the submission of the prosecution, it was not I who gave the order to fire. I wasn't on the spot where the shootings took place. Major Riessen was in charge of the matter as he says himself on page 1. It is his own letter which indicates that this was so. It was he who gave the order to this Luftwaffe company and that is how that measure was actually carried out.
Q. Well, let me call your attention to the next to the last sentence on cage 62 of the English text, and on page 105 of the German text, which is the last paragraph, first sentence: "SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Braune gave orders on the place of execution for the carrying out of the shootings." Now, why would Major Riesen in an official resort out in anything that wasn't so?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, nothing is mentioned of an order to shoot or an order to fire. I have already attemtped to explain that phrase from what I remember, and I cannot say anymore. At the best I can point out that that was written by Major Riesen one year after the event, but I believe that it is clearly evident that he was in charge and that he, as a member of the Wehrmacht, did not allow we to take his authority away from him. In accordance with the truth I have testified here as to what I did and I cannot say anymore.
Q. And you absolutely deny that sentence as being true?
A. I have tried to give an explanation. I have said that twice I intervened.
Q. I know what you said, but I am asking you now that you deny that sentence there as being the truth? You have a right to do it if you want to.
A. In this form it is wrong. In this form it is wrong.
Q. All right. Now, how long after your arrival in Eupatoria were these people executed?
A. We left Simferopol early in the morning and around noon these men were moving through the town, and until dusk that Luftwaffe company continued carrying out the shootings.
Q. Now, the shootings occurred then within eight to ten hours after you reached Eupatoria; is that right?
A. Yes, that may be approximately right.
Q. Were you personally satisfied that every one of these people was actually guilty of killing or of shooting at German soldiers?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I can merely repeat, it was an extremely dangerous situation, and for the whole Army it was a question of to be or not to be. The Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Field Marshal von Manstein, issued that order on the basis of the Fuehrer order which I have quoted. He had the excutive authority in this military area, and he considered this measure necessary and therefore ordered it.
Q. Doctor, I am not asking you about the reasons. I asked you if you personally were satisfied that every one of these people was actually guilty of killing or at least shooting at German soldiers?
A. That was not my order, Mr. Prosecutor, not did I have any possibility. The Wehrmacht would have told me something quite different, if at that highly critical moment I had said, "Now, let's have some investigation for a few weeks."
It was not left to my discretion to do such a thing. I believe Major Riesen would have said to me. "Well, how does it come that that's your business?" It was a very critical situation and I, talking for Major Riesen, have to carry out orders.
Q. You still haven't answered the question. Did you have any thoughts about the guilt of these people or did you fail to think about whether they were guilty or not? I wont to know if you were personally satisfied that they were all guilty?
A. Well, according to the information I had at the time I was convinced that the whole lot of them had engaged in illegal activities and that the Commander-in-Chief of the Army was carrying out a Fuehrer order.
Q. And you thought they were all guilty, didn't you?
A. I can only say again theoretically there was a possibility that among them there was some people, who had not participated in murdering the German soldiers, or who had not participated in sniping activities.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Walton, would you care to defer your further questions until after the recess?
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. MAYER: Dr. Erich Mayer for Klingelhoefer. Your Honor, I ask the High Tribunal that the defendant, Klingelhoefer, be excused tomorrow. Tuesday, and the day after, Wednesday, in the order to prepare his examination and excused from the sessions.
PRESIDENT: The defendant, Klingelhoefer, will be excused from court tomorrow, Tuesday, and the following day, Wednesday, in order that he may prepare his defense.
DR. MAYER: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. WALTON: Book IIID, page 62 of the English, page 104 of the German, Document NOKW 584, which is prosecution's exhibit 165. Doctor, did you hear me cite this document before? is about two-thirds of the way down, of the page 62 of the English text, Your Honor, where Major Risen says "These", and he refers to the 1184 man who were picked out, "were marched in close ranks and guarded by 90 soldiers of the anti-aircraft unit, some SS leaders, and me, in a more then one hour's march, to the place of execution and shot there". Now, you have testified that there was only one SS leader there, being yourself. Did you march with these condemned men to their place of execution? I was the only SS leader who went along. On the place of execution, as far as I remember, the men of the subcommando-
PRESIDENT: Witness, Mr. Walton asked you a very simple question, did you march with the men to be executed--now please answer that question.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
PRESIDENT: All right, now give us the next question. BY MR. WALTON: nessed one execution, that one at Simferopol, is not exactly correct, is that true now? nessed one, but it is possible that when I talked to Mr. Wartenberg I said it to mean that I personally only witnessed one execution of Jews. Here a retaliation measure was concerned, shooting of partisans and saboteurs. I expressly told Herr Wartenberg at the time that I was quite prepared to answer him quite openly about this as I had done about the event in Simferopol. cuted your commando during your term as commander of the unit?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I have already repeatedly I cannot name any figure.
Q Were you held in prison in Oslo, Norway? two years, and for 15 months in single cell.
Q You were held in Akershuus prison in Norway, weren't you? for a very brief time I came into a camp and was told that no procedings against me was to be expected, then two comrades escaped from this camp, 25 men of us were returned to the prison because of this. prison?
A No, not yet, Mr. Prosecutor. I returned to Akershuus October 1946. After another four weeks I came to the examination prison, Molokar. I don't want to give the impression that I was only in Akershuus. Their proceedings were discontinued and I was brought back in the internment camp.
not? Germany, while you were in Akershuus Prison? from that several times by Norwegian officials, but this did not concern myself or anything I was being charged with, but I was interrogated as a witness for other matters. For my own case, I was not questioned on charges against me, On the 29th or 30th of March 1947 I was interrogated for the first time. sergeant. Did this British personnel ever interrogate you on your Einsatz activities?
A Yes. He asked me, whether I had been in Russia. I confirmed this. He asked me to make a report about the organization, the task, and the activities, and I did that. registration and the execution of Jews, did he not?
A Not about details it the time. He asked me how many shootings, approximately, were carried out. Already then I told him that I could not give him a definite figure. Any figure which I might name could be wrong, and he was satisfied with this. your unit, that is, Kommando IIB, disposed of between 1500 and 2000 Jews between November '41 and August of '42?
A I never said that. If anyone says that, he lies, or is mistaken. I know exactly how I explained to the sergeant I could say a hundred or two hundred as well as a thousand or two thousand. Any figure would be as wrong as the other one. I was never given a record of these interrogations or a transcript.
I never signed anything. I made a report in which no figure is mentioned. He did not ask me to give him any figures.
Service Report No. 93, which is a report on the interrogation of Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Braune, Werner. It was made at Akershus Prison, Oslo, on the 23d of March 1946. I show you a copy of this report in German. Now glance through your personal history and see if that is generally correct. Does that reflect proper dates and the proper facts. page there is the first mistake: "November 1937, employed in the SD Main Office." I never made any statement, but that I came to the SD on the 18th of November 1934. I never asserted that I was Chief of the Police Office in Koblenz, but I always asserted that I was Deputy Chief there. Then the expression gives entirely the wrong picture that I was in charge of the Executive Office of the German Student Association. An Executive Office of the German Student Association did not exist. I said what was my task there. essentially correct, is it not?
A Please may I read through, Mr. Prosecutor? I cannot make any statement before I have read it, because I see another mistake again. It says in November 1932 I joined the SS. That is not true.
A May I not mention the mistakes as I find them. Otherwise I will have to start all over. There is the next mistake, I became SS Untersturmfuehrer in November 1935, 1935 not 1936.
Mr. Prosecutor, what values can such a statement have? Please read the sentence, "He rose to an important position in the Third Reich by entirely disregarding any moral law."
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, Mr. Walton, insofar as this document points out facts you may call upon the witness to confirm the facts, deny them or alter them.
MR. WALTON: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: But where the statement merely contains opinion, the opinion of someone else, you certainly cannot ask this witness to pass upon that opinion, and we see no probative value whatsoever in these statements by this anonymous individual as to the character of the witness, and we will inform the prosecution that the Tribunal will absolutely disregard any statement in the document passing upon the witness? character.
MR. WALTON: If Your Honors please, I haven't offered it,
THE WETWESS: Your Honor, that is whatdisgusts me so much that it is asserted here in one sentence that I completely disregarded all moral laws without giving one reason for this.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, I think the Tribunal has come to your defense in this instance and I don't knew whether you can argue it better than the way we have put it.
MR. WALTON: May I say something at the present time, Sir?
THE WITNESS: I am very grateful, Your Honor.
MR. WALTON: I haven't offered this document at the present time into evidences I merely asked him if his personal history was correct. The next question I would like to ask him; the paragraph headed "Activity on the Russian Front," is that substantially true, and I think if I go on, Sir, I'll prove my contention that at least it wasreported that this witness told this British official that he himself or his kommando accounted for between 1,500 and 2,000 Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have indicated that, where a definite objective fact is indicated in the document, certainly you can question him on it.
MR. WALTON: Well, I didn't ask him to read it - of course, he has a right to read it, Sir -- but I didn't ask him to comment on this man's personal estimation of the man.whom he interrogated. This was Dr. Braune at the time.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, but I would like your permission, if this document is to be submitted, that as far as facts are stated, I can comment as to the truth.
DR. MAYER (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT BRAUNE): Your Honor, if I have not taken part in the debate about this document until now, the only reason is that I considered it important that my client on the basis of some challenges, would show up some obvious errors and should clarify right from the start that his statements which he made here under oath are in contradiction to the statements in this document. I do not see the value of further discussions concerning this document, since the document submitted here is not in proper form and also the inconsistencies could only be proved if the witness was brought here. Therefore, I object to the further submission of this document and the explanation of its contents.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, we are of the opinion from a quick scrutiny of this document that the prosecution should withdraw it. If the prosecution does not withdraw it, we will refuse to accept it.
MR. WALTON: As I understand it, Sir, anything of a probative value can be introduced by the prosecution on cross-examination. I think the objection to this document would be in order when it is offered into evidence. I merely want to question him.
THE PRESIDENT: You have laid the ground work for the crossexamination of the witness on his interrogation in Oslo, so that part is entirely in order, but you have not laid the ground work for authenticity and probative value of this document, in order to submit it as a document.
MR. WALTON: That is all I want, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: We will permit you to use it in cross-examination, because the witness admits that he was interrogated, but under no circumstances in its present condition can it be accepted as a document in this trial.
MR. WALTON: I am fully aware of that, Sir, and at the time of submission the proper certificates will be attached Since I have to defend this action. Sir, I state, in my place, that this is an official communication from the War Crimes Commission in London, which was sent to us in the normal course of business, and the proper certificates of the person, who received it in the mail will accompany the document at the time it is formally introduced into evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly that type of authentication is not apparent now.
MR. WALTON: Precisely, Sir, neither is the document offered into evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well,
DR. MAYER: Your Honor; I only want to point to my former explanations and I have nothing further to add, I hardly believe that the fact of the original of this document, which I do not contest, has any value here as concerning the probative value, because the form in which documents are to be submitted until new has not been kept to with this document. I contest that this document has any probative value and therefore I do not seewhy it should be discussed at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Mayer, the ruling is as follows: The court will not accept it. The Tribunal will not accept the document in its present form. It may be used for the purpose of crossexamination only, because the witness has admitted submitting himself to an interrogation in Norway, Then the document is authenticated and then submitted; the Tribunal will at that time determine, whether it has any probative value and will be accepted asan exhibit in the case.
DR. MAYER: Very well. I understand.
Q (By Mr. Walton) Witness, let us proceed then to the paragraph headed "Activities on the Russian Front." Is this statement as it appears in this report of this interrogation essentially correct?
A This paragraph "In October 1941, the prisoner via the RSHAwas sent to the Eastern Front". He proceeded to Nikolajew and reported to Oberfuehrer Ohlendorf, at that time the Chief of Einsatzgruppe D. In November 1941, Einsatzkommando 11b wasgiven to his charge, which was in Odessa at the time." This paragraph is right, These are my own statements. headed "Tasks of SD Einsatzkommando."
MR. WALTON: Page 3 of this document, Your Honor.
Q (Continued) Particularly sub-paragraph d, which is headed. "Registration and Execution of Jews." I would like for you to read that subparagraph D and when you have finished, please indicate to me so that I can ask you a question on it.
A That is wrong too, Mr. Prosecutor. I regret very deeply that Sgt. Lessing did not forward my report as well because that would clarify the matter I told him quite unambiguously that this was a Fuehrer Order, which I did not receive in writings I don't know why he should write in spite of this statement that he maintains that this order came either direct from the Einsatzgruppe or from the Wehrmacht.
because in my document it says that the prisoner, which is you, denies any knowledge of a written order, "denies any knowledge". Does your document say that you deny my knowledge.
A Yes, the written order. I never said that I saw a written order and one can formulate it this way, saying, no, I never saw a written order, but may I point out here, and I think you are right, Mr. Prosecutor, that in fact decisive errors were made, because obviously you mentioned the figure 15,000 to 20,000 and I now reed about 1,500 to 2,000. In fact at the time I said, and I report this now, I can not give any figure. 100 to 200 would be just as wrong as 1,000 to 2,000, whether Sgt. Lessing deduced from this that 1,500 should be right, I didn't know. I never gave him that figure. bility for this atrocity? examination here I explained that these things happened under my responsibility, as the Fuehrer order had been given, Norway today? on it. I regretted at the time and under these circumstances I regret it even more that Sgt. Lessing after the interrogation did not keep a record which he asked me to sign, because in that case, my written statement would exist now. If I had read any such a thing at the time I would have objected to it then. deaths were never admitted by you while you were in Akershus prison in Norway?
A I can only repeat or confirm what I said before. I cannot say anything more. I explained that I did not know any figure. As an example I said that 100 to 200 might be just as wrong as 1,000 to 2,000.