Transcript for NMT 9: Einsatzgruppen Case

of war who was a Jaw, or a Communist functionary, and, what orders would you issue concerning him?

AI had no orders to that affect. My instructions from Office-VI were to find suitable people for this operation "Zeppelin", to select them and to recruit them and then to report to the office that they were ready. This task, in order to clarify this, I carried out in such a manner, that first of all I talked to the commander of the camp about the matter; then I would talk to the counter intelligence officer who existed in every camp, and who knows his people, and then he suggested a number of them to me, and I then talked to these people individually. A general screening of the entire camp could not be talked of, I, as an individual, would hardly have had the time to do this.

QDid you ever select a Jew for this espionage activity?

ANo. Mostly I selected Caucasians and Mongolians.

QDid you ever select a man who had been a former Communist functionary?

AI can not remember that any such man was amongst them.

QHow many prisoners of war did you interview?

ASeveral thousand.

QAnd out of these you are sure that you never found one that was a Jew, or a Communist functionary?

AAt least no one told me, and I didn't notice it if any one might have been among them.

QHow many recruits for spying behind the Russian lines did you get for your "Action Zeppelin"?

AI personally? There must have been a few hundred I should think, whom I suggested.

QDid you play any part in the actual training of these men for their duties?

ANo, unfortunately, I didn't know sufficient for such.

QHow many executions do you estimate that Sonderkommando X-B Court No. II, Case No. IX.

performed from July to September 1941?

AAs far as I know three.

QNow you are familiar with the document books, aren't you, familiar with the documents that show that by the first of September Einsatzgruppe-D had executed 35,000 people?

AWhether this figure is right, I don't know, and I think I would like to remind you, it has been said repeatedly here, that this figure does not mean at all that all these people were executed by the group, but that these were supposed to have been executions which occurred in that territory at some time and by some one.

QAnd you mean to state that out of this 35,000 reported, all that can be accounted for by Sonderkommando X-B were three?

THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Walton, please make it clear whether "three" refers to three people or three collective killings.

MR. WALTON:Yes.

THE PRESIDENT:Because you are using the question -

MR. WALTON:I am sorry, Your Honor.

THEPRESIDENT: -- in contradiction to the 35,000.

MR. WALTON:I'll withdraw the question and rephrase it, Your Honor. BY MR. WALTON:

QOut of these 35,000 people killed, you now state that only three persons were killed by Sonderkommando X-B from July until September?

ADid you say three persons?

QIsn't that what you told me?

THE PRESIDENT:That is what I want to clear up. He said three executions.

MR. WALTON:All right. All right, I shall re-ask the question. BY MR. WALTON:

QOut of these 35,000 people, how many people can be charged to Sonderkommando X-B?

Court No. II, Case No. IX.

AI can not tell you, Mr. Walton.

THE PRESIDENT:Well, witness, how many were included in the three executions?

THE WITNESS:That I can not tell either quite exactly, because I only heard about the third execution afterwards, without hearing any figure about it on that occasion.

QWell, do you know how many were included within the first two executions.

AIn the first execution, if I remember correctly, there were twelve to fifteen people.

QAnd in the second execution?

AIn the second execution there were twenty to thirty.

QYou have no idea how many there were in the third?

AI really can not say. It must have been -- it must have been a limited number of persons, I think.

THE PRESIDENT:Proceed. BY MR. WALTON:

QDid your commando ever receive an inspection trip from General Ohlendorf?

QHow many?

AAs far as I can recall, two.

QDid Seibert ever make an inspection of Sonderkommando X-B?

ASo far as I know the first time, but I am not quite certain, he came together with the group-chief.

QDid he ever make one alone?

ANo, I can not remember of ever having seen that.

QWho was the chief of Leiter-III in Sonderkommando X-B?

AObersturmfuehrer Buckert.

QDo you know whether Seibert ever had conferences with 1st Lt. Buckert?

AI think I can say that because in Chernovitz, he must have Court No. II, Case No. IX.

been there, but I can not say really.

QDid you have any official contact yourself with Seibert?

AI believe I only talked to Herr Seibert once about an investigation concerning two German villages.

QDid you ever receive -

A -- but I didn't get any instructions from him.

QDid you ever receive any correspondence signed by Seibert?

QWhat position in Einsatzgruppe-D Headquarters did you consider Seibert to hold while you were a member of Sonderkommando X-B?

AHe was Chief-III.

QDid you consider him a deputy of General Ohlendorf?

ANo, because indeed as far as I can recollect, there was a roll call, which the group-chief himself conducted there, and if I am not very much mistaken, and my recollection is not wrong, that he appointed as his deputy, if necessary to do so, Obersturmbannfuehrer Setzen.

MR. WALTON:Your Honor, I have only a few more questions but I want to go into the statements made by him yesterday concerning the signing of his affidavit,

THE PRESIDENT:Well, we can do that after lunch.

MR. WALTON:Yes.

THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Hoffmann?

DR. HOFFMANN:Your Honor, I can only get a definite reply between two and three o'clock. The Secretary General will inquire by phone whether the witness has set off or not.

THE PRESIDENT:Well, we will hold it in obeyance until you report to us, Dr. Hoffmann. The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.

THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal will be in recess until 1345 hours.

(Whereupon recess until 1345 hours, 19 December 1947.)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 19 Dec 1947) CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued FELIX RUEHL - resumed

THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.

DR. KOESSEL FOR HOFFMANN:Your Honors, the defendant Nosske was excused yesterday to take part in a conference with his counsel this afternoon but he is still at the moment in the room here. I would like your Honor to arrange that he be excused.

THE PRESIDENT:The Marshal is directed to take the defendant Nosske to room 57 where he may confer with his counsel.

DR. KOESSEL:As the defense counsel of the defendant Schubert I would like to trouble the Tribunal with one question. According to rumors there is supposed to be no session tomorrow morning and the whole state of affairs seems to be rather difficult, especially as a witness has appeared for the defendant Haensch. There is the danger that the examination of the defendant Schubert in the witness stand will be cut into two parts and will not be finished before the Christmas holidays. I would, therefore, ask the Tribunal because of this danger not to call the defendant Schubert to the witness stand. There are a number of colleagues who want to submit documents books. I am one of them. I should like to submit my document books, also for the defendant Haensch and for Dr. Hoffmann. So I think there is quite a lot that has to be done.

THE PRESIDENT:What you are really trying to do is to have the rumor include this afternoon some time.

DR. KOESSEL:No, it wasn't that. I only wanted to be certain that I shall not have to call the defendant Schubert to the witness stand.

THE PRESIDENT:Tomorrow?

DR. KOESSL:That one would come to an agreement, to a ruling, that the examination will not be interrupted, not that part of it will take place before the Christmas holiday and the other part after the Christmas holiday.

THE PRESIDENT:If a rumoris repeated often enough it becomes a fact and if two or three or more defense counsel tell me about this rumor there will be no way to hold court tomorrow. Suppose we see what developes during the next hour and perhaps we can have the rumor crystalize into some kind of fact.

DR. KOESSL:Very well.

MR. WALTON:Your Honors, before I conclude the cross examination of the defendant Felix Ruehl I should like at this time to answer to the ruling of the Tribunal made on 9 December that on the question of the admission of the affidavit of a deceased witness the Prosecution and the defense should file suitable briefs. At this time and in open Court I desire to tender the brief in the required number of English and German copies to the Secretary General for filing.

THE PRESIDENT:Do you know whether defense counsel have prepared a brief in reply?

MR. WALTON:It is my understanding, sir, that they are working on it. They have had English copies two days or so but I want to give them as I can the advantage of the copies prepared in German - that they have both as of today.

THE PRESIDENT:Very well. BY MR. WALTON:

QWitness, let me direct your attention to your interrogations prior to the date that you received the Indictment in this case. At the interrogation in which you signed the affidavit which appears in Document Book III-D you stated in your examination that you objected to errors and inconsistencies contained in this affidavit and Mr. Wartenberg stated that you would be given an opportunity to make corrections, is this true?

QNow, I ask you once again, you being under oath when you reply, do you again state that you objected to signing an erroneous affidavit and only signed on the promise that you would be given an opportunity to make corrections?

AI have already said, Mr. Walton, that in the first affidavit which was shown to me I asked for so many corrections to be made and that I myself dictated one paragraph as Mr. Wartenberg kept on dictating something quite different from what I stated, so that a now affidavit had to be made out. The now affidavit was again not entirely according to my statement and I told Mr. Wartenberg so. Whereupon Mr. Wartenberg told me "You still will have an opportunity to do so if this is going to be used against you."

QI ask you if you objected to signing this second affidavit that was prepared and only signed on the promise that you would be given the opportunity to make corrections? Is that a true statement of facts?

AAt the moment I cannot say with certainty whether that was after the first or second draft but I want to persist to say that Mr. Wartenberg stated that if this should be the source of any errors whatsoever and if this is going to be used against you there is enough opportunity during the procedure to clear this up and I was convinced of this affirmation.

QDo you remember the date that you signed this affidavit?

AAs far as I remember it was on the 26th.

QOf June?

QWas there a stenographer present when you signed this affidavit?

AI think so.

QA female stenographer? Did she take notes?

AI did not observe that. As far as I know she did not write.

QWell, let me read you the transcript - it is very short - of the stenographic notes from 26 June 1947 from 1500 hours to 1530 hours. "The interrogation 1243-D was conducted on 26 June 1947 from 1000 to 1030 hours. In this interrogation the affidavit was submitted. Due to the many corrections the affidavit had to be re-written and could not be signed."

And then the stenographic notes go on:

"What is your name?

"A Felix Ruehl.

"Q Are you the same Ruehl whom I have interrogated often before? I remind you that you are still under oath.

"A Yes.

"Q I have had the affidavit re-written. Please read it and sign it."

The stenographic notes for the 26 June 1947, 1500-1530, then ends with these wores:

"The witness reads the affidavit and signs it."

Did those events transpire?

AA part of that is mi sing without the slightest doubt because I am absolutely certain, you may believe me or not, that I discussed this affidavit with Mr. Wartenberg.

QOn the second affidavit did you make a single correction or addition?

AAs far as I know not.

QNow to sum up your testimony both on direct and on cross examination I assume from what you have stated that you were given a certain function in Sonderkommando 10-B and you were effectively blocked off from all other activities as if Persterer had put blinders on your eyes and you saw nothing that transpired either to the right or to the left and your whole attention and your whole eyesight was directed at your own task and that the executions of which you have any knowledge whatsoever are those which you found out only in casual, conversation with your comrades, is that the substance of your testimony?

AI think that what I said was even more than what I actually dealt with within the frame of my own competence and I told you those things that I learned about myself. I cannot tell you any more. Mr. Walton.

QProsecution has no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT:Is there any re-direct examination? Dr. Linck?

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. LINCK:

QA few very brief questions, witness, in order to clarify your membership in the organization of the SS. Were you a member of the General-SS?

AYes, from 1932 to 1936 as far as I know.

QDid you remain a member of the General-SS when you joined the Police?

AI was formally kept on the list officially as a member of the SS. Then I was taken into the Reich Security Main Office and I was then kept on the files of the SD and thus I left the General-SS.

QDid you carry out any activity in this special formation of the SS, the SD?

ANot a day.

QDid you do any service?

QDid you pay membership fees?

QWas there any SS service in this special SS formation, the SD?

AI am not aware of any.

QWhat was this formation then, your service? What was its function?

AI did not see any particular assignments for me in it, as I was wearing the uniform.

QDid you mean to say that the agency took care and was a welfare organization of unifomred men of the SD?

AThere was in the SD as such a particular field of activity, but I had nothing to do with that.

QThank you. Your Honor, I have no further questions.

I should only like to make a small remark in order to protect myself and in order not to appear as stupid, that I raised no objection during the whole cross examination because my client made me promise him to let him answer all the questions even thos which seemed inadmissible. It wasn't easy for me to comply with this promise, but I kept my promise.

MR. WALTON:If the counsel wants to testify let him testify and take the stand and be swonr. I don't think the matters have any bearing on the issues in this case, nor does the information add one bit to the duty or the ability of the Tribunal to decide the case. I don't think it is a proper remark for the Tribunal. I don't think counsel is acting in his place as counsel to reveal confidential communication between himself and his client.

THE PRESIDENT:I am sure that Dr. Linck did not intend to offend any one by the statement which he volunteered and which was sincerely made but I don't think it necessary to pursue the statement any further.

DR. LINCK:Thank you, your Honor. May I on this occasion ask the Tribunal whether it would be agreeable if I would answer the question which I have received about the IMT. It was a question which was asked by the Tribunal in connection with my opening statement.

THE PRESIDENT:Yes, you had stated in your opening remarks that the witness had appeared and I asked you if you could refer the Tribunal to the page in the transcript.

DR. LINCK:There is a small error in my opening statement. I had raised the point that my client did not hide a Civilian Internee camp hut followed the call of thedefense for the organizations in IMT and he arrived in Nurnberg on his own accord. It did not come to an examination as a witness before the IMT but the following happened, which I saw myself with my own eyes as I was active myself then in the International Military Tribunal for the organization of the political leaders. The organizations defense counsels were locking in the camps for men whom they could present to the court, and on this occasion a co_defense counsel found the defendant Ruehl as a witness for the defense. He helped to compile the documents for the defense and then came to Nurnberg as a witness. As the number of those who would be heard before the Tribunal was extremely limited the defense had him merely submit an affidavit instead of examining him and after a few months he was brought back to Nurnberg. This is the only explanation that I can give.

THE PRESIDENT:Yes, well that clears it up completely. The transcript showed that you had said that the International Military Tribunal chose him to be a witness and we naturally assumed that he had appeared. But now in view of what you said naturally we don't need to have any reference to the transcript.

DR. LINCK:Yes, your Honor.

With the exception of the submitting of my documents may I regard the case as concluded. I have no witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT:Very well, the witness will now be returned to the defendants' box.

The witness Friedel Reich will be brought into the Courtroom.

DR. HOCHWALD:If the Tribunal please, before the witness takes the stand I would like to ask defense counsel for the defendant Haensch, a question, the Tribunal will certainly recall that the witness Weinmann appeared in behalf of the defendant Haensch. It is the contention of the Prosecution that the witness Weinmann is the wife of the then Obersturmbannfuehrer Erwin Weinmann who replaced the defendant Blobel as commander of Sonderkommando 4-A. There is no proof in the record as yet to show this fact.

We want to ask defense counsel for the defendant Haensch whether he contests this contention of the Prosecution or whether he will admit the witness Weinmann who appeared here in Court is the wife or was then the wife of Erwin Weinmann, Sturmbannfuehere or Obersturmbannfuehrer, who replaced the witness Blobel as a commander of Sonderkommando 4-A.

DR.KRAUSE for the defendant Haensch: I am glad to give the explanation and certify that the witness Weinmann who was examined here in the witness box was a wife of the then Obersturmbannfuehrer Erwin Weinmann with whom Haensch at the time had been assigned to the East simultaneously. That altogether was the reason why the witness Weinmann was called by us.

DR. HOCHWALD:If your Honors please there is only one thing missing, whether the defense counsel contest our statement that it was this Erwin Weinmann who replaced the defendant Blobel as commander of Sonderkommando 4A.

DR. KRUASE:May I have a short discussion with the defendant Haeusch concerning this. I am not in a position to make a statement concerning this without discussing the matter with him.

MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I beg the Tribunal's pardon, but I do think it is much easier to ascertain this fact in this way.

DR. KRAUSE:Whether Weinmann happened to be defendant Blobel's successor the defendant Haensch cannot state. He only knows of the fact that Weinmann was the assigned kommando chief of the SK 4a.

MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, this statement seems entirely sufficient to the prosecution, and the prosecution thanks defense counsel for the defendant Haensch for his statement.

THE PRESIDENT:Do you want to say something else?

MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: As the witness Reich will be called to the stand, I would like to submit two affidavits which were sent down to the prosecution which were executed by the witness Reich, Document NO-5698 and Document NO-5718, which I introduce as Document 192-A and B. Your Honors, I will have these documents distributed by the clerk.

THE PRESIDENT:Will the witness now be called in?

FRIEDAREICH, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:

JUDGE DIXON:Witness, raise your right hand and repeat the oath after me.

I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.

(The witness repeated the oath.)

JUDGE DIXON:You may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:

QWitness, do you know Gertrud Schreyer?

QWere you ever employed by her?

QGive us the time of employment.

AI was employed from 1941 until the beginning of 1943.

QDo you remember the months?

AYes, I began in November, 1941, and when I left it was spring, 1943, but I do not remember the month.

QAre you sure of the year when you began employment in Schreyer's office?

AYes. When I was interrogated at Berlin I made a mistake. I said 1939, but in the meantime I found a photograph, on the basis of which then I went to Mrs. Schreyer and I found the date, 1941.

QWell, have you seen Mrs. Schreyer recently?

AI have not. It is about ten weeks ago that I saw her last.

QDid you talk to her about this matter?

QWell, I understood you to say that you went to her to check on the date as to when you first became employed in her establishment.

ANo, I found a photograph in my own place, at home, which I had sent to my husband at the time in the field, and on this I found the date.

QWhat was your activity with Frau Schreyer?

AI kept the books, and on Saturdays, afternoon I also dealt with the customers, and I issued the photographs and helped her to cut, to dry the photographs, and sometimes develop, and so forth.

QTell us briefly just what your work consisted of.

AWhen customers arrived they were signed on a pad and then copied them into the books. Then when the prints were ready, I had to dry, cut, I put the names on, and then I passed them on to the customers when they arrived.

QWho took the photographs in Frau Schreyer's studio?

AOnly Frau Schreyer herself.

QDo you know Walter Haensch?

AI do not remember having seen him.

QDo you know whether a photograph was taken of Walter Haensch in Frau Schreyer's studio?

AI am not certain; I couldn't say. If I saw the prints I might remember, but there were so many customers that I can't remember individual ones.

THE PRESIDENT:May we have those exhibits, Secretary-General.

(The exhibits were handed to the President.) BY THE PRESIDED:

QDo you think you would be able to tell from an examination of negatives whether the pictures indicated by those negatives were taken in Frau Schreyer's studio?

AI should think so.

QThere has been introduced in evidence in the case which the Tribunal is trying a certain exhibit which consists of a black bound book which I am now exhibiting to you. I would like to have you look at this book.

Page, please show this to the -

Are you familiar with this book?

QDid you keep this book?

QDo you find the name of Walter Haensch in there?

AI must first glance through the book.

QYes. While you are glancing through it, Witness, let's ask you another question. Are you familiar with this other exhibit which has been referred to as an appointment pad book?

QDid you keep this also?

AYes, but Frau Schreyer also did so because I wasn't always present.

QAre the entries in this appointment pad book in your handwriting?

THE PRESIDENT:Page, please show this to her.

AThis, for instance, is Frau Schreyer's handwriting.

BY THE PRESIDENT?

QIs it her handwriting all the way through?

ANo, I also have made a few entries which show in this.

THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Hochwald, do you remember the number of the entry in the cash book?

MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: To the best of my recollection, your Honor, it is 931, but if I can have the exhibit for a minute I can -

THE PRESIDENT:Well, would you please look at the black book. I don't think that is the number.

MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: 391. I said 931, I am sorry. BY THE PRESIDENT:

QWitness, please direct your attention to that particular number in the case book and tell us if you wrote that entry.

AYes, I wrote that entry.

THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Hochwald, do we have the original in German of her interrogation?

MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: There are two documents in evidence, your Honor. One is typewritten and one is handwritten.

THE PRESIDENT:Well, Document No. 5698.

MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: 5698, the original is with the SecretaryGeneral, your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT:Do you have the original there?

MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT:Please show that to the witness.

QWitness, will you please read paragraph 7, the question and the answer? Read it aloud. Read it slowly, please.

A "Do you know whether a photograph was taken of this man in Frau Schreyer's studio? Answer: I do not remember. I consider it unlikely because I was supposed to transfer the names of Frau Schreyer's clients from the appointment pad into the cash book. It is, of course, possible that Herr Haensch was an acquaintance of Frau Schreir and that she photographed him privately. In this case his name would not have appeared in the appointment pad."

QJust what do you mean by that statement?

AI said at the time that I don't remember having seen a photograph of his, and I don't remember an entry. I said at the time that there were so many customers whom I had to enter into the book that I could not remember the details.

QWell, just what do you mean by the statement, "I consider it unlikely" - or "impossible" as it has been translated here - "because I was supposed to transfer the names of Frau Schreyer's clients from the appointment pad into the cash book?"

AWell, I can't really say anything to this. (Your Honor, this is a mistranslation. It should be "unlikely" because the German is "unwahrscheinlich."*

QI see. Very well. You were asked, "Do you know Walter Haensch?" And you say, "The name is familiar but I don't know in what connection I heard it, and I cannot remember a man of this name." Then you were asked, "Do you know whether a photograph was taken of this man in Frau Schreyer's studio?" and you answered, "I don't remember. I consider it unlikely." Why did you say considered it unlikely?

AIt is possible that I did express myself in a slightly different way perhaps when I was questioned there. Perhaps I said that it was possible that a photograph was made, but that I personally didn't remember.

QWell, did Frau Schreyer handle this particular case alone, making the appointment, taking the picture, writing the reference in the cash book?

ANo, this was all writtine by myself.

QDid you take the appointment?

QDid you write up the reference in the appointment pad?

AI wrote it myself even.

QYou wrote up the appointment?

QYou said in that same answer, "It is, of course, possible that Herr Haensch was an acquaintance of Frau Schreyer and that she photographed him privately." Did she or did she not photograph him privately?

AI shouldn't think so because if I made this entry here, there he must have been a regular customer.

QAnd did you also make the entry in the case book?

QDo you remember the instance yourself; do you recall it?

ANo, that I do not remember.

QDo you testify from your handwriting rather than your recollection?

AYes, I only testify now in accordance with my handwritting.

THE PRESIDENT:Let us have the document please, the book and the pad.

(The exhibits were returned to the President.) BY THE PRESIDENT:

QWe will now show you two negatives, glass negatives, of pictures.

Would you please tell us whether those were made in Frau Schreyer's shop?

THE PRESIDENT:All right, let me have them back.

QHow do you identify the negatives?

AI have recognize on the top Mrs. Schreyer's handwriting, and it is, customary that we made notes in writing.

QHow do you identify negatives when you put them in your files?

AWe put them into envelopes. We wrote the name on this and then, according to letters, sorted them, filed them.

QIs the name written on the negative itself?

QIs that done in every instance?

AYes, that was always done.

QDoes the number always appear too on the negative?

AIf it was not a private photograph of some sort.

THE PRESIDENT:Page, please show her these negatives again.

QWill you please look at these negatives and see if you can find the name and number on the negatives?

AOn this negative, on this photograph, there is a name. The number is almost illegible. Yes, on this one too.

THE PRESIDENT:May we look at them too?

QWould you please come to the bench, Witness, and indicate where you see the name and number.

AYes, here, and here is the number. (Indicating.)

THE PRESIDENT:Do you have that famous magnifying glass of yours, Mr. Hochwald?

MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I haven't got it, your Honor, but I shall try to get one for you.

THE PRESIDENT:I thought you always traveled with a magnifying glass. BY THE PRESIDENT:

QJust where do you see the name?

(The witness indicated the name.)

QOh, yes, I see it now. In whose handwriting is that?

AMrs. Schreyer's.

THE PRESIDENT:You may take the witness stand. Page, please hand to the witness a blank sheet of paper and a pencil. BY THE PRESIDENT:

QWill you please write your name?

ABut I should like to comment that in those days I used German letters, and now I use Latin letters, that is characters.

QWell, I know that women don't like to go back to the old days, but let's go back to those days and write the way you wrote then. Why have you changed your style of writing since nineteen-forty--- When was this, 1942? 1943?

AI have on numerous occasions written English and there, of course, I cannot use German characters. I have to use Latin characters, and, therefore, I got used to it.

QWere you married when you were working for Frau Schreyer?

AAt the beginning I was not married. I married only on Christmas, 1941.

QWell, you were married during the time you were working for Frau Schreyer.

AI started to work in November and I only married in Christmas, 1941.

QWell, you were married when this transaction occurred?

AYes, I was.

Transcript for NMT 9: Einsatzgruppen Case

Defendants