in the territory in the vicinity around Krinoij-Rog, in a radius, shall we say of 50 kilometres, there were very very few Jews. At that time I did not hoar of operations of the SS and Police Leaders neither from German soldiers nor by Ukrainian civilians, and if Your Honors would like to ask the witness, the female witness, who is to appear here, who also was in Krinoij-Rog, she will confirm this. At that time I never heard about those terrible figures and I never heard that extensive numbers of Jews were shot in Krinoij-Rog. belonged engaged in executions of mental hospital inmates I can only say that I do not understand. The same report concerning the killing of insane people appears twice in these reports; the first time on the 12th of November, it goes to the account of Einsatzkommando 12, and a second time, I think it was in February, there were no agencies mentioned as being responsible; but in February EK 6 was not in Dnepropetrosk. It is Document 3340. I am just about to look. It is Document Book I, Exhibit 22, No-3340. Here it says on page 5 of the original, in the time between the 10th of January, until the 6th of February, 1942, in Dnepropetrosk, 17 habitual criminals, 103 Communist functionaries, 16 partisans, and approximately 350 Jews were shot after summary court. On page 6 of the original, apart from that, it says 400 inmates from mental asylums in Igrin and 320 of the mental asylum of Wasilowka were eliminated.
Q What do you intend to show by that. I did not quite understand. reported about on two different occasions. I did not hear about such shootings during my time and it is quite possible that is is the result of a mix-up of some kind, but I cannot really comment on this positively, because I have no knowledge of the incident myself. I would only like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that this report appears twice and it is questionable who is the author of this, for instance, because I cannot imagine that in a mental asylum an act of this kind is carried out twice.
I do not know about this incident. Jews were shot after court-martial, or some such phrase.
Q The document says, "by order of summary court."
INTERPRETER HILDESHEIMER: I did not have the document. It is summary court.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
A I did not want to comment on this document. I only wanted to draw you attention to the fact that there is something unclear about this. I did not hear anything about this operation. I was not in again and I did not know anything about it. time? mine who had been killed was buried. That was for a few hours, not more.
Q Situation Report No. 86, dated the 17 of September 1941 indicates that a caravan of Jews were shot in Novo Ukrainka and vicinity. Did that ever come to your attention?
A Is that Document No. 3151, Your Honor?
Q That is right. Did that ever come to your attention? AOK 17 with the Liaison Officer Hayer. I only stayed at Novo Ukrainka a few hours and I never heard anything about that. Jews, and perhaps even Jews in vehicles, while travelling, were suddenly fallen upon and exterminated, and, if that be true, it would certainly create an incident which would at the least cause conversation, but that never came to your attention, you say?
A No, Your Honor. I never heard about this.
Q What was your attitude generally regarding the Jews? not hostile, at no time. In my home town, there were about 12 to 13 Jewish families living. who were all respected citizens and I had a partly personal contact which I maintained with these people, and I certainly respected them. the SD, is that correct?
Q Yes, Then how did you rejoin? What were the circumstances which brought you back into the SS, briefly? There was no other possibility. I had to work in the program of the SD. Then the Personnel Department Chief told me, "Comrade Graf, you used to be a member of the General SS. Make an application, then you will receive your former number," and that is what I did.
Q Well, if you had not applied, what would have happened?
A Nothing would have changed, Your Honor. I would still have been on an emergency appointment in the SD. Nothing would have changed. voluntarily or not. I would not have rejoined the SS, never, because I was a businessman, and did not want to have anything to do with the Party and its formations.
Q I don't quite follow you. I asked you, if you had not rejoined what would have happened to you. Did you rejoin voluntarily or were you compelled to rejoin? That is what I am trying to ascertain.
out the application. I filled in all the family papers and documents, but you could not call it "voluntarily," because it became untomatic. The Personnel Departmental Chief could see from my documents that I used to be a member of the SS, so he said, "Of course, in that case you have to rejoin the SS." Therefore I made out the application, but, if I had not been deferred to the SD, I would never have rejoined the SS. After all, I had left the SS and also I did not rejoin the General SS, but I was transferred to the special formation, the SD. After all, this was on the war emergency status. In my opinion then, it was merely a formal matter to regain my former SS number. if you had not filled out these forms, that you would have been called anyway?
A May I call the attention of Your Honors to one fact: The proof, that I did so through the interference of my Department Chief is the fact that in January I was drafted on an emergency status and only on 28 July, I believe I made out the application; only after I had spoken on various occasions to my Department Chief, he got me there so I would make out the application. If it had been done immediately, the date would not have been the 28th of July, but perhaps the 2nd or 4th or 6th of January, 1940. May I point out to your Honor this is evident in my personal file, which is in Document Book III-C, NO-4801, Ex. 147. had not made out this application, would you still have been called? called at a previous date, or, at least, before I made out this repapplication. This was only an action I took afterwards and this became necessary after the war emergency status. was a mere form?
I think it is on page 3 of the original, it says, "Kempten Scheldow, the 26th of July, 1940." That is a few months after my war emergency status became effective. That is several months after the war emergency draft.
Q. Where were you when the war came to an end?
A. I was in Kaufbauren, and my section chief ordered me to report to the nearest Army unit, which I did. I was detailed to an infantry division which was in Jungholz or, at least, in the vicinity of Jungholz. That was approximately the 24th of April, 1945.
Q. Witness, did you ever witness an execution?
A. No, Your Honor.
Q. Did you ever see the preparations for an execution?
A. Well, Your Honor, if you call the lining up of men a preparation, then in that case, it is so, but otherwise, I never saw any.
Q. The lining up of men, did you say?
A. Yes, yes. The lining up of men.
Q. You mean the lining up of the firing squad?
A. No, Your Honor, at the garrison of the kommando the men had to line up.
Q. You mean, merely the assembly of soldiers?
A. Yes, Your Honor.
Q. Well, that of course, would have nothing to do with the actual mission; but did you know that when they were assembled, that when they were lining up, that they were about to depart on an execution mission?
A. Well in individual cases I knew that, Your Honor.
Q. And in any of those cases, did you know that they were destined to shoot great numbers of people?
A. No, Your Honor, I did not know that in any case.
Q. You travelled a great deal and numerous executions occurred during the time that you were a member of this kommando and during the time that you were travelling as evidenced by these reports. Now, doesn't it seem a little strange that in all your travelling that you never came upon an execution, never came upon one while it was actually in COURT II CASE IX progress nor just before it took place, nor just immediately after it had occurred.
Now can you explain that phenomenon?
A. Your Honor, what my comrades told me was that an execution for reasons of security, would not be carried out on the roads or in public squares or near villages. This may be the reason that I did not happen to witness an execution either.
Q. Witness, you see squads of men lined up ready to march off to an execution. You are aware of the fact that that is their mission - and you must have been there or you couldn't have seen them - Now wouldn't natural curiosity cause you to inquire as to where they were going and what they were going to do and whom they were going to shoot and how many?
A. Your Honor, the only person who might have been able to give information about this was the commanding officer and I, as a noncommissioned officer, could not have approached him and I could have said, "Excuse me, Herr Untersturmfuehrer, where are you going to and what are you going to do?" I couldn't do that and I am quite honest when I tell you, Your Honor, I was not interested in these things.
Q. Did you see any of the aquads that went out on any of these missions which are reported here?
A. As I have already told you, Your Honor, I only know from the events mentioned in the documents, what I have said about Dnepropetrovsk and I can't say that I know that at this and this locality on this and tills, day that men were assembled and assigned for executions.
Q. Who made out the reports of executions for the kommando to the group?
A. In Einsatzkommando 6 there was a Department Chief IV, who was responsible for all executive reports. He made COURT II CASE IX out these reports and then passed them on to the kommando chief.
Q. Did Seibert make up any reports of this character?
A. Your Honor, I cannot tell you anything about this, because Seibert was in an entirely different Einsatzgruppe.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: He was Chief of Einsatzgruppe D.
Q. (By the President) Yes, Well, we know that it was a different Einsatzgruppe, but it belonged to the same department. You and Seibert belonged to the same department, Department III, and as a matter of custom and a matter of routine, did your department make up reports on executions, because that is what Seibert said?
A. May I then point out one thing? Seibert was in the staff of Einsatzgruppe D, in the group staff. I was in Einsatzkommando C-6, a Department Chief. The position of the Co-Defendant Seibert, as a Chief of Department III, is an entirely different one from my position as an NCO, a noncomissioned officer in an Einsatzkommando. My task was to collect news and reports, to write them down, and to pass them on to the kommando chief.
Q. Well would you say that your position in the kommando corresponds to the position, to the same position in the Gruppe and, if so, if Seibert would report an execution from the Gruppe, belonging to Department III, why wouldn't you in Department III of the Kommando make similar reports?
A. Your Honor, I should like to point out that Seibert, after all, was a Standartenfuehrer. Furthermore, he was Chief III of Einsatzgruppe D and, as such, he dealt exclusively with SD reports which he compiled and passed on to Berlin.
Q. Yes, but we are not asking you if you made reports to Berlin, whether you made reports to your Gruppe, your COURT II CASE IX Einsatzgruppe Headquarters.
A. Your Honors, in our kommando, the entire reports were made by the Kommando Chief. He was the only one to decide what part of my material, I had reported, was going to the Group and he had the responsibility for the entire report of the kommando, Your Honor. Furthermore, the difference between Einsatzgruppe C and D is, as far as I heard here, that Einsatzgruppe C had a Chief of Department IV, but not in D, so that these matters of reporting -- that is what I wanted to say -- went into one channel.
Q. Well then it didn't always happen that the departments in the kommandos and the gruppen were entirely isolated from each other. It did happen at times that their duties overlapped and mingled?
A. I do not know how it was in the case of other kommandos, Your Honor, but with our own kommando it was thus that the spheres of activity were separated. Department IV dealt with executive matters. III deals with Reports, I and II with personnel matters and supply.
Q. You just indicated that in Group D that Department III took over many of the duties of Department IV.
A. That is not what I wanted to say, Your Honor. What I wanted to say, Your Honor, was that there was no Department Chief of Department IV in Einsatzgruppe D, who otherwise would have passed on the reports concerning executive matters, and therefore, this all went into one channel, the whole material.
Q. We recall, Witness, that various defendants, and Schubert, particularly because he testified very recently, indicated that executions occurred near roads, near highways; in fact, it became necessary to block off these roads so that the public would be entirely excluded from the executions, COURT II CASE IX so we came back to your proposition that it was impossible for you to witness an execution because they were never near roads and they were always in very isolated sections.
How do you reconcile your observation with the very clear statements made by the defendants as to the site of executions?
A Your Honor* in my opinion this becomes evident from the difference in territories; I was most of the time in the industrial territory, like for instance, the rural territories in Germany, and one cannot say that here is a town boundary, and this is a town boundary of the other town, so that the roads in an industrial area are entirely different from roads in an agricultural area, that may be the reason. I don't know how it is that I was not a witness in such operations but in any case that is how it was. This is the reason I think it was. action at one tine. What was that episode? Security Police and SD at Stalino had only few leaders, and I was to become leader of a subcommando as an Unterfuehrer, that is, a non commissioned officer. I explained that I as a member of EK-VI had been detailed to Stalino, with the task to establish a Department-III, within the commando of the Security Police; if I were to be made a subcommando leader, I could not do so, that was not the purpose of my assignment, and the officer on duty thought that I was refusing to obey an order because of the fact he had given me an order that "You are taking over this and that task" and I said, "No, I had been appointed in order to build up Department III, and I will not take over a subcommando," so he said, "Therefore, you refuse to obey my order," and I said, "Yes, for this and that reason," he said, "You will have to face the consequences," and as a result of this discussion I was arrested, or at least I was locked up.
Q Who was talking to you there. Who was indicating the arrest to you?
A The then commanding officer was not present at the time. I can not say for certain what officer it was. In any case it was the representative of the commanding officer of the corps, who gave me this order.
Q And what were the consequences? a disciplinary procedure started against me with the police and SS court. the officer who subjected you to this experience. It certainly must have remained vivid in your memory? Domnick.
Q What happened to him?
Q Then when you were sent to Kiev, what occurred? already arrived, and I defended myself before the personnel Referent there, I said to him that I had not been detailed to the commando in order to take over a subcommando but in order to build up Department III. Then the natter was cleared up by the personnel referent of the department, that I was up for refusal to obey, but he admitted that I was right in saying I was assigned from Kiev in order to build up Department III, for that reason it was favorable for me, Also at that point I had already been released the commanding officer had not informed me about that. you were ordered by your commanding officer to perform a certain mission, to take over a subcommando, and you point blankly refused, and you tell us now that nothing happened to you after that very flagrant disobedience of orders? commanding officer, had given the order not to advance with Commando-VI to the East but to remain in Stalino in order to build up a Department III:
for me the order of the group was still valid, because I had not received another order to the contrary to that effect. officer, refuse to obey an order of a superior officer merely because he has an argument that an officer above that officer had told him to do something else?
Q Well, that is what you did. The officer told you to do a certain thing, and you in effect said, "Oh, no, I am not going to do that because an officer who is above you told me to do something else," that is what you are telling us? the superior agency, and I was not a member of the Security Police in Stalino, I didn't regard it as a refusal to obey. I merely explained to him that I had received this, and that order, and, therefore, I could not accept another order as long as the other one was still valid and had not been rescinded. do, and because of that you were placed under arrest? leader's order, and that is the reason that you refused to go along, and you took a chance?
A Yes, Your Honor. I knew that I was subordinated to Einsatzcommando VI, and not to this commander, and if somebody, is detailed from one former unit to another, then the old order has to be rescinded before neworder is accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no other questions by other counsel; you have a couple of questions Mr. Hochwald?
MR. HOCHWALD: I am sorry to take the tine of the Tribunal but there are two or three questions which was brought up from examination of the witness by the Tribunal. BY MR. HOCHWALD: emergency draft, is that correct?
Q And when was that? emergency service? fullfledged member, nor through my application for rejoining. yet. Did you become a member of the SD on the basis of this emergency service, a fullfledged member of the SD?
A No, Mr. Prosecutor. of this emergency service?
A No, Mr. Prosecutor. SS on the basis of your own application? Will you answer this question with a yes or no?
A Yes, Mr. Prosecutor, based on the fact that I voluntarily applied for my rejoining, I received my formal SS number in the formal formation of the SD.
Q Is it then correct, that you rejoined the SS voluntarily?
A Mr. Prosecutor, that is not and was not my view, because if I had not come under war emergency status, one was a logical consequence of the other, in that case I would never in my life have connected with the SS again.
the application for the entry into the SS? application, is that right? this second matter has a logical consequence of the first. If I had not been drafted on the emergency status I would never have thought of ever rejoining, or making application.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, you and the witness are having a jolly good time, because both of you are exports in languages, and you both understand English and German, but the rest of the Courtroom has to get the dialogue, so please let there be a pause between you and the witness, so others not so gifted as both of you can keep up with the examination.
MR HOCHWALD: I beg your pardon.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I beg your pardon, my fault. BY MR. HOCHWALD: right?
A Of course nobody forced me Mr. Prosecutor, it was only that the personnel referent told me there that day, who used to be a member of this unit, in order to be relieved from that I would have to apply after that date and they would have to approve that; it was drawn out from January up to July. refused to take over the command of an entire commando in Einsatzcommando VI?
A No, Mr. Prosecutor, that is not how it was. I told the Tribunal that I was detailed from EK VI to Stalino; and that the officer asked me without rescinding my former order, to take over a subcommando, in the Kommando at that moment I would have been a member of the agency of the commando of the Security Police in Stalino, and I would then no longer had been a member of EK-VI.
I told this office that this was not possible, for I am only detailed for this or that purpose and as long as the other order is still valid, and this if this order is not rescinded I will not do so, and that was regarded as a refusal to obey.
Q Who was then commander of Einsatzcommando VI? Sturmbannfuehrer Mohr, who was the commander, or Sturmbannfuehrer Bieberstein, our co-defendant.
Q Can you tell the Tribunal the exact date when that happened? in any case, it was either September or October, but I don't remember the exact date, unfortunately.
Q September or October 1942?
take over the command of the subcomando? Departmental Chief III, that was the work which I knew; but at the moment of my taking over the job as a subcommando chief, I would have had to take over a task which was entirely foreign to me, a purely police task. I had no police training, police, and I did not have the qualifications for such activity.
Q Was that the only reason why you refused? from the very start I can not cope. carry out a military order in wartime? Didn't you have any other reason which up to now you have not told the Tribunal?
A No, Mr. Prosecutor, it was taken to be a refusal to obey, but in reality it was not such, because I had received the clear, which I had received from the group, "You are not advancing to the East, you are remaining in Stalino in order to install Department III, and, as long as I hold this order, such an order, I felt myself bound to it, because it could have been a case, Mr. Prosecutor, if I had agreed to such an appointment, I would have been punished by the Group for the reason, "You have had the unambiguous order, why did you not stick to it."
Q So you didn't refuse to carry out this order as you were reluctant to carry out executions yourself; that wasnot the reason for your refusal?
A Mr. Prosecutor, never in my life, not for one hour have I been a policeman, and for me police work was entirely strange and foreign to me. Why, therefore, should I take over a police task which I would have done if I had become a leader of a subcommando. Why should, I, therefore, do it if I had been ordered to do something else.
Q How long before 1940 had you been a SD man?
A Not a day, Mr. Prosecutor.
MR. HOCHWALD: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the imminence of the usual recess period, the Tribunal will take this recess a little in anticipation, and during the recess the witness will be returned to the defendants' box and just before we reconvene the witness Fransiska Reimers will be taken to the witness box, and we will immediately begin with her examination when we reconvene. The Tribunal will now recess.
(recess)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK for Seibert: Your Honor, I ask instructions to be given that the defendant Willy Seibert be excused this afternoon so that his defense may be prepared.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Seibert will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon in accordance with the request by his counsel, Dr. Gawlik.
DR. GICK, deputizing for Stein for the defendant Sandberger: I ask that the defendant Sanberger be excused from attendance in court this afternoon and ask that instructions be given to take him to room 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Sandberger will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon and instructions are hereby given that he be taken to room 57 that he may confer with his counsel,
DR. KRAUSE for the defendant Haensch: Your Honor, I ask before the witness is questioned, that you permit me to give you some more information about the witnesses Schreyer and Reich.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Will the witness please be at case - sit down.
DR. KRAUSE: First of all, I have the question whether Frau Schreyer, as she had been instructed, made the letters of her husband from the year 1942, if she kept them, available to the Tribunal. Also whether the sample of handwriting which the witness Reich made here in court is available. And, also, whether Frau Schreyer sent the negatives of the Wachtmeister who was in her studio to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Negative of whom?
DR. KRAUSE: Negatives of a Sergeant, a Wachtmeister. I don't know the name - but either after or before the entry concerning Haensch he was mentioned as ordering a picture. May I inform the Tribunal again what the situation was. In the large book of customers Haensch was listed under No. 391 on 21 February 1942 for a photograph to be made of him. Before this entry or after this entry there was an order concerning a Sergeant, a Wachtmeister in German, and it was to be determined whether the negative of the photo of this Sergeant still existed and what lettering was on them.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, did you make inquiry about the negatives or pictures of this Sergeant before?
DR. KRAUSE: No, I did not.
THE PRESIDENT: What is your request now of the Tribunal?
DR. KRAUSE: I am only asking that the witness Schreyer be instructed that the request made by the Tribunal be fulfilled. I assume that the Tribunal had a purpose in asking this.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Has anything been said up to this time about the pictures of the Sergeant?
DR. KRAUSE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What request did you make regarding those pictures?
DR. KRAUSE: Concerning those pictures I did not make any request but the Tribunal considered it important to obtain the negatives of this Sergeant as well.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, can you shed any light on this situation?
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please. As far as I can recollect I asked the witness in cross examination about her recollection of faces and in this connection the Tribunal asked the witness whether she would recollect the face of this German Warrant Officer whose name appears one or two days before the name of Haensch appears in the big book, and as far as I remember the Tribunal asked the witness whether she has the negative of this picture. The witness answered in the affirmative and the Tribunal asked the witness to hand over this picture, the negative of this picture, to the Tribunal. As far as I am informed, I don't think I am mistaken, the witness Schreyer has to do this date not complied with this request. I, however, can state that we have, with the permission of the Tribunal, sent a representative to see the witness Schreyer about the little book of December, and have received information that this little book of the end of December is not in the possession of the witness.