*---* *---* (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, October 21, 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HEIM (Attorney for the Defendant Blobel): Your Honor, I ask that the Defendant Blobel be excused from tomorrow morning's session, since he will have to appear as a witness in his own defense within a few days and so that he can prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Blobel will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow morning.
DR. HEIM: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
Do you desire to present any further questions?
Dr. DURCHHOLZ (Attorney for the Defendant Schulz): Your Honor, I would like to ask a few questions in re-direct.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. BY DR. DURCHHOLD (Attorney for Defendant Schulz):
Q. Witness, I come back to the document previously submitted by the prosecution, NO-4957, Prosecution Exhibit 176. On page 1 of this document, your promotion to SS-Oberfuehrer is made effective as of the 9th of November, 1941. I ask you now, did you keep this secret up to this time for any reason?
A. No secret has been revealed about my person in this document, b ecause the original document listing all my promotions was handed to the CIC when I was arrested in Salzburg in the year 1945. I gave all my papers to the CIC and no document was lacking, not even this one.
Q. Was this promotion a promotion because of favoritism?
A. No, this promotion was no promotion like that. It was not out of order.
Q. Did your seniority warrant this promotion?
A. Yes.
Q. On the next to the last page of this document, it is noted under the 22d of March,1943, that since the beginning of 1931 you held a special relationship of confidence to the SS and NSDAP. Can you explain to me what this relationship of confidence consisted of?
A. This relationship isn't anything special. That I sympathised with the Nazi Party before 1933 I have already said in my examination; that I tried to achieve a relationship of confidence was not only in the interest of the Party but in my own interest,namely, it was through this relationship that it was often possible to prevent conflicts between political opponents and street fights.
Q. At that time did you show any favoritism towards members of the Nazi Party or SS?
A. No, never.
Q. Didn't you in the year 1932 have a Higher SS leader arrested?
A. Yes, even the one I have mentioned as a witness here, that was the SS leader of the SS Unit in Bremen. Shortly before the assumption of power, he was arrested for being suspected in a murder as a s result of a personal investigation on my part and brought into the prison pending trial. Only after the assumption of power, through the new Party agencies, was he released from this prison.
Q. Did you have especially close connections withthe Party? Were you active in propaganda?
A. No.
Q. Did you regularly attend Party meetings?
A. No, I didn't consider then important and visited them very rarely.
Q. Did you have any personal ties with Party leaders?
A. No.
Q. Now I come to another point. Did you consider yourself a camouflaged member of the Party before 1933?
A. No.
Q. Now I come to your activity in the Sudentenland. You were in Reichenberg and in Clmuetz. In cross-examination this morning something unclear seems to have cropped up. One could assume that you had appointed a Commissar in Reichenberg who had the job , by your order, to secure Jewish property. What activity is concerned here?
A. As far as I can remember, I said that when I took this agency over I found great disorder; Party agencies end other authorities had taken some of the property of the refugees and other Jews. They had taken furniture and Office equipment for their own use. This disorder I eliminated and in this I had to put up with great opposition among these agencies.
Q. Thus, you wanted to accomplish that it would be impossible for people who had nothing to do with this to enrich themselves with Jewish property?
A. Yes, that was the reason why I appointed an official; not a Commissar, but an official.
Q. Did you not cause arrests in Reichenberg of such people who on their own enriched themselves with Jewish property ?
A. Yes, several persons.
Q. Were proceedings initiated against these people by your order?
A. Yes, proceedings were started, against them.
Q. On your order?
A. Yes.
Q. Who ordered these confiscations of property, you or other agencies?
A. The confiscation was ordered by the Higher Finance Minister.
Q. Do you remember that after the war broke out with Poland,the then Gauleiter Henlein asked you to take Czechs into protective custody?
A. When war broke out with Poland, Gauleiter Henlein asked me to come and see him and he demanded of me that all leading or even prominent Czechs be taken into protective custody. At that time I told Gauleiter Henlein that the conduct of the Czech minorities, as far as I could see in my three months' activity there, was correct and loyal so that I did not consider such a measure as justified and that I even was afraid to embitter the Czech minority by this measure.
Gauleiter Henlein answered me, "You must admit that I know the Czechs better." Nevertheless I told him that I considered this measure as superfluous and that I would guarantee that no unrest would result. Then I promised him to make up a list of such people who are known to be prominent . On this basis of this promise, Henlein agreed to refrain from the protective custody, if it turned cut that I was right. No arrests were ordered and the Czech inhabitants of the Sudetenland conducted themselves absolutely loyally during the Polish campaign. Not only in this case, but also in all other cases, I have always represented the interests of humanity.
of a search book certain people would have to be arrested, Who ordered this? our duties. It had been prepared by the RSHA. or other people? Thus I mentioned that in this list Police Director Dr. Bender was included too. cause they were Jews or were any other prerequisites necessary? was a Jew. I have already mentioned Dr. Rosenach,as a witness. I worked with him for four years uninterruptedly and in an absolutely friendly manner.
Q Were you competent to send people go a concentration camp?
A I personally had no power of decision about this. The decision lay with the RSHA. heard about excesses on the part of the Party. Were these matters within your competence or were these excesses of other agencies or other authorities? of my competence. As long as I held an official position, not a single human being was mistreated. If this had been the case, I would have severely punished a man who did such a thing.
Q I want to come back briefly to the order of Heydrich. Did you expect that your assignment in Russia would be merely the liquidation of Jews and others who are considered politically unreliable?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durchholz, the witness testified that when he received the order, he did not know that he was going to do and it wasn't until a month later that he ascertained its exact nature.
It seems that we have covered this particular subject.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I merely mentioned it because it came up in cross-examination and one might get the wrong idea from it this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not required to cover the ground which is covered in cross-examination, if you have already addressed yourself to that subject in the direct examination. You are only to pick up what he brought in extra to what you introduced in the direct examination. BY DR. DURCHHOLZ: didn't remember all the events in Russia, especially since one assumed that somehow they kept the events in Russia secret. When did you hear what the Einsatzgruppen did in Russia?
Q I shall formulate it differently. Before the end of the war, did you find out to the full extent what activities the Einsatzgruppen carried out in Russia, as far as the many executions are concerned? about softness was made unjustly. Do you mean to say by that that you were not soft enough in Russia, that, therefore, you carried out all measures which had been ordered without hesitation?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durchholz, the witness very clearly stated that by softness he meant lack of moral fibre. He didn't want it to be confused with good heartedness. He denied being soft, but accepted the attribute of good-heartedness. I think that covered that.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: If this statement was given, I consider this question as answered.
BY DR. DURCHHOLZ:
Q I come back briefly to the events in Lemberg. Witness, did you have anything to do with the arrests of the Jews in Lemberg?
Q Did you not release arrested Jews on that field?
because they were Jews?
THE PRESIDENT: It seems he covered that pretty thoroughly, Dr. Durochholz. He told the whole story. He said investigations were made, and only those who had participated in massacres were executed. BY DR. DURCHHOLZ:
Q I come now to another question. You told us that during the investigation in Lemberg the militia participated. Which militia was this? German or some other? from the Lemberg population -- that is, indigenous personnel.
Q Poles?
Q Didn't the Mayor of Lemberg participate in these investigations?
Q How many Einsatzkommandos were in Lemberg at that time?
A Temporarily there were four Commandos there: Commando 4b, Commando 5, Commando 6, and this Commando from the General Government. Commando 4b was the first one to leave. person give it to your Einsatzkommando?
A The order was given by Brigadier General Dr. Rasch.
Q Were those executions of hostages? out executions only if punishable actions had been determined previously?
THE PRESIDENT: He's covered that ground.
BY DR. DURCHHOLZ: Who gave the order for the executions on the citadel in Shmielnik?
A This question is wrong. Once there was an execution on the citadel in Berditschew.
Q Who gave the order in Shmielnik? by the town commandant. to your commander. Russia, as you have described it, would not have been disadvantageous for your career in the police, for you said that you did not execute the orders such as they should have been executed. Was this known to the Higher agencies?
A This answer I have already confirmed; otherwise, my dismissal would not have come about. to carry out the order?
THE PRESIDENT: I think he's covered that. He stated what it would mean to disobey an order.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I have finished the redirect examination. to examine, I want to make a short statement. I ask that you permit me to call three witnesses so that I may examine them here in Court. These are: Dr. Steiner; Alfred Faust, and Alfred Schwarting. I shall do without the other witnesses.
DR. HOCHWALD: Your Honors, please, it would be helpful if Dr. Durchholz would inform the Tribunal on what subjects these three witnesses are going to testify. Are they character witnesses, or can they testify as to crimes charged in the indictment?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: These three witnesses are to testify as to how the defendant conducted himself in his activity in the Gestapo. As far as the witness Steiner is concerned, he is a representative of the Catholic Church in Austria. In the case of the witness Faust, he is leading Social Democrat in Bremen.
And the witness Schwarting is the person whom the defendant appointed to a void excesses on the part of the police. These points are connected with Count 3 of the indictment -- Membership in a criminal organization.
DR. HOCHWALD: If your Honors please, it seems clear from the Statement of Dr. Durchholz that all of the witnesses are going to testify only on Count 3, and more or less on very similar subjects. It seems to the prosecution sufficient if only one of the witnesses would appear, and the other two give their testimony in the form of an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know whether that would be satisfactory to you, Dr. Durchholz. But we will say this. That if we allow the three witnesses, they will be restricted to what you have indicated will be the subject of their interrogation, and from what you have said it would appear that ten minutes to each witness might be enough in Court.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes. I shall confine myself to very brief questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then these witnesses will be permitted. Are they here now?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: No, they are not here yet. I shall call them when they arrive here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, does that mean that otherwise you have terminated the presentation of the evidence in the case of the defendant Schulz?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. It is unfortunate that the witnesses are not here because we prefer, naturally, that the witnesses testify at the same time that the defendant does. But through no fault of yours the witnesses are not here -- but we do hope that this situation does not repeat itself, and that we can have witnesses here simultaneously with the presentation of the defendant for whom they will testify.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, I had asked for these witnesses some time ago.
THE PRESIDENT: I have said it -- it is no fault of yours; Dr. Durchholz.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honors, as far as the submission of my documents is concerned, I have just heard before that my document book one, in the English language, has been given to the prosecution. Since I want to submit Document Book 2, I consider it useful to submit the two document books together at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: It might be interesting to known Dr. Durchholz, that submitting your document book to the prosecution is not quite enough. The Tribunal should get a chance to look at it, too. We have not received it.
Mr. Hochwald, do you have any further questions of the witness?
DR. HOCHWALD: The prosecution has no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Just a question or two.
DR. HEIM (for the defendant Blobel): BY DR. HEIM: detachment leaders made up reports and that these reports always went to Einsatzkommando 5. Can you tell me from your own knowledge whether this channel of reporting was used also in the other Einsatzkommandos and Special Commandos? but during my cross examination I think I told the prosecutor that it could have been possible that they took a shorter way, especially with the difficult communication in Russia. How the other Einsatzkommandos regulated their channels, I don't know. There was no SOP about this channel.
Q witness, now the last question. Thus you cannot claim, if I understand you correctly, that this channel of reporting, as you have described it this morning for Einsatzkommando 5, also was used for the Special Commando 4?
DR. HEIM: Thank you. I have no further questions. BY THE PRESIDENT: officers school sent, generally?
A You mean the pupils of the school for executive service? normally they didn't get any assignment after the school. The usual courses were taken in that school: the training courses for criminal commissars for the State Police, and for the criminal police. These training courses were prescribed. After a training course was completed an examination had to be passed, and promotion depended on the passing of the examination, according to the Reich regulations. came to your school for extra instruction?
A No, your Honor, they were not officers on an assignment; the men who came to my school were no officers as yet. They were officer candidates. They were taken from the agencies of the whole Reich and were ordered to the school if they were up for promotion. The course lasted 9 months. After completion of this course, and after the passing of the examination -- if somebody failed, it, without this examination -they wont back to their old agencies. while they were at your school? of this course. the official attitude of the Reich government towards the Jews?
way, nothing was said in this course. The ideological training only saw to it that everyone was informed of the developments of the Nazi party and about the career of the Fuehrer. Party, certainly something was said about the Jewish problem, was it not?
A I don't think so, your Honor. This was a special school. The education of human beings as such in their daily duties was a matter for their own agencies to take care of. I may emphasize expressly that in this school no education for hatred or contempt for any people ever took place.
Socialist party insofar as it concerns the Jaws, a program of hatred and contempt? Reich government thought of the Jewish problem, since it did not involve hatred and contempt? an ideological or religious nature is discussed in detail: but there was no time for that at that school: nor were there any qualified teachers to deal with the questions. I may say that I, as commander of the school, would have hardly been in a position to give a survey of the history of the Jewish people. lasted 9 months, although you were training men to act for the Reich in various fields of security work, and that although the Jewish problem was a major problem in the Reich, and although there was this specific order from the Fuehrer that the Jews in the occupied territories ware to be executed - at any rate, to be placed under observation -- that in spite of all that, not a word was said about the Jewish situation in the instruction of these students in your school? question when discussing legislation, but any type of educational questions which immediately touched upon the Jewish problem were not discussed in this school.
Q I understand that you taught chivalry. Now, just what did this course in chivalry consist of? What were the students instructed to do along chivalrous lines? them a survey of their duties as future leaders. Among these duties I included an appeal to humanity and chivalry. I demanded of every single one that he set a good example, and that his conduct always he such that he could answer for it to himself; that, above all, he should never make demands of other people which he could not perform himself.
could always answer for it to himself. Was he ever instructed that he should conduct himself in such a way that he should give answer to a Supreme Being? leaving your school?
Q Were they trained and qualified to enter Einsatzkommandos? Einsatzkommando, did not take place in the school at all. for an Einsatzcommando job, either, but you were sent to one. I am asking if the graduates of your school would be amendable for assignment to Einsatzkommandos. entered into the execution of the Fuehrer Order in an Einsatzkommando, could they have executed that order, as it was sent down through the line of command, and yet have been faithful to the code of chivalry which you instructed them on? It was not valid for the entire time--could one execute that order and yet be true to the code of chivalry which you taught in your school?
A Your Honor, that is difficult to answer. This was an order which people had to obey.
Q I don't know why it is difficult to answer. You taught chivalry. You volunteered that. No one asked you. You said you taught students chivalry, and these students, just like all other graduates of army schools, could be subjected to the Fuehrer Order; and they are now in the field, and they have this order to go out and execute, and they remember your code of chivalry. Can they execute the order and still be true to this coda of chivalry?
Q Then you feel disinclined to answer? right explanation. I now put myself in the situation of a man who has been obediently educated. I can imagine that the feeling for gallantry as such would not be destroyed by the fact that a harsh order must be followed -- but may I make the following explanation. If I take the fact that the enemy in Russia carried on a very severe war, and thereby challenged such harsh measures on the other side -thus, if the measures of the enemy are declared as unchivalrous, then I don't think it is up to me to designate my own measures as such. population because Russia had not lived up to the code of chivalry. Is that what you are telling us?
A Your Honor, that is very difficult. One has to consider the concept of morality and law. I am not enough of a philosopher to analyze the concept of morality, and I am not enough of a jurist to define the concept of law; but if my morality is equivalent to guilt, then it is very difficult to say - for the gruesome war raged through the years - if this whole war was immoral, then the Fuehrer Order as a part of this war, is also immoral. But I cannot get myself to claim that. in what was done.
people. had been massacred, and as a reprisal measure certain individuals were taken into custody and executed. Is that correct?
A Yes, arrests were made, and executions were ordered; yes. massacre of Jews. Hadn't the German forces themselves executed Poles in Poland?
A I don't know that, your Honor. numbers - hundreds of thousands - of Poles were executed... you don't know that? learning that Poles had been massacred by the Russians, you believed that the order to conduct the reprisal was based upon the revulsion on the part of the German forces against the execution of helpless Poles?
Q Yes, perhaps it Was a little involved. During the Polish invasion, Poles were executed merely because they were Poles. Documents indicate that that actually happened. The German forces executed Poles, civilians. Now, it seems strange that since the German forces, when they were allied with the Russian forces, executed Poles, that they would suddenly demand reprisals because Poles had been executed by the Russians.
A Your Horror, I can only say this one thing. I don't know the detailed circumstances of this order. I merely had to accept the fact that here the Fuehrer had ordered reprisals, but German Wehrmacht soldiers had also been killed, and I also would like to point out the fact that in the Polish campaign, Germans had also been murdered before. What the connections are here, and what caused the head of the State to give this order, I just don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, I think that covers it. The Marshall will return the defendant to the defendants' dock. Dr. Schwarz for the defendant, Jost, are you ready to proceed?
Dr. SCHWARZ: Yes. Dr. SCHWARZ for the defendant Jost.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
HEINZ JOST, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat 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 SPEIGHT: You may be seated.
DR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, may I please begin with the direct examination of the defendant Jost.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. BY DR. SCHWARZ: person?
A My name is Heinz Jost. I was born on 9 July 1904 in Molzhausen, District of Marburg. I am the oldest of three brothers. The next brother is a druggist, and the youngest is a physician. I am married and have one child.
Q What were your parents, witness? Hessen. Both parents come from families of officials.
Q In what manner were you educated in your parent's home?
accordingly. Both parents were Catholics. and my mother was very devout. My parents tried to give me the traditional upbringing of a decent, honest and respected citizen,and they chose for me an academic career. they? who educated us to do our duty, to be just and honest, and to love the Fatherland and its people. In his political opinion he was a liberal and democrat, and before and after the first World War he was active in the Democratic Party. Later on, disappointed about the development, in Germany, he joined the Nazi Party.
Q What education did you have?
Q And what came after that? in Benzheim Hessen.
Q How did you education proceed after that? 1923 to 1927. I attended the University at Giessen, and I spent one term at Munich. I completed my studies in the Spring of 1927, and passed my Bar Examination. career?
A I spent this time in the District Court of Darmstadt; at the District Court and at the office of the Landrat, with a lawyer, and with the Labor Court.
Q Did you pass the assessor examination, if so, when and where? the Assessor examination, that is, the State examination, and was with the Hessen District Court in Darmstadt until the end of 1930.
a part in your political development? for my political development, the experience of the First World War. the loss of that war, and the post-war years, awakened my interest in all questions concerned with my Fatherland. During my time as a student, I was very active in sports, and in this activity I met people from all classes, especially from the working class. I got to know the people very early in my life, whom I would not have met otherwise. I not only got to know these people from the working class, as honest and decent people, but I also gained insight into their needs and their worries. I saw and recognized their economic position; their primitive and modest living conditions. In other words, I came to grips with the social problems of our time through personal knowledge. Above all, I saw, outside of this material distress, that this German worker held a position outside of his people, and was not considered as a full member of the people. One even denied him his human dignity. After I had entered the University, I joined a student organization, and here I got to know the bourgeois life from which I myself came, but into which I now gained more of an insight. I saw the social exclusiveness, the so-called narrow attitude and narrowmindedness, and conceit of the bourgeois himself. During that time I became conscious of a deep rift within the German people, that there were actually two classes who speak the same language, but who were actually foreign to each other, and could not speak to each other on the same terms. This condition occupied my mind very much without my knowing how it could be changed. Around that time I became acquainted with the philosophy of the Nazi Party.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schwarz, would you want to suspend now for the afternoon recess, and then take it up immediately after we reconvene?