DR. HOFFMANN:I Agree, only about the protective custody. On that protective custody, I want to ask the witness again. BY DR. HOFFMANN:
QWas it protective custody?
ANo, they weren't arrested, but it was only an evacuation.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, the word that came through was that they were accommodated, and then came some geographical terminology which I was unable to catch, but I assume that in some way they were assembled and put into a restricted locality. You, please correct me if I am wrong on that interpretation.
THE WITNESS:No, the order was to the effect that the remaining ones should be accommodated with the people of the same race, or, in this case, half-Jews, and families in Mecklenburg - the two German provinces, that is in Mecklenburg and Brandenburg, in the interior of the Reich, they should be accommodated there as free people.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well, Then after that you received a message that you were being relieved, is that correct?
THE WITNESS:First of all, relieved of my duties. Later on investigations were carried out, but I was actually dismissed from the service of the SD and the Security Police. Then there was a level investigation.
DR. HOFFMANN:May I say, Your Honor, in order to clarify this, a in Germany an official was first of all suspended if he was charged with anything. That means he is not allowed to enter his office and carry out his functions, but whether he is to be dismissed or not, that was established later on, based on investigations. First of all he was suspended, then proceedings were instituted against him for military disobedience, and this is also contained in his personal papers which are submitted by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes. Then we do understand that the witness describes his eventual release on September 20, 1944, to his uncooperative attitude in connection with the Half-Jew order?
THEWITNESS": Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, I just wanted that clear. The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
( The hearing reconvened at 1125 hours.)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
GUSTAV NOSSKE - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q.Mr. Nosske, in order to clarify your dismissal from the SD, I want to ask you a few brief further questions. After you were suspended from office, was a procedure started against you?
A.Yes.
Q.Where did this procedure take place?
A.In the investigation office of the government counsel, police and SD, who had his office in Potsdam.
Q.Did the investigation office interrogate you?
A.Yes, the investigation officer senior government counsillor, Dr. Hussmann, personally interrogated me.
Q.Was your lack in willingness of cooperation in Duesseldorf and Wesel, the main reason for this, or the disobedience against the higher police and SS leader?
A.The most important reason was the refusal to obey the order, but I couldn't help noticing already in Wessel that the inspector looked for reasons in order to find further charges against me, for a procedure.
Q.And your cowardice when the enemy approached was the reason for this?
A.Yes, this and several other things were the reasons which made me be regarded as unsuitable to continue to be in the security police.
Q.Did you have to take off your uniform?
A.When I returned to Duesseldorf, a few days later, a teletype message came that I was dismissed from the security police and the SD. Instructions were given to the office that I hand in my service papers and that all articles belonging to the state which I had received from the SD, including the uniform I had to surrender, and I know that they had been taken from the equipment store of the SD.
Q.In your opinion you were actually dismissed from the security police and the SD.
A.Yes, I was actually dismissed from the security police and the SD.
Q.And for the rest of the war, what did you do?
A.I was with the frontal troops as a private. I had been dismissed from the security police and the SD and had been released for the army at the same time, and then tried with the districe commandor to be called up as soon as possible. Only during the second discussion did I hear that I was not to be drafted into the army but into the Waffen SS; since I had to be afraid that within the Waffen SS I might be under immediate orders from Himmler again, I objected to this and referred to my teletype message. Who officer told me that didn't matter at all where I was drafted to, probably they only needed people in the artillery in the Waffen SS.
Q.In any case, you were a private until the end of the war at the front?
A.Yes. At first I was sent to the reserve regiment Number 5 in Prague; and afterwards so the fourth reserve Army in Olmuetz, and in the middle of November, with 300 men of the reserve, I went to the front in Hungary.
THE PRESIDENT:I want to ask you whether you got into the Waffen-SS or the Wehrmacht.
THE WITNESS:Noo in the Waffen-SS. I was drafted into the WaffenSS. I came to the Seventh Battalion of the artillery regiment of the SS Division Death Head and was assigned to the advance observer and take part in the combat near Budapest, throughout Hungary and in Vienna and Lower Austria and was taken prisoner when we capitulated. BY DR. HOFFMANN:
QWitness, the fact that after your dismissal from the SD you were not drafed into the army but drafted into the Waffen-SS. is that not a reason to assume that you were not actually dismissed, but they only wanted to degrade you?
ANo, this had nothing to do with it. I was drafted into the Waffen-SS together with members of free professions who never had had anything to do with the SS or the Security Police.
QYou mean to say this was the general manner of drafting?
AYes, this was the general manner of drafting. DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I would like to discuss a number of documents concerning the activity of the defendant Nosske as Einsatzkommando leader and which have been submitted against him.
THE PRESIDENT:Do so. BY DR. HOFFMANN:
QThis is in Document Book 2-D, page 49 of the English text, page 54 of the German document book, Document 2841. I will give you this document. DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, the Tribunal will remember this is the Harvesting Action which the defendant Nosske has already mentioned once.
QIn this document the figure of forty-nine Jews who were shot is mentioned. I ask you now -
THE PRESIDENT:In my book it is ninety-four.
DR. HOFFMANN:Yes, ninety-four.
BY DR. HOFFMANN:
QI will ask you about this document. Did you carry cut this execution?
ANo, it was carried out by the detachments or one of the detachments of whom a chief was in charge of the harvesting affair.
QDid the chief report to you whether this was done because of the Hitler order or for other reasons?
AHe reported to me that he made investigations about the sabotage which had been carried out there. He had come to this locality some time before. When he started the organizations he had taken the necessary measures and had then gone to other localities. A few days later it was reported to him that the harvesting action in Babtschinzy did not get on. He, therefore, returned to Babtschinzy and found there that it actually was so, and from statements from the people who were willing to work he heard the further connections. It was as it is mentioned in this report, and beyond that he told me that the people who did these things had posted guards to stop people from going into the fields, and machine parts which were needed in order to repair machines they took away and buried them. Strict measures were taken because of the emergency; notices of the army were published, and he carried out the investigations and found that there were come of them that were Jews who had only come to this area some time before quite recently, in fact, for the N.K.W.D, and he had then decided to short those persons.
QBut you only heard this?
AYes. He reported this to me orally, and afterwards he gave me a written report which was about three times as long as the statement here.
QHow, witness, isn't it surprising that the saboteurs should have been only Jews? There were others there, too, weren't there?
AYes, of course. I don't know whether the leader made his task that way because of the attitude among the population and the attitude which existed among the people because of the Fuehrer Order against the Jews.
QWitness, you then concede the possibility that the execution also might have been carried out because of the Hitler Order?
AYes. This might have played a part in the deliberations, but according to his statement I had the impression that he shot people who had been convicted by him.
DR. HOFFMANN:Your Honor, I now come to a new document, Document Book 3-D, page 72 of the English, the document NOKW-634.
QThe contents of this document deal with the taking of prisoners and the shooting of Russian soldiers.
AThe incident which I remember is the same as the statement in this document. I remember this event insofar as it was reported, and at the time I had returned from the hospital to Nikolajew. I travelled to this territory in order to meet the commando, in particular in consideration of the report that several members of the commando had been lost and dispersed and had not found their way back to the commando. I found the c mmando in some villages where also Ethnic Germans had been evacuated. The incidents themselves I did not witness myself. They had happened days before, but I had the impression that it was as it is described here. This written report originates from the subcommando leader. I myself did not get the impression that any shootings had occurred. On the contrary, I met a battalion commander, Back, who had lost part of his costal battery because of these landings, and by his staff interrogations were carried out of a number of prisoners and parachutists who had been taken prisoners. One considered them to be of great importance in order to find out what aims the Soviet Russians had and what objective they were after.
QWitness, can you conclude from this document itself that you killed prisoners of war in violation of international law? The Prosecution says that this report says that eleven parachutists were made harmless and they conclude that this means they were killed:
AFrom the connection here it seems impossible to me to gain the impression that these parachutists had been killed. It says here expressly they were finished off or they were taken prisoners. That means that prisoners was shot who had thrown a hand grenade. All the others were prisoners, and it is said at another place that they were handed over to the army as prisoners. Rendering harmless in in this connection, as we mean it, never means killing. It does not mean killing.
THE PRESIDENT:Do I understand, witness, that you say that that phrase never means killing?
THE WITNESS:No. In this connection. The way it is put makes it quite clear that it cannot mean killing because it says here expressly what happened to the prisoners. It does explain that the prisoners were handed over to the army. Apsry from that only a few were taken by the commando and the others were taken prisoners by the army themselves.
THE PRESIDENT:But you are only offering that interpretation insofar as this particular document is concerned?
THE WITNESS:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:What was meant by the phrase. "Apart from these parachutists which Kommando 12 took care if"? What do you mean by the phrase, "took care of" have?
THE WITNESS:Apart from these taken care of or made prisoner by Kommando 12. I presume you refer to this paragraph?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, that is right.
THE WITNESS:There it says in the German text, "Apart from these parachutists taken care of by the Kommando 12 themselves" or taken prisoner by them. "Taken care of" here means they were killed, That is only one man who throw the hand grenade, and it says here expressly the others were taken prisoner.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, we have it in the English that it must have been mere than one because the plural form is used of the word "parachutist". It says, "Apart from these parachutists" which would mean more than one.
THE WITNESS:This sentence has been put very badly because they referred two verbs to several persons. It would have been easier to say, "Apart from the one killed and the others who were taken prisoner." According to the German sense, it is understood this way.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, it certainly isn't understood that way in English.
THE WITNESS:Well, I don't know English well enough to judge this. For us there cannot be any doubt that the difference is made here between "taken care of" and taken prisoner", and if we say ourselves that "apart from these people taken care of", we should have to say, "apart from the person taken care of and the prisoners". In the one case it is singles and in the other case it is plural, and that is what the German language does not clearly express.
THE PRESIDENT:If you tell us, witness, that "to take care of" means to kill, then the entire clause. "Apart from these parachutist which Kommando 12 took care of", you can only conclude that Kommando 12 killed more than one parachutists.
I would suggest perhaps that the interpreter might see the German text and give us how direct interpretation now from the German text.
THE WITNESS:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Would you please do that? Do you have that, Miss Juelich? The German?
The Witness: In the following sentence, too, to a certain extent, it is mentioned again what Kommando 12 did because there it is mentioned that the army, too seized parachutists who had been taken prisoners. In this connection, too, the work "prisoner" is again "taken prisoner", and afterwards the conclusion is drawn that this figure was taken care of. That means they were made harmless and they could not take part in further combat.
Apart from that I already said that a number of parachutists -- I meant when they were being interrogated by the staff. Of course, I cannot say that there were just these persons because I did not see the previous ones, but I certainly would have hoard of it if any shootings had taken place. And importance was attached to the fact that these persons were kept alive because of the information onecould get from them.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, let us go back now to the sentence which aroused the original query as to the phrase, "these parachutists".
Miss Juelich, would you please read it in the German to yourself and then indicate that you will give us the translation?
THEINTERPRETER: "Apart from these parachutists" in plural.
MR. WALTON:I offer a suggestion that the photostatic copy be submitted to the translator so that there will be no doubt.
THE PRESIDENT:That is a very good suggestion. Do you have it there?
MR. WALTON:It is in the archives of the court now, sir.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you have it with you, Mr. Knapp?
MR. KNAPP:No, I don't have it, Judge.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, suppose we now read it as it appears in the German mimeograph production, and then later on we can compare it with the photostat, in order to save time.
THE INTERPRETER:I will read it as it is. "Apart from these parachutists which Kommando 12 took care of, respectively took prisoner and which were transferred to the Wehrmacht, the Kommando participated in the seizure of four more parachutists, taken during 22 September during the commual combing of the area north of Neu-Annental."
THE PRESIDENT:I now address myself to the interpreter and ask whether the translation which she has given agrees with the translation as it appears in the document before the Court?
THE INTERPRETER:Yes, it is quite correct.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
Now, witness, in the latter part of that paragraph we come across the phrase "taken care of" again, and you have told us that in the early part of the paragraph "took care of" means to kill, so that keeping in mind that translation when we come to the latter part of the paragraph we read "so that the number of parachutists taken care of in that area", we mean again, don't we, that Einsatzkommando 12 killed more than one parachutist?
THE WITNESS:Noo Your Honor. Here, tooo the German expression makes a difference. In the English text I have just heard from you that the same expression is being used. We say first "taken care of" and later when the figure "11" is mentioned, we say "made harmless" or "rendered harmless".
THE PRESIDENT:Well, perhaps you are not looking at the same part of the paragraph that I am. Both the phrases "taken care of" and "rendered harmless".are used in the concluding clause of the sentence in question, which appears at the very and of the paragraph.
THE WITNESS:Yes, Mr. President. I thought of this particular word. At the end of this paragraph it says in the German text -it does not say "taken care of", but it says "rendered harmless". If I said that, therefore, at the beginning of this paragraph, it is to be assumed that the words "taken care of" mean killing, but this is not a contradiction because at the end of this paragraph another German word is used, not "taken care of" but "rendered harmless".
THE PRESIDENT:I want to ask now the interpreter if the German equivalent of "taken care of" appears in the next to the last line of the paragraph in question.
THE INTERPRETER:Yes, it dies.
THE PRESIDENT:So I say to you, witness, that if "to take care of" in the first part of the same paragraph should mean something else.
THE WITNESS:Well, this one word "taken care of"-
THE PRESIDENT:Very well, Dr. Hoffmann, the witness has given his explanation, and we have heard the retranslation by the interpreter, so I don't think we need spend anymore time on it.
DR. HOFFMANN:I only have one more question. BY DR. HOFFMANN:
QDid you make this report yourself?
ANo, I didn't make this report myself, but the subkommando leader made it.
QDo your descriptions refer to what you remember yourself?
AYes, what I witnessed myself, and at the time I realized that none of these parachutists, neither by us nor as far as our people could know, were shot by the Wehrmacht. It is out of the question.
DR. HOFFMANN:Your Honor, I now come to another document.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
DR. HOFFMANN:It is a document in Document Book 2-D, page 52 of the English, Document NO 3147, Prosecution Exhibit No. 96. BY DR. HOFFMANN:
QDo you have that document?
AJust the page, please.
QPage 58 of the German text.
AYes.
QThere the Prosecution charges that you participated in the shooting of several thousand Jews. In this document do you find that Einsatzkommando 12 is mentioned at all?
ANo. Einsatzkommando 12 is neither mentioned nor meant in this connection.
QIn any case the document does not reveal that Einsatzkommando 12 took a part, "yes" of "no"?
ANo.
QHow do you explain the fact that Prosecution assumes at all that the document can incriminate Einsatzgruppe 12?
AThis report appears in another connection mentioning the same figure of 1,890 persons who were shot. It appears again. In this other report it is also mentioned that shootings took place in the location of Ananjew.
In the other document which has already been submitted -- it is the document 3841 concerning the harvesting action.
QIt is Document Book 2-D, page 49 of the English text. That is the one we discussed before.
AOn the top it says, "Einsatzgruppe D. Location: Anajew." That is right for the group. What follows then is the report made by Einsatzkommando 12, but this does not that Einsatzkommando 12 had its location in Ananjew.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, witness, you were part of Einsatzgruppe D, were you not?
THE WITNESS:Yes.
QAnd under the heading, Einsatzgruppe-D we find the sentence, "Field of activity of the Commandos free of all Jews." That necessarily would include your commando, would it not?
AThis description "Made free of Jews" is such a general statement ....
QLet's dispose, witness, of the work "Commandos", and in the phrase we have, the "field of activity of the commandos" you would have the inclusion of the Einsatzkommando XII, would you not?
AIf the time as mentioned here from 19 August until 15 September is correct, Einsatzcommando XII must be found to have been in reserve until 25 August, and from there went to the Rumanian territory which was affiliated to the German Reich.
QWell, then, do you say that Commando XII is not included in the Generic work "Kommandos"?
AYes, that is what it means, but the expression is used in such a general manner to give a general impression, so that one can not say, that it does apply to this place and not to the other.
QWell, it tells very specifically. Now was Commando XII engaged in this area at the time indicated?
ANo.
QWhere was it?
AEinsatzkommando XII was in another territory, in the Beresana territory.
QWhat territory?
AEinsatzcommando XII was in Beresana, Ethnic German territory, and in this territory the Einsatzcommando X-A...
QNow tell us how long Einsatzcommando XII - -
AAnd Commando X-B.
QTell us how long Einsatzcommando XII was in the Ethnic German Beresana territory.
AUntil the end of September .....
QWe must have the beginning - - when to when?
AStarting on the last days of August - - the last days of August until the last days of September.
QWell, then in that event it could easily have been included in the commandos referred to in this document, which conducted executions between 19 August and 15 September?
AIf it had been it that territory, which these reports refer to, yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Proceed, Dr. Hoffmann. BY DR. HOFFMANN:
QHow far exactly, was the commando from this territory to which these reports refer?
AI could not tell you the exact distance, but it must have been about one-hundred or two-hundred kilometers. I want to comment briefly here on Document No. 2841. One cannot draw conclusions here, because under location Ananjew XII, it is mentioned that Einsatzcommando XII was also in this location, in the territory or this Einsatzgruppe; it was like this; the sub-departments were separated, and went in different directions, and thus it is explained, that those reports on the Harvests, which originates with Einsatzcommando XII, was sent to Berlin, as a report from the group from their location in Ananjew.
DR. HOFFMANN:Your Honor, may I now refer to the last document with which the Prosecution charges the defendant Nosske.
It is in Document Book II-B, page 7 of the English and page 6 of the German text, Document No.2837, Prosecution Exhibit No. 56. If I may comment on this document, Your Honor, you will find there Einsatzgruppe-D mentioned as well as that location Ananjew, and insofar as my German text says, of page 11, from this description, Location Einsatzgruppe-D, location Ananjew, no further explanation is given. What do you want to say about this, Herr Nosske?
AIn this document Einsatzcommando XII is not mentioned, either. The report was handed to Berlin, or to be quite correct, by the Berlin office it was made part of the report of events at the time when Einsatzgruppe-D was already in Ananjew. The location reports are not immediately connected with the report, sofar as the time is concerned. Furthermore, the report from Dniestr, Ghotin, and including Jampol, obviously mentions a time when these events, which are described here, had already happened a long time before. That is, a long time before Einsatzgruppe-D was in Ananjew; My task in Jampol, and my special mission there, of course. I already explained during my direct examination. I already said, that before I received this mission I had heard of difficulties which arose, because of the re-transportation of the Rumanian Jews who were to be sent back to Rumania territory, and, on that occasion I remember a figure which was about the same as I found in Jampol. 27,000 Jews were never mentioned at the time. I can not state how this figure was made up at all. Looking through the documents, and comparing them. I found this report is the first collective report which was issued at all for Einsatzgruppe-D, and sofar as I know the locations, I realized that it is the territory extending much further than the Einsatzgruppe-D territory.
The documents show that the areas mentioned here also contain units of Einsatzgruppe-C, and these documents prove it.
QWitness, I would also like to know, can you establish from this document that your Einsatzkommando is mentioned, or not?
ANo, it is not mentioned, and didn't take part in these occurrences.
DR. HOFFMANN:Your Honor, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Has any defense counsel a desire to cross examine the witness. If so, please step forward.
DR. GAWLIK:Dr. Gawlik for the defendant Seibert? BY DR. GAWLIK:
QWitness, do you know the co=defendant Seibert?
AYes.
QSince when have you know him?
AI met him after we were on route from Dueben to Roumania.
QWhat do you know about Herr Seibert's activity in the Staff of Einsatzgruppe-D?
AI know that he was in the Staff of Einsatzgruppe-D, and was chief III there, and had to deal with the Wehrmacht.
QDid Herr Seibert ever give you any executive orders?
ANo, never.
QWhat do you know about Herr Seibert's absence from the Staff Einsatzgruppe-D?
AI cannot say anything about the time when Herr Seibert was absent from the Einsatzgruppe, that is, the Staff.
QThank you. Did Herr Seibert ever inspect an execution by your commando?
ANo, there was no opportunity to do this.
QThank you.
DR. GAWLIK:I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Any other defense counsel desires to cross examine? If not, Mr. Walton will proceed with the cross examination for the Prosecution.
MR. WALTON:Your Honor, at this time I should like to interpose an objection to the defendant Nosske's Exhibit No.1. I would have objected at the time it was offered. This chart was offered, but I didn't hear the offer into evidence, and I want to know if I am in order now to interpose an objection.
THE PRESIDENT:It is entirely in order for you to address yourself about the document in any way you see fit, Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON:The prosecution objected to this document on the grounds that it is not authenticated, it is not sworn to, and it is not identified other than by his exhibit number one. I do not know it he made this document, or if his counsel made this document, or some other defendant made this document, and, on that grounds we object to the offer as proved.
DR:HOFFMANN: He is quite right, Your Honor. The Tribunal granted me the permission to put on the witness Hopenkoteiv, who has arrived here, and this witness at my suggestion, presented this chart, and he is prepared to give an affidavit that it is correct. And if the Prosecution would like to withdraw the objection until I hand this affidavit to the Tribunal .....
THE PRESIDENT:The defense has the right to submit any document which is relevant. If you submit this sketch of the activities of the RSHA, and indicate who made this sketch, it will be accepted, because it is not for the Prosecution to say which sketch is correct, so long as it is authenticated, the Tribunal will accept it.
If the Prosecution believes that this sketch is in error, it may cross-examine upon it, and it may submit its own sketch, but it cannot prevent you of the defense from introducing this document, provided, of course, it is authenticated.
MR. WALTON:That is all the Prosecution objected to, was its present form.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
MR:WALTON: Now Your Honor, please, and counsel for the defendant Nosske. I relied on the fact that he would go certainly until the dinner hour. I was having my questions revised, and, if the Tribunal please. I would appreciate if the dinner hour would be from now until one-thirty instead of one-forty-five.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, on that basis, we will. We would not want to lose the fifteen minutes. Would that in any way conflict with defense in having enough time to get their lunch if we come back at one-thirty? It would conflict, yes. Well, then, the Tribunal may ask several questions to take up that time.
THE PRESIDENT:Witness, this episode which you have described, of the shepherding of the Jews from one side of the river to the other side of the river, is still a little vague to me. Why were you so much concerned about getting these Jews back to Roumania?
AI tried to do this because I had been given a social mission.
QWho gave you the special mission?
AThe special mission was given to me by Einsatzgruppe chief.
QWell, you must have known of the reason for it. Give us the reason why were these Jews sent back to Rumania?
AThe decision for this could only be made by Einsatzgruppe chief himself. What deeper reasons he had for this I could not find out. I can only imagine what he thought.
QNow, you cannot tell us that you were engaged in a major operation of a sending six or seven thousand Jews across the river. You had to confer with the authorities there, and you say you don't know why you were doing it?
AInsofar as I know and insofar as the reasons were known to me, they were the following: They didn't want the Rumanians to simply send those persons whom they didn't like across the river into another territory, namely, into the German territory, and, thereby make difficulties for us in our territory, and, particularly because of the partly destroyed villages there was no means of housing these persons.
QWell, you had ordered to execute Jews, why weren't these Jews executed?
AWell, I presume because they were Rumanian citizens, and because these Rumanian citizens would be brought back from this territory without having to shoot them, because there was no reason for it, not to bother with them.