Two volunteer officers of this combat unit -- did I say Estionian officers? -- had taken an unofficial leave, and left for a short period of time, about twenty-four hours and had travelled to Estonia. Jeckeln was informed about this or he somehow discovered this. They were out before a courtmartial immediately. They were condemned to death. The sentence was confirmed by Jeckeln. The harshness shown in the measure proves how Jeckeln dealt in such cases. Jeckeln? already explained this morning: that he was prepared to have shot SS men whose nerves could not stand the strain.
That proves his harshness towards his subordinates. This court-martial against officers also proves this. But how in his personal sphere, down to the bitter and he could be so, is shown by the fact that even one of his own children, which was not quite sane, he had killed -- that is, he used Euthanasia. That proves how hard this man was. took a hand in Sandberger's sphere of duty?
A Yes. In Sandberger's sphere, that is, Einsatzkommando 1-A. There Jeckeln discovered some Jews who lived in a barrack gathered there. He immediately ordered that they should be dealt with. Sandberger himself only heard about this afterwards, of course, because he was in Breskaw. option could he have done anything against it, in order to lay that his subordinate took a hand in this sphere? because the High SS and Police leader had all the authority. In this individual case it was not possible, in particular, because Jeckeln's personality as Obergruppenfuehrer certainly did not want any instructions given by people of lower rank. did you tell the interrogating officer about the fact, in how far Sandberger ordered executions of Jews? time Sandberger certainly did not carry out any such measures, and he had told me that in the previous time he had not carried out, or ordered, or caused, such measures to be taken. way Sandberger made his reports, and did you get to know it.
some offices, when Sandberger told a co-worker who had to make a report, and criticized him very sharply. He criticized the contents of the report, as well as its style, constantly. I stayed in the room for some time and I think Sandberger did not even see me. In any case, on that occasion I should see that he was very thorough and very conscientious about these reports.
DR. MANDRY: I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel? BY DR. MINZFELT, Assistant to Dr. Gick, for the defendant Strauch: the way the civilian administration was set up for the Eastern territory. Will you please repeat when the civilian administration was set up in Latvia?
A I don't exactly know the date and the month, because, as I said, the civilian administration was set up in stages administration must have been set up. civilian administration had already been set up, was he sent there as a commander of the Security Police and of the SD, or as Einsatzkommando chief? had been set up, the Commando agencies had been set up; and if he had an immediate order for Latvia, he must have been ordered there as a commander. being set up, where was Einsatzkommando 2?
A I can't say that because the Einsatzkommandos in their entirety or in part had moved on to the front with the Army. previous replies, that Einsatzkommando 2 already was far away from the civilian administration in Latvia, that is, from Riga, and had moved to the front. at the time? Commando. 2 could be commanded from Riga? made up from this Commando, had the headquarters in the Army territory, owing to the distance it was hardly possible to command both units at the same time. Einsatzkommando 2 at the time when the Commando chief's position was taken over in Riga by Strauch Einsatzkommando 2 was near Krasnowardeisk; if it was near this locality, could Strauch's Einsatzkommando be commanded from Riga? Krasnowardeisk -- I don't know whether it was, it is possible -- I do not see any possibility how these two agencies could be commanded by one person only. Theoretically, it can be imagined; but practically, there would be no sense to it. leaders of Einsatzkommando 2 during, or before, your time?
constituted the Commando Loknia later on - I think it must have been like that - in that case, in Loknia there was Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Bloetz, before my time; and during my time, Sturmbannfuehrer Kober. How it was before my time, I don't know, of course, provided that Einsatzkommando 2 later constituted Einsatzkommando Loknia. the Office of the Commander with the Security Police and the SD, and an Einsatzkommando.
A I have already done it this morning. The Einsatzkommando is a military unit connected with the army; the Commander of the Security Police and the SD, when the civilian administration has been set up, does not constitute a special unit but a proper authority. General Districts, were there any executions carried out? submitted -- of which I don't remember the number -- and there executions in Latvia were mentioned. Those were executions because of Communist propaganda, sabotage and similar things -- that is, if actual facts were proved, executions were carried out. you remember, and did you hear about, mass executions? to that effect. and the SD also carry out partisan measures, or rather, anti-partisan measures?
partisan problem as well, of course, and it was their job to make reconnaissance. The actual combatting of partisans was up to Army and Police troops. During reconnaissance, of course, occasional fighting took place, but that was not the idea. of March 1942 you met Strauch in Riga and talked with him there?
A That is right. At the beginning of March 1942 I saw him in Riga. that time when you met him there?
A Because I saw him; and I believe at the time I exchanged gasoline coupons because in the Reich territories different gasoline coupons were valid than in Eastern territories. Department III of the Command in Riga, and he worked there? the Commander of the Security Police and the SD, and there in Department III, that is, the SD Department.
Q Department IIId. Did Strauch tell you at the time that he would have to go to Minsk soon in order to take the position of the Commander of White Ruthenia? few days. He had been appointed to go to White Ruthenia and would soon go there. When he went, I don't know. Heydrich to give him authority so that in Jewish affairs temporarily he would not have to undertake anything?
it was Heydrich's intention to travel to White Ruthenia himself in order to give instructions there personally, without telling me what kind of instructions there would be. I also said that in the beginning of May, up to the middle of May, he actually was there, and that he did not inform me about his stay there, and his instructions. Later I heard from Strauch, however, that Heydrich had been there, and that after Strauch had addressed himself to Heydrich, Heydrich had granted to Strauch that for economical reasons, or for reasons of labor, temporarily nothing was to be done concerning the Jews for the time being, or that he would not have to undertake anything as yet. You say that Strauch also was very courageous, indeed, to address Heydrich and to ask him that the order for execution of Jews in White Ruthenia should not be carried out yet. took a let of courage to discuss the subject at all with Heydrich. Exhibit 111, Document 3428, the alleged letter of General Commissar Kube to Reich Commissar Lohse, of 31 July 1942, is contained. From the document books, did you also hear about this letter? newspaper which published it. Previously I had not known about it. of this letter? for several reasons. The greatest surprise for me in this letter was that Kube is supposed to have written it.
Kube was known generally, as well as to me, as a man who wanted the Jews to live, not only for economic reasons but also for humane reasons. For that reason the letter seems so incredulous to me. I also knew that Kube himself formerly had objected to measures against Jews. This is also in opposition, and contrary to that. Thirdly, I knew that in White Ruthenia at the time Kube described here, criticism was practiced as stated in reports. Therefore, it cannot be understood that on the one hand for economic reasons and reasons of labor the Jews should be put into ghettos, and on the other hand, that same Kube who requested such measures wanted Jews to be liquidated to that extent. within ten weeks before 31 July 1942, would you have known White Ruthenia, would you have heard about such an event, or heard about it some way or other? other, even if the report had been sent to Berlin immediately. But such events would have become known somehow. clever cooperator and worker. What do you think of this characterization of Strauch by Kube? between Kube and Strauch there was a very bad relation; they were on very bad terms, and I can't imagine why Kube should suddenly change his mind.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, do I understand that you question the authenticity of this document?
DR. MINSFELT: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the photostat available?
DR. MINSFELT: No, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution have the photostat of this original document available?
MR. GLANCY: The Prosecution, sir, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is in possession of it, but not here in the courtroom. It can be furnished in a very few minutes, though.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that some time soon it should be submitted to the Tribunal for scrutiny and examination.
MR. GLANCY: It will be done, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. MINZFELT: Your Honor, may I add - we consider this letter to be forged, but if it should be found that it has actually been written then we must consider the contents as incorrect and not corresponding with the actual events in White Ruthenia. For definite reasons we must state that the letter and the truth do not correspond.
THE PRESIDENT: At this moment, you can only question the authenticity of the document, and since you do question it, the Tribunal will need to pass upon whether the document is what it purports to be. With regard to the contents, that is something that your client can attack when he takes the witness stand.
DR MINZFELT: Yes.
MR CLANCY: May it please the Tribunal, I would like to advise that the Tribunal is already in possession of this in its archives as Prosecution's Exhibit 111.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will present the photostat to the Tribunal tomorrow morning. Any other defense counsel who desires to cross examine the present witness will please step to the podium. If not , the Prosecution will begin its cross examination of the witness. By MR CLANCY:
Q Mr Jost, isn't it ture that you have stated in your affidavit that in addition to your duties as commanding officer of the Einsatzgruppe-A, that you were also at the same time Befehlshaber of the Reich Security Police and the SD? Commander of the SD? East were according to the instructions given by Heydrich, which were merely temporarily conducting this office as a commander. the SD and the Security Police during those four months? limitations that I told you about.
Q What limitations do you speak of? tasks of the executive were not part of my tasks, but, that these tasks were up to the independent commanders.
the guidance of a commanding officer? shown the independent position they had. English - - if the Tribunal please, it is on page 2 of the English, I apologize, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 1, I understand it to be.
MR CLANCY: I wish to refer to page 2, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. BY MR CLANCY:
Q In paragraph 6 it says that, "In its entirety or on the whole the duties of the commander-in-chief of the Security Police and SD, that is, of a KdS, were the same as these of the chief of Social Command or an Einsatzgruppe." Did you not state that in your affidavit?
A It states here "in general" and I have given an explanation about this in detail this morning, as it is not possible to explain in one sentence in detail the difference of the entire tasks of the various departments. the Kommandeur des Reich Security Police was subordinate, is not that correct?
A This was a double subordination. I already was working on that this morning. The commander in the first instance was there for his general area and his local commander was the SS and Police Leader; who had to give orders and was the superior. I also explained that there were considerable differences between the various Special Commands (Einsatzkommandos)
Q Do you wish to add something to that?
difference which was in the chain of command, is that correct?
A One moment please. I said the difference in the description can be explained by this, and I must add that I have given a detailed statement to that this morning to clarify the situation about the tasks. Police Leader, didn't you then an intermediary say, that you yourself as BDS were subordinate to the Higher SS and Police Leader?
A Your question is not quite to the point. The commander was subordinate to the SS and Police Leader, and I was subordinate to the Higher SS and Police Leader, but your question was correct in so far as you said that I had an in-between position or was - as you expressed yourself - an intermediary.
Q In other words; any order issued by the Higher SS and Police Leader would as a natural course of events come to you for transmission to the lower units, is that not correct?
A It could have gone through two chancels. The higher SS and Police Leader could give me an order to be handed onto the commanders, but the Higher SS and Police Leader can also give orders to the SS and Police Leaders, who then on their own account hand the orders to the commanders. These two channels were in existence side by side. observed, is it not? "commander" does not quite describe the competency and the functions of a man; this depends on the entire organization of the region, described by me this morning. In a military sense, I understand a commander to be an agency which has complete and unlimited authority to give orders. This complete authority, as I have described it, does not apply to this case. Your authority was limited. You said that Heydrich put you in command of Einsatzgruppe-A as BDS-Ostland and he limited your authority, is that correct?
Q Limited to what?
A First, as to time, it was only a temporary task; secondly, being a representative with the limitation, that I had nothing to do with the executive, those were tasks of the commanders. first and to limit it to such an extent that you would not be effective? in general, it had to be considered a temporary special arrangement which was not meant to last, because for the final appointment which he intended, this limitation would not have been given. an especially limited case sofar as service in Russia was concerned. You had authority and yet you lacked it? (interruption) You met with frequent directions which might have appeared reasonable to other people in any other case but your own. You seemed to have led a charmed life. Let's study it. You protested to Heydrich, yet I understood that Heyrich was a severe, hard, militaristic individual who would not suffer any interference; secondly, we have just heard that Jekeln, Obergruppenfuehrer Jukeln, a superior to you, we have heard that he was a hard man, and a ruthless man, who thought nothing of sacrificing his own son, or his own daughter, because he was imperfect and because he was insane, and yet you with complete impunity were able to tell him that you would not carry out his order, is not that correct?
Q How do you explain that?
A I beg your pardon, did you say "his" orders?
Q Orders at least coming from him, I know not their source? of what I told him and what Heydrich had told me, and what I had told Heydrich.
to carry out an order; it does not matter how you phrase it, how eloquently it was couched, it still had constituted an outright refusal, did it not?
A I didn't hand on the order which I received. coming from Jekeln?
A It did not come from Jekeln. This order came from Heydrich.
Q Didn't you state on direct examination that you received orders from Jekeln?
A No, that is a mistake. I said, I didn't get any orders from him after the discussing. he explained to me again what he intended to do. He didn't tell me so when he would give me any orders.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr Clancy, if you are going to take up another phase, suppose we recess until tomorrow morning.
MR CLANCY: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorros morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 23 October 1947, 0930 hours)
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II-A.
Military Tribunal II-A is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yesterday, we asked for a document, and the Secretary General has handed in a photostat. It is Document 3426-PS. What is the exhibit number of this document and in which book does it appear?
MR. GLANCY: The exhibit number is 111. It is found in Document Book III-A, on page 42, if Your Honors please.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will show that the Tribunal has physically examined the photostat, has noted all the various features which go into the construction of a document, and will therefore have a visual memory of the document so that in its deliberation as to its authenticity, it will recall its actual appearance. The document will now be returned to the secretary General for filing.
DR. GICK (Attorney for the Defendant Strauch): Your Honor, as has been measured very briefly yesterday, my client suspects that this document is not genuine. The photostatic copy which was submitted today and which I have previously seen for one moment does, of course, give an exact picture of the original, but the document differs very much from the documents submitted in general by the defense here. May I remind you that the affidavits of a certain Max Weinreich of New York reveal that this document was found in the East-Ministry, together with some other documents. The exact circumstances are not explained in COURT II-A CASE IX this affidavit.
It is merely explained that this document was secured by a Sgt. Friedman. Like the other documents, tins document is not given over to the military authorities, but this document was sent privately to the Jewish Society in New York, a private society which deals with Jewish social problems and for that reason it probably received the document. Society. The prosecution has never actually held it and therefore I could never see it here. existence of this document, that none of the persons concerned here know anything about it, neither the persons mentioned, nor gentlemen who worked there; neither the Police Chief Chimanov, for example, nor Lohse, the Reich Commissar to whom this letter is addressed. White Ruthenia at the time and they show them upside down. There are strong contradictions contained in this document concerning the person of Mr. Kubeling, as well as his attitude and also about conditions which I still have to prove as to conditions in white Ruthenia. I see contradictions is the Kube letter. in this case the original be submitted. One can recognise matters much better iron the original than from the photostatic copy of a document, of course. That is, one can test its steams, the signatures, and initials, only when the original can be looked into here, can one see whether the document is authentic. If you ask the prosecution to get this document -- and this should not be difficult, if it is in New York -- I should like to reserve the right that, when the document is here, that the persons mentioned in this affidavit be called here as witnesses be cross-examined.
Court No. II-A, Case No. IX.
THE PRESIDENT: The right to call those witnesses already exists. There is not reason why you can't call these witnesses now, immediately. This document, like any other document is subject to attack on the Dart of anyone, especially with regard to the authenticity and certainly with regard to content, so there is no reason why you can't call witnesses to shed further light upon this document and attach it from any angle.
DR. GICK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: With regard to the obtaining of the original, a question may arise as to whether this Institution would be willing to hazard the loss or whatever could happen to a document travelling that distance. I would like to hear from the prosecution as to what hopes they could entertain in obtaining the original of this document for the purposes of this trial.
MR. GLANCY: The prosecution at this point is unable to suspect what success they could gain by a request to this named institute. However, we shall made every effort to bring the original here, or at least to shed more light through the word of an affidavit as to how it was found, by whom it was found, under what auspices it was found -- possibly it was a Government sponsored agency. That I do not know, Sir. However, we snail attempt to ascertain that and inform the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. GLANCY: Another point, if Your honor pleases, it would facilitate our task, and the task of the Tribunal, and the task of the defense, if defense counsel would be a little more specific as to the discrepancies Which he has noted, the fault that he finds with the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Following out Mr. Glancy's suggestion, the Tribunal recommends to defense counsel that he prepare a brief out specific document pointing out wherein he questions the authenticity of this document.
The statement will accompany the letter, which will be written by the prosecution asking for the temporary submission of this original document to the Tribunal and, if, for any reason, the Institute does not feel inclined to release the original, even for the short period, then, at least, we will have its answer to the questions which you present.
DR. GICK: Your Honor, I shall write down everything I nave said here and I shall submit this letter to the Tribunal and the prosecution.
I have another request, Your Honor. Owing to the condition of Defendant Strauch, I have had no opportunity to discuss in detail Herr Jost's statements in the witness box. Today I am not able to discuss everything, while he is in the witness box. Therefore, I reserve the right at a later time to do this and to cross-examine Herr Jost at a later point again.
THE PRESIDENT: Aren't you sufficiently familiar with your client's case to conduct a cross-examination now?
DR. GICK: Unfortunately not, Your Honor. There are various points which arose which are quite new to me and which I have not yet discussed with my client.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will reserve the right to you.
MR. GLANCY: May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Please. BY MR. GLANCY:
Q. Witness, in your direct examination, you stated that you joined the National Socialist Party in 1928, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. For the purpose of the record alone, is it not actually true that you joined in the fall of 1927?
A. I applied to join at the end of 1927 and was actually accented in 1928. That can be proved by the membership number.
Q. Then When you became a member, the Party was in an early stage of development, right?
A. Yes, in the first stages of development.
Q. Three years later, that is, in 1931, you joined the SA, is that right?
A. I finally joined, yes.
Q. Was the SA not used as an authority or unit to superior opposition and to protect speakers of the growing National Socialist movement?
A. At that time there were so few members of the SA that one could hardly say that they were in a position to suppress opposition, out it was their task to deal with protective measures, particularly during meetings. young, a little too were, to accomplish its task?
A. I said if they had had the task which you say they had.
Q. Hot what I say. I believe that you just said it was for protection at meetings: is that not true?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. From this training you must have experienced violence and ruthlessness in cutting down any opposition which arose to your speakers at these meetings, correct?
A. I beg your pardon. I did not quite understand your question.
Q. During these times and during your activity as a protective member, of a protective group, namely, the SA, you must have experienced violence and ruthlessness in curbing any opposition which arose during your meetings, correct?
A. If you imagine that during every meeting nothing but atrocities took place, I don't know how to reply to your question. At the time, all political meetings were conducted in a very orderly fashion. of course, there were discussions. That is natural. Occasionally there were disturbances, as well, serious disturbances, That is also known, but that has nothing to do with the fact that opponents had to be suppressed or that they had to be destroyed.
Q. You seated that you took over the police office in Worms in March 1933, right?
A. Yes.