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.
Q. What were your duties there?
A. The task of police chief - when the security endangered it, and anything connected with such tasks, to take measures to secure the security.
Q. Never having been a police chief, I do now know... Can you inform me what those tasks were, specifically?
A. To the sphere of the police...the regular police... belong the Police Revieres distributed through the city, traffic police, criminal police, police dealing with strangers, political police -- those approximately are the tasks.
Q. You included, I believe, criminal police, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. You had stated on direct examination that one of your objections to taking over command in the East was your lack of police experience, am I right?
A. Not lack of experience, but the fact that I did not like to work in the police, and that I was not suitable for it because I think I personally am not suitable for these tasks as would be required.
Q. You were suitable in 1933, weren't you?
A. They considered me to be suited, but I personally was no longer interested in these tasks. That is why I turned to different tasks later on.
Q. In the autumn of 1933 you were in charge of the police office in Giessen and remained there until March 1934. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. You still didn't feel that you were personally suitable to these tasks?
A. In any case, I left there. I could have remained, if I wanted.
Q. In the year 1934 you joined the SS?
A. Yes.
Q. In the same year you joined the SD and were given the task of creating an information and counter intelligence service which had the task of combatting foreign intelligence, agencies, or organizations which might pose a threat to the security of National Socialism, right?
A. You have not formulated it correctly. This organization had to deal with counter intelligence, as I have mentioned, that is, to find out about foreign news service and to prevent them from giving such news. The activity of these news agencies need not be anti-National Socialist first of all, but, of course, they can be antiNational Socialist.
Q. But was it not one of your basic reasons for suppressing this type of thing, - that which might constitute a threat to National Socialism and give it a black eye in other countries?
A. I don't quite know how to answer this question. In every country there are counter intelligence organizations, and every country tries to avoid foreign agencies espionage-I don't See anything particular in this. I think the country would be careless if they did not build up an organization for its protection.
Q. I quite agree with you. But that is not the reason for my question. Wouldn't you say that this task constituted, or rather, was in the nature of a security function also?
A. All questions connected with a foreign news agency, that is, all questions connected to making these activities difficult, or make them impossible, of course,
Q. Thank you. Was this not also in the nature, COURT II-A CASE IX possibly slightly removed, of police work, detection, suppression?
A. I have already explained this briefly in the direct examination, that the tasks of the police were limited, according to their general field of activity, to deal with espionage cases - that is, cases which had already occurred, to clear them up, and to search the person who was guilty.
Q. My question is merely.... Was this in the nature of police work. Yes or no?
A. That is just what I was tring to explain.
Q. It only takes one word.
A. May I ask you to repeat the question?
Q. Was this work in the nature of police work?
A. I understand you now. No, it did not have the character or the nature of police work. It had been built up on means at the disposal of the SD - that is, with cooperators, and those co-workers had no police functions because they were not able to search houses, or arrest people, nor to fulfill tasks which are normally given to the police.
Q. During this period of development of the National Socialist regime in which you participated, might we not say from this that you were conversant with persons, groups, or movements, which threatened the security of the Third Reich?
A. That I knew such personnel, or such groups of persons.... is that the question?
Q. No, it is not. That you were aware that these groups of persons, or movements, existed as possible or potential opposition to National Socialism.
A. I don't know what reason somebody might have who is commissioned with news information Service whether COURT II-A CASE IX his activity directed against National Socialism, or Whether he just does it to Serve his Fatherland, to get information for his Fatherland, or whether he does it to be paid well.
...there might be various reasons and these reasons will be immaterial to whom carries out the counterintelligence.
Q. You stated in your direct examination that you had been a propagandist for the National Socialist movement, right?
A. Insofar as I discussed with people who held different opinions -- that happened not only once, but repeatedly, - inasfar as I distributed propaganda material, that I temporarily worked in a propaganda department, - yes,
Q. At what time did you become aware of the fact, as a National Socialist, that Jews were considered an economic and a virtual Physical threat to the Reich?
A. As endangering the Reich?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't know how to reply to a question addressed like this.
Q. Perhaps I can rephrase it for you, make it a little easier. Were you aware that Hitler, and the other members of the Hierarchy of National S ocialism, intended to rid Germany of Jews because they were considered a potential threat, economically and physically?
A. During the first years after 1933, perhaps until the beginning of the war, I cannot say for certain, plans on a large scale to resettle the Jews or to give them the possibility of emigrating, I did not know about that. I knew, of course, that Jews emigrated, and that it was desired; but whether there was a general plan for that, I didn't know.
Q. You were aware that the National Socialists didn't COURT II-A CASE IX exactly find the Jews pleasing?
A. That's right.
Q. Were you aware of the laws that were passed which deprived Jews of their property rights, their rights of citizenship? In the final analysis, speaking of concentration camps, their right to live?
A. No, I was not conscious of that, that they denied them their right to live.
Q. You didn't fully answer my question. Were you aware of the discriminatroy laws regarding property rights, and the rights of citizenship?
A. No, I was not conscious of that.
Q. Can you read?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you read the papers?
A. In general, yes.
Q. Thank you. In 1939 you marched with the Army, that is, the Third Army, into Poland, right?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your position with the Third Army?
A. In the staff of the Third Army I was chief of the civil administration.
Q. Did you have a title?
A. No.
Q. Was it skin to a BDS?
A. No, no. It was a military position that is attached to the Third Army.
Q. I understood you to say on direct examination that it was rather a shock to you when you were - we might saydegraded, and sent to the front as an Unterscharfuehrer for the reason that you had never had any military experience.
A. That was not why I was surprised. The shock was owing to the fact that as Major General I had been demoted, COURT II-A CASE IX and now was an NCO.
Q. My question was... On direct examination you stated that you had no previous military experience, Right?
A. I had no real training, and no experience at the front.
Q. I understand that a seasoned soldier, a soldier who knows his way around, is a person who has participated in a campaign, Isn't that experience of the best?
A. The campaign in Poland, where I had a position on the staff, cannot be compared to this.
Q. Was this a tea party or a campaign?
A. That was a campaign, but with a position on the staff.
Q. You stated that it was a military task, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. What were your duties here?
A. Setting up administration offices, as in the territory under the military commanders, setting up county offices, mayor offices, setting up economic administration, and get it going again: and also agriculture. That was part of the work I did.
Q. Night we not say that this experience that you gained in this campaign would qualify you for the position of BDS?
A. That has nothing to do with this, because they were merely administrative tasks of the military administration
Q. I believe it is common knowledge that excesses were committed here against the Polish Jews in the polish intelligentsia. Are you aware, or were you at that time aware, -- did you witness these excesses.
A. From the time when I was in this territory in the COURT II-A CASE IX north of Poland, where German policemen had shot a Jewess in self-defense, was put before the court-martial and was condemned to death.
I remember this case very vividly. But measures against Polish intelligentsia or Jews at that time, up to the beginning of October 1939, I know nothing about that.
Q. Let us confine ourselves merely to the Jews or to the intelligentsia... Were there any other groups who were annihilated during this campaign?
A. In the territory where I was at that time I did not hear of any such measures.
Q. It later came to your attention that these things took place, except in one isolated, qualified incident?
A. At the moment I cannot remember any other case.
Q. Leaving this, after your service in Poland in October 1939, you returned to Berlin to become chief of Amt VI of the RSHA... right?
A. Yes.
Q. You remained in this position until September 1941 ... correct?
A. Yes.
DR. SUESS (for Defendant Schulz): Your Honor, the Defendant Schulz has a bladder trouble, and I ask for a short interval, that he may have a chance to affend his nature.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Schulz will be escorted from the courtroom by the Marshal until his temporary indisposition has passed.
DR. SUESS: Thank you, your Honor. BY MR. GLANCY:
Q. As part of the duties within your agency, that is, Amt VI, did you not have representatives in Russia selecting natives of Russia for intelligence work?
A. In Russia? If I understand you correctly, I am supposed to have had agents in Russia Itself. I must say that a German intelligence service unfortunately did not succeed to set up a news service system in Russia itself.
Q. If I am not mistaken, I have understood the Defendant Naumann to state that there were representatives of Office VI in Russia and that they had a house of their own from which they operated in selecting people to carry out counter intelligence work.
A. In the occupied Russian territory, I thought I understood you to say in Russia, in the Russian territory, Mr. Prosecutor. If you want to have detailed information on this, I ask you to ask my successor. During my time I had no opportunity yet to deal with this.
Q. From September 1941 until February 1942, you stated on direct examination that you were paid by the RSHA, but that you were without assignment.
A. Yes.
Q. Was this merely that you were awaiting for an opening suitable to your rank, such as the Einsatzgruppe?
A. No, I was supposed to join the Ministry East.
Q. In February 1942 you took an information tour into Russia?
A. Yes.
Q. What type of information were you gathering?
A. In the interest of my future assignment in the Eastern administration, I was to get some information on the situation in the East, that is, get to know the country. That was the task given in Posen. This was no special task. The task was only given because I had nothing else to do. Just to give me something to do.
Q. You stated on direct examination that you went to Riga and took command of Einsatzgruppe A, with the task 23 O ct 47-3&4-9-M-AEH-Biolsi (Juelich) COURT II-A CASS IX of BDS and Ausland included, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. At this time did you become aware, or were you previously sware, of a Hitler order for the extermination of Jews, Communist functionaries, or other undesirable elements?
A. At the latest, at the time when I arrived in Riga I was informed about the Fuehrer order. Whether this has been discussed previously -- in any case, I did not know of the contents of it until then. Even in Riga itself, when I asked to have the order made known to me, I only considered him, considering the Jewish question because that was the main problem.
Q. You were aware of this Hitler order to contain the specific order to wipe out the Jews in the occupied Eastern territories of Russia?
A. Yes, I heard about chat in Riga, quite clearly.
Q. From whom?
A. From the adjutant of Stahlecker.
Q. On what date did you learn of the order to kill Jews?
A. I knew previously that the order existed, although I did not know about its full extent.
Q. I am sorry. Will you repeat that please?
A. I said, I knew that Jews were being shot, but I did not know about the extent of the order and the great importance of it. I only heard about this in Riga; I only could realize it there.
Q. On what date did you become fully conversant with all the uncaning of this order to kill Jews?
A. Well, I presume the day I started to work in Riga.
Q. Which was?
A. I believe it was 29 March.
Q. On the 29th of March 1942, you were aware of the order to exterminate Jews?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your reaction when you first became aware of this order?
A. It was my intention to travel to Berlin in order to try to ask Heydrich to cancel, this order, The psychological reaction, not only at that moment, but also previously, for instance, the discussion in Smolensk, which I described yesterday... this mental state remained.
Q. You found this distasteful then... it repulsed you?
A. It is hard to describe this in orders, how these things were.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, will you please speak more directly into the microphone? The interpreter has difficulty in hearing you.
Q. (By Mr. Glancy) Will you kindly repeat your answer?
A. I said, the entire psychological condition is hard to describe in words.
Q. Were you shocked?
Q. You were pleased?
A. I don't think it necessary to emphasize that this was not the case. I think I used the expression "shocked" yesterday. That is perhaps what it was.
Q. As a National Socialist were you at any time convinced that this was a necessary task, that is, the extermination of Jews?
A. Whether I personally had the opinion that they had to be exterminated, and this was necessary, I personally did not hold this view.
Q. You were not of this opinions?
A. No.