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.
QWell, do you now tell the Tribunal that the Jews of Rumanian citizenship were immune from the Fuehrer Order? Was there that exclusion in the Fuehrer's Order? Why were they excluded?
AI am a convinced and I never found it any different also in the instruction which we received from the Einsatzgrupee chief, and it was confirmed that the Fuehrer Order should only apply to those living in Germany proper, and for persons who were lot of foreign citizenship, or allied to Germany.
QWell, then, you told us that no Rumanian Jews were shot?
AI can nor judge this. If we could not recognize them as Rumanian Jews, it could have been possible, but it was quite obvious here, that the greatest number of these had come from the Rumanian territory, and this condition the Einsatzgruppe chief did not want.
QWell, you know that these very documents show that Rumanian Jews were shot don't you?
AI didn't quite understand the question.
QYou know that in these very documents there are reports that Rumanian Jews were shot?
AWell, I can not say whether that is right, and I doubt the truth in this.
QI can not seem to place my hand at this moment on the reference. It was the document which was being discussed just ten or fifteen minutes ago. I have in my notes, Document II-D, page 11, but I must have made a mistake. Can any one assist me in finding that document? In it very specific reference is made to the fact that Jews who had been driven over from Rumania were shot, and, it also indicated that the younger Jews were shot?
AThis report cannot be correct, and sofar as I remember, Herr Ohlendorf testified on the witness stand that he doubted its possibility and its credibility to a large extent.
QYes. I have it now. It is II-B, not II-D. I'll read to you from this document, No 2837, under designation "Einsatzgruppe-D" which reads as follows: "In the vicinity of Swaniza-Mogilew-Poiolaski and Jampol, a total of approximately 27,500 Jews were driven back to the Rumanian territory, and 1,265, in part younger ones, were shot." Now these were Rumanian Jews who were shot by Einsatzgruppe-D. How do you explain that?
AYour Honor, I said already: how this report was made up, I don't know. Neither did I report anything like that, nor did anyone with that group ever make any such report, and, since I myself was in Jampol, I would have heard something later about such a report being made.
QThen you claim that this report is in error?
AYes.
QThe report goes on and says: "3,105 more Jews and 34 Communists were liquidated in Czernowitz", is that also incorrect?
AYour Honor, I can not judge this, I had never been in those territories, and at the time I only had one mission to report, about the bridge in Jampol. I can not give my opinion on such a report.
QAnd this is being submitted to you only by way of comment on your statement that "Rumanian Jews were not executed." Now do we understand you to say that the Jews of Germany's allies were not subjected to the usual order "Jewish program as outlined by the German Reich."
Is that what we are to understand ?
AYes, Your Honor, in these cases where this question arises, every time the Einsatzgruppe chief decided that Rumanian Jews, or Jews in Rumania territory should not be shot, and I remember - -
QWell, just a moment, now wait. I will ask you if you understand that it was the policy of the RSHA not to subject Jews of a nationality allied to Germany to the usual program of Jewish persecution?
AI can not judge this, Your Honor. It was certain that the RSHA didn't, because the RSHA knew the local conditions which pertained here, and particularly concerning these southern territories .....
QWell, were the Jews of the allied nations, I mean, German allied Nations from the Jewish policy of the Reich?
AAt the time, yes.
QWell, now you know that there were thousands, tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews that were transported to the concentration camps, and to the extermination camps, and, therefore, certainly they were part of the anti-Jewish program. You know that, didn't you?
AI heard about this after the collapse, Your Honor, and I also heard that this happened at a time after the time mentioned here. As I heard now it was carried on at a time when Heydrich had the mission to deal with the final solution of the Jewish question in Europe. In 1941 this mission of Heydrich by Hitler didn't as yet exist. At that time I can not imagine that in Hungary Jews were deported and executed at another place.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is in recess until 1345 hours.
(Recess until 1345 hours, 8 December 1947.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 8 December 1947) GUSTAV NOSSKE - resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - continued
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session. DR. FRITZ FOR THE DEFENDANT FENDLER:
QYour Honor, may I just put one question to the witness?
THE PRESIDENT:By all means do so.
QWitness, in your direct examination on Friday, that was last week, you said that before the Einsatzgruppen marched off Heydrich inspected them in Schmiedeberg, and in this connection you also mentioned that you regarded what Heydrich said on this occasion before these men as confirmation of what Streckenbach had said in the Fuehrer meeting at Pretsch to the higher raking leaders. Can this be understood to the effect that the men and the non-coms found out through Heydrich about this Fuehrer order? That is how I understood you. Is that correct?
AI did not say it like that and I did not mean it like that either. When Heydrich inspected these units and addressed a few words to these men he did not at all mention the Hitler order. The men could not have known at that time of the Hitler order. As far as I personally am concerned, it seemed to me that it was confirmation. I, after all, had order of the Hitler order in Pretsch and as Heydrich did not modify this order this order was still in effect.
QI have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. Mr. Walton will you now proceed with the cross-examination.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. WALTON:
QMr. Nosske, you become a member of the Nazi Party on 1 May 1933, did you not?
AYes.
QThis was a voluntary act on your part, wasn't it?
AYes.
QAnd you become a member of the SA in June of 1933 and remained in this organization until July 1936, is this correct?
AYes.
QDid not you leave the SA in order to join the SS?
ANo, but my task in the SA was mainly my activity in the Legal Department, Legal Information Department that is, which I carried out for my lawyer. When I left this post I had no reason to stay and even though I left Halle before I actually left the SA, or earlier than has been noted, then the reason is that the confirmation of my having left was not made until later.
QThen you were transferred to the SS without protest on your part, were you not?
AI joined the SS through the special formation SD. That was an automatic procedure connected with my activity in the Security Police and it left no free decision for myself.
QDid you protest this transfer.
ANo.
QMost of your SS service was as a member of the Gestapo, was it not?
AAltogether, not only a large part - I was already working in the State Police then and later on I was assigned to the special formation SD automatically.
QDo you remember when you were assigned to this special formation of the SD, the approximate date?
AAbout the ninth November 1937.
QNow how was it according to your service record that in 3 1/2 months after having attained the rank SS-Untersturmfuehrer of the comparable rank of 2nd Lieutenant you were promoted to the rank of Sturmbannfuehrer or Major in the equivalent rank? That is found in your service record which is contained in Document Book III-D on page 80 of the English text, page 120 of the German text, and is Document NO-3505 which is Prosecution Exhibit 170.Your Honors, I specifically refer to page 83 of the Document Book.
Do you desire to have the question repeated, witness, when you get the document?
AThat is not necessary. I only want to see the Document Book. That is the typical case of the assimilation of ranks because at that point I was promoted to Regierungsrat (Government Councillor). And, first of all, as I had not been an officer yet, I became Untersturmfuehrer (2nd Lieutenant) and after a short while - - - No - -
QI think you will find - - -
AI looked at the wrong document I am afraid.
QNO-3505, page 129 of the German text.
AI was promoted to Untersturmfuehrer 20 April 1938.
QNow, then approximately 3 months later, or 31/2 months later, according to this record you were promoted to Sturmbannfuehrer or Major.
AThat is correct for the more reason that in the meanwhile I had been promoted to Regierungsrat (Government Councillor) and a short while after that the assimilated rank took effect.
QThen you skipped the intervening ranks because you were promoted professionally, is that correct?
AYes.
QNow you reported for duty with Einsatzgruppen in Dueben before the Beginning of the Russian campaign, did you not?
AThat is not correct. You can't speak of reporting at all. On the contrary I have just tried to explain that at the last moment I was detailed because the Regierungsrat (Government Councillor) Kreutzer who was destined for the Einsatz, had become ill. I found out about that so late that unlike many others assigned to the Einsatzgruppen I was not able to be in Pretzsch or Dueben beforehand as many other who were.
QDid you join the Einsatzgruppen before they began their march toward the Russian border?
AYes.
QThen you reported for duty before the beginning of the Russian campaign, did you not?
AI reported because I was asked to do so and I was ordered to go from Berlin to Pretsch. That was a few days before the Russian campaign.
QWell, that is what I asked you. Now, prior to the time you reported for duty with the Einsatgruppen did you have any knowledge whatsoever of their purpose and their missions?
ANo.
QWhen did you first learn of the Fuehrer order? Was it, as you tesfitied on direct examination, in Berlin?
ANo. I learned of the existence of the Fuehrer order for the first time in Pretsch from the Chief of Office I, Streckenbach.
QDid he personally tell you of the Fuehrer order?
AYes.
QNow what were your own feelings when you learned that the Fuehrer order demanded the killing of people on racial or religious grounds?
AThe Fuehrer order was not given for that reason. Its purpose was the securing of the fighting sector but at the same time I was horrified by it.
QWell, the Fuehrer order speaks for itself. I won't quibble over what the Fuehrer order demanded but that is what happened in obedience to the Fuehrer order, isn't it?
AAs I said this order was made known to me first in Pretsch by Streckenbach.
QDid you ever make any protests to your superiors over having to obey this Fuehrer order?
AThe protests as made by the higher ranking leaders who were present on that occasion were so spontaneous and so quick that I myself never had a chance, apart from the fact I hold a lower rank.
QThen you made no protest? That is your answer, is it not?
AThe higher raking officers' protests were mine as well.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Q.Witness, I am not interested in what others did. I ask you for a direct answer. Your answer to my previous question was that you personally did not make a protest to having to carry out the Fuehrer order. Did you or did you not?
A.I did not have to do so because others did so for me.
Q.Then your answer is no, you made no protest.
A.I did not protest - out the conclusions which you want to draw are not the same.
Q.Did you ever ask to be relieved or service in the Einsatzgruppe when you learned what the mission of this organization was?
A.That was not possible because if I had refused to march or to carry out any orders whatsoever I would had to face the consequences which were made known to us according to martial law.
Q.Well, before the lunch hour - -
THE PRESIDENT:Just a moment, please, Mr. Hildesheimer I think the phrase is military law. There is a distinction between military law and material law. BY MR. WALTON:
Q.Before the lunch hour, you gave a detailed explanation how in the last days as the front moved closer towards Germany you deliberately sabotaged the carrying out of the killing of Jews while you were in Duesseldorf. Now that was the difference in the opportunity here and the opportunity in Duesseldorf to fail to carry out the order for the killing of Jews?
A.The reason for my protest in Duesseldorf was that nobody else could protest for me. Apart from this in Pretsch the order came through as an order of the Chief of State. Here, of course, I had to find out for certain whether this order was actually final for me. A further state of affairs was that the word security which, of course, had cropped up before in 1941 and had conflicted with my conscience in Duesseldorf seemed to me a pretext because for me there was no ranking officer responsible for security.
I could see and I could realize what would endanger the security and what would not endanger the security and for these reasons I protested.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Walton, I would be grateful if you could develop this point because, up to this moment, it isn't clear to me just what he did in Russia. He has explained that he was considerably horrified with the Fuehrer order, that it shocked him no end, that he marched into Russia, that on one occasion he shepherded some Jews across the river, and according to the reports Jews were being killed right and left of him, but never once has there been any statement as to whether he killed any Jews. I think if you make that clear immediately or reasonably soon we can follow your cross-examination a little more intelligently.
MR. WALTON:I am discussing with him his career in Dueben and Pretsch just before the Einsatzgruppen marched off. As I understood it this morning he testified he got a similar order that said even half-Jews together with the Aryan spouses would be killed and he sabotaged that order.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes. Your question is entirely in order but we can follow the cross-examination perhaps with more interest and with more keenness of observation if we find out whether he killed any Jews in Russia. Personally I don't know how he was able to get through this long examination in direct examination without telling us that very essential thing.
MR. WALTON:That will develop, Sir, according to plan. However, I might call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that on direct examination this morning concerning the Babtschinzy incident or the Hogus incident he stated that those 94 Jews were killed by a Jeil-Kommando Fuehrer belonging to his Kommando.