A Who said that?
A Heydrich said, "Maybe we come to a resettlement". whom did you receive it from? signed in his own hand.
Q What did, you do at that time?
DR. SCHWARZ (Attorney for the Defendant Jost): Your Honor, pardon me for interrupting, but I would like to call your attention to the fact that the interpreter mistranslated the word "Umsiedlung", as far as I have just been told with "change". I would like to point this out so that there will be no misunderstanding.
THE PRESIDENT: The interpreter express the situation linguistically because the Tribunal, naturally, can't pass upon the suggestion of counsels.
INTERPRETER IDEA: The word used here is literally translated by "resettlement" , so that the defendant may mean that Heydrich said the headquarters could be changed to another location. I can't quite make out what he means. He just used the word, "resettlement".
THE PRESIDENT: Does that satisfy counsel?
DR. SCHWARZ: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Mr. Ferencz. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q Then on this point. Heydrich's reply to your objection to the order was that there might be some resettlements, is that what the answer was supposed to have been?
A That's how I understood him."Perhaps we will arrive at a resettlement." by Heydrich telling you that all the Jews were to be executed, is that correct?
executed? correct? is that correct?
Q But it was by Heydrich addressed to you, is that correct?
Court No. II-A, Case No. IX.
Q. You stated this morning that as chief of Einsatzgruppe A you followed Heydrich's instructions, do you remember that?
A. What?
Q. As chief of Einsatzgruppe A you followed Heydrich's instructions, do you remember that answer?
A. That Heydrich gave me social instructions, yes.
Q. I am asking you -- please answer the question -you stated this morning that as chief of Einsatzgruppe A you followed Heydrich's instructions, is that correct? discussed this morning.
Q. Pardon me for interrupting. Will you answer the question first, and then explain it. I think it will clarify matters. I ask you again, did you say this morning that as chief of Einsatzgruppe A you followed Heydrich's instructions?
A. ...that I say my job as chief of Einsatzgruppe A the way Heydrich had given them to me, with the limitation the way I described it yesterday as well as this morning.
Q. Now, you have stated that the first time you objected to Heydrich he said - "perhaps there can be some resettlement" - and three weeks later you received an order to kill children, and that later on there were some modifications, is that what you are trying to say?
A. That can't be understood the way it came through.
Q. Are you trying to tell us that although the only official reply you received from Heydrich upon protesting the Hitler order was a direct order to you to carry it cut, that later on Heydrich came around and made some special concessions to you and gave you some special instruction, is that correct?
A. I said yesterday, that whether what Heydrich told me was true or was what he meant, or whether it was camouflaged, or whether he told me to make it easier for me to assume my command, that I don't know. But I believe the first. That is why I was the more surprised when a few weeks later an order to me personally actually did arrive; for this order proves that until that time I did not get any orders from him personally to carry out these measures. Otherwise the second order would not have been necessary.
Q. When you got the written Heydrich order did you carry it out?
A. No.
Q. In other words, you did not carry out an order you received from your military superior, is that correct?
A. I did not pass it on.
Q. What was your rank at that time?
A. Brigadier General, and Brigadefurhrer.
Q. What was your rank a year later?
A. The same.
Q. In other words, though you did not carry out an order from your superior, you were not shot, you were not tried, - a year later you had the same rank you had at that time, - Brigadier General in the SS... Correct?
A. If you heard this yesterday, as I described it, it is understandable.
Q. I am more interested in the conclusion as being clearer. Is that the correct conclusion?
A. I did not pass on the order, and after a few days I decided, even if it was hopeless, to go to see Heydrich.
Q. Please, answer the question. Is that a correct conclusion? That you did not pass on or carry our an order from your direct military superior and a year later you still had the same rank of Brigadier General in the SS.
.. Is that correct?
A. Because of the death of Heydrich, nobody came to know that I did not pass on this order, for you can't demand of me today that I should report to Himmler about an order which I did not passion. That would have been a little too much.
Q. Your answer there is yes, with the explanation you have given. Is that correct? that you did not pass on the order, you did not carry out the orders of your military superior, yet a year later you were still a Brigadier General in the SS?
A. I did not pass it on, and I was still a Brigadier General a year later, yes.
Q. Did you receive any decorations in that year, in between?
A. Between -
Q. Between April 1942 and April 1943?
A. In April 1942 I got the War Merit Cross, First Class. That had been applied for a long time ago, and had nothing to do with the activity in the East - for such decorations don't arrive at the moment they are applied for. It takes months or years. Otherwise, I did not get any kind of decoration.
Q. Let me make my point clearer. You have stated or implied that thereason you were still a Brigadier General in the SS a year after having refused to comply with this order, and not complying with it, - the reason you were able to do that was because Heydrich was killed and nobody else knew that you were violating a Hitler order. But I am asking you, isn't it a fact that every SS man of any rank of importance knew in April 1942 that there was a general order to kill all Jewish children?
A. At that time, and later, not every SS man knew that.
Q. Did almost everybody know it?
A. I did not talk to the many thousands of SS leaders.
Q. I realize that. I realize that. And you understand my question.
A. The SS leaders who were assigned in the East probably would have known about it. Whether they knew the order in its wording and in its details, I don't know.
Q. In other words, most of the SS people, or a great many of them in the East, know that there was a general order existing to kill all Jewish children, so that if you did not carry out that order, someone besides Heydrich would have known that you were violating the order. Isn't that correct?
A. If no one knows the special order, and no other SS leader or any other person can than draw any conclusion against me.
Q. Is there any difference between a special order to kill children below 16, and a general order to kill Jewish children or all Jews? Or, wasn't the special order part of the greater order, the broader order, and if you didn't carry out even the part, it would have Green more apparent?
A. I said yesterday that this order, of course, was a result of the general Fuehrer Order; yes, that's true. For economic reasons, or for reasons of labor allocation, it provided for a limitation just at those ages - which was the special tragedy of the situation.
Q. My question is this. Please direct your attention to it, and your answer to it. You stated that it was generally known among the SS that there was an order from Hitler to kill all Jews.
You stated that you did not carry out your special order to kill all Jewish children up to 16. My question is: Would it not have been apparent from those two orders, and the fact that you didn't carry out the special order, that you were disobeying the orders of your superiors? Yes or no? Answer the question, please!
A. I must ask you to have it repeated, please, it was too long.
Q. For a lawyer you are very difficult to under stand questions. I repeat the short part. Would it not have been apparent to all SS officers when you did not kill Jewish children, that you were violating your orders?
A. No, that may not have been apparent.
Q. How do you explain that, that it would not have been apparent?
A. I just said that at the time of my arrival in this area there were some Jews still living there, who had not been killed even though they had been under German domination for 9 months. So that if there is no solution of this order or a complete carrying out of the order, would not be very conspicuous at the moment because in order to provide labor one had not completely carried out the order. Otherwise it would have had to have been carried out by that time, In 9 months it could have been carried out.
Q. What happened to all the Jewish children in your area?
A. They remained where they were.
Q. And nobody knew that you were not carrying out Hitler's order?
A. Outside of those two above mentioned people, no one knew that. They had read the order.
MR. FERENCZ: I think this would be a good time to recess, your Honors.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Just to recapitulate what Mr. Ferenz has been putting to you... It was generally known by SS leaders in that area that an order existed that all Jews were to be liquidated. You did not execute that order either before you received the written order with this limitation, or after. What Mr. Ferencz has been endeavoring to get from you is a crystalline answer - clear and specific - as to whether it did not become more obvious to those other SS leaders in your area, that you were flat-footedly refusing to obey an order which came down from the Fuehrer himself. Now just answer that question directly. Was it generally known?
A. At least, it was known to the members of my agency
Q. And it could be apparent to all the other SS leaders in that area?
A. I don't know.
Q. And yet nothing happened to you?
A. Through the death of Heydrich -
Q. Yes, we know that.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess now until two-fifteen.
(The Tribunal recessed until 1415 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1415 hours, 23 October 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. FERENCZ: had received an order to kill children low of the age of sixteen and people above the age of thirty-two, that you had refused to carry out this order, and retained your grade, at least for a year, as BrigadierGeneral in the SS. I would now like to move to your activity as commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe A. You were the commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe A from the 29th of March until the 2nd of September, 1942, is that correct? that time?
A In any case there can't have been many.
Q Can you give us an approximation?
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, please try to get a little closer to the microphone and speak into it. number of dead during that time was very small, it must have been a very small number. BY MR. FERENCZ: command during the time you were in command, is that correct?
Q I am not asking for details. You were the commanding officer. I am asking you if units under your command killed some people while you were in command?
Q You refuse then to answer the question?
THE PRESIDENT: Witness -
THE PRESIDENT: You must be a little more direct in your answers. Now, you just can't avoid a question like that with a shrug of the shoulders. Now, please try to answer the question of the Prosecution, because these questions are relative. Put the question again.
THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. BY MR. FERENCZ: command while you were in command? already explained during my examination that there could only have been small numbers. All that concerned me was that the order given to me was kept back by me as far as possible.
Q Why do you presume that such killings took place? owing to some situation there might have been the possibility that executions did occur. There might have been partisans; there might have been some Communist activist, or several of them, so that they had to act on the spot. killed by units under your command?
AAt the moment I cannot remember that. Certainly I do not remember any reports about mass executions during my time. individuals or small groups of individuals?
A I cannot definitely remember. That is impossible. For example, the one report that was discussed yesterday, the report where 22 died in Kauen and some 20 died somewhere else, I have read that, but I cannot remember now since I did not read the reports so carefully at the time.
That I would remember that now. ment Book II-A. page 128.
A I don't know what number it has. I can only talk about the contents. shot on 7 April 1942, because of Communist activities and connection with partisan groups.
Q You were in command on 7 April 1942, were you not? given a detailed explanation about this at the request of the President, yesterday. persons, among them fourteen Jews who had spread Communist propaganda were also shot in Kauen. That makes 44 people shot during the time you were in command for Communist activities and Communist propaganda. Can you tell the Tribunal what your reaction was when you received such reports? dangerous and therefore mass executions had to be carried out or whether measures had to be taken in individual cases. I personally was under the pressure of mass executions which were threatened. wouldn't cause any reaction on your part, is that what you are trying to say? that there must be a difference whether executions are carried out owing to certain facts as they are reported in this report or whether it means the shooting of tens of thousands of people. There is some difference, isn't there?
Q Of course there is a difference. I would like to know from you what procedure was used to find out that these people were guilty of having spread Communist propaganda. You, as commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe A, must have had a certain responsibility to see that people were not innocently killed.
A That was not the task of the commander. I have already explained that yesterday, but the commander acted independently and on his own responsibility. That is, he neither had to find out the details about each order nor did he have to ask for permission. He was alone responsible, owing to the orders given to him and the position he had been given. to Einsatzgruppe A were independent and could act independently, and you as commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe A, and the highest ranking officer, had no responsibility for what they did and no duty to act?
Q Is that correct? rences in the territory of the command district of Lithuania. Secondly concerning my executive power was limited owing to orders from Heydrich and I would never have assumed more responsibility then Heydrich had given to me.
Q Now, you have made two points. One is that these units were not units of Einsatzgruppe A; they just happened to be somewhere in the area. Please explain to the Court why it is that these reports consistantly list Einsatzgruppe A, first and underneath Einsatzgruppe A certain sub-units, showing on the face of the report that they are part of Einsatzgruppe A. different territories and therefore two districs of competency. First of all we are concerned with Einsatzgruppe A, and secondly with the civilian administration of the Reich Commissariat, Eastland, where the commanders were appointed as regular authorities.
There are two different territories therefore. very misleading because they just show Einsatzgruppe A and the units under Einsatzgruppe A. Can you explain why the reports were written in such a misleading fashion? know. Of course, the reports were compiled in Berlin. I have already explained in a document yesterday how in the list of agencies the commanders of the agencies were mentioned, and that the Einsatzgruppe was a separate agency. The same is shown in the document which was submitted this morning. There it is also revealed that there is a Commandat and there is somebody who has the power, but the document does not say that the local commanders, the SS and Police Leaders, existed. It does not say that the General Commissars were also in this list. Therefore there is no proof at the full organization but only a listing of the actual agencies. and you say you don't know why the reports in Berlin were written in such a misleading fashion, is that correct?
things down were not very exact, but it does not make any difference, the differences and the different forms did in fact exist. of Einsatzgruppe A and second as B.D.S. or commander in chief of the Security Police and the SD for Ostland or the East, is that correct?
Q The answer is yes, is it not?
Q Now, as B.D.S. or commander in chief of the Security Police and SD, were there other units, K.D.S. or commanders of the Security Police and the SD, who were subordinate to you as commander in chief? Administration, din not exist. There were no other units which belonged to this territory. There were other SS units and other police units, but they had nothing to do with me.
Q Your reports seem to be very clear. You say they are oversimplified, but they show, and you were shown this morning the photostat of one document mentioning you as Commander in Chief of the Security Police and the SD for Ostland or the East, and under you in the same section listing the commanders of the Security Police and the SD for Estonia, Latvia, White Ruthenia. It would appear from the face of these reports that these are all subunits of your high command, is that correct? previously that the organization of the SS and Police Leaders and this General Commissar who was my superior were not listed in this list. as in the case of the Einsatzgruppe where they listed kommandos under you falsely, in the case of the B.D.S. they have done the same thing and listed the K.D.S.'s under you falsely, is that correct? were mentioned and to list the whole organizational structure again.
After all it was only a communication, who was in charge of a certain command. This is of no great importance. them, as regards Jost; they are not accurate?
A Because they don't describe the entire impression or picture.
Q Then they are wrong as concerns you, is that what you are saying? because it will not give a correct impression of the organization. ing of the B.D.S. or the Commander in Chief of the Security Police and the SD, the B.D.S.s or the Commanders of the Security Police and the SD for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and White Ruthenia? and the SD.
Q Isn't it true that basically what happened there was that the Senderkommandos and Einsatzkommandos which had been under your command as Einsatzgruppe Leader became K.D.S. or Commanders of the Security Police under you as Commander in Chief of the Security Police? Isn't that basically the change organizationally which took place? it. again?
A I have explained it. I don't know how many more times I have to explain that question.
Q I am afraid it was not quite clear yesterday. Of course, if you refuse to answer the question I will proceed. about it, but I think I was very clear and explicit.
Q Then you refuse to answer it again, is that correct?
Q I asked you, you refuse to answer it again? It is a simple question. Will you please tell me, do you refuse or don't you refuse to answer it again?
THE WITNESS: I ask the President to tell me whether I have to repeat my answer to questions which have already been asked and I have replied to.
Q (By Mr. Ferencz) I didn't ask you before whether you wanted to or didn't want to answer the question. I am asking you that now for the first time, do you or don't you want to answer the question?
THE PRESIDENT: Ordinarily we find that witnesses like to talk and our great trouble is in stopping them. They would like to talk forever. It is quite refreshing to find a witness who not only wants to be brief but who even doesn't want to talk at all. Now, the Prosecution has asked you to clarify a certain point. You have stated that you have already clarified it. Then he put another question to you as to whether you decline to clarify again. If you decline, that is within your privilege. So, if you will, please answer the last question put by Mr. Ferencz, whether you now are declining to once more give the explanation which you gave before.
THE WITNESS: May I ask that the question be addressed to me again?
Q (By Mr. Ferencz) I don't mind repeating the question. As I understand the explanation you offer, I ask you is it not true that what happened organizationally was that the units, the Sonderkommandos and Einsatzkommandos, which were under you as Einsatzgruppe Leader, became K. D.S.'s or kommandos of the Security Police and SD under you as Commander in Chief of the Security Police and SD and basically that was the organizational change which took place? into two regions. This had been done months ago. There was the Army territory and the territory under civil administration, and in the Army territory, out of the old Einsatzkommandos, new kommandos were formed, and in the territory under civilian administration a completely new organization was set up which dealt with civilian administration of this territory, and set themselves up accordingly.
These were the command posts for the general districts. This was done without my assistance. This was already so when I came there. Now this went about in detail I don't know, of course, when and how individual people were a ppointed, I don't know. an Einsatzkommando under you became in charge of a K.D.S. or became the K.D.S. under you when you became the B.D.S.?
A No, that is not correct. I have explained that yesterday as well, that only in Estonia a personal union existed between the local commander there and the Kommando I-A. The reason was that here a territory under civilian administration was still operational territory. Therefore two competencies overlapped.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you pardon me, Mr. Ferencz? BY THE PRESIDENT: have, prepared on June 27th of this year. The answer would seem to be in variance to what you have just stated, and I would like to have your clarification on it. Your statement read, "On the whole the duties of a Commander in Chief of the Security Police and SD were the same as those of a Chief of an Einsatzgruppe, and the duties of a Commander of the Security Police and SD (KDS) the same as those of a Chief of a Sonderkommando or Einsatzkommando, respectively."
Q Is this statement correct?
Q Now, please don't tell me about yesterday. I want to know now, this afternoon, is this statement correct.
A The statement is not sufficient. It is not explicit enough.
Q As far as it goes, is it correct? Einsatzgruppen and also for Kommandos were combatting Communists, but that these tasks varied, according to the situation in the Army territory and in the territories under civilian administration they changed and other tasks were, added to these basic tasks which existed from the very beginning and that particularly under civilian administration where the police was a regular authority there was no special unit for a special term of time. These were the tasks of the criminal police and administrative police, the tasks of establishing a district police organization and therefore the organizational picture changed and that that channel of command changed and their responsibility to Berlin changed.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, at least I got further than you do. I got him to talk. BY MR. FERENCZ: picutre. You were Chief of Einsatzgruppe A, and you became commander in chief for the Security Police and SD in the East. Sandberger was head of Sonderkommado Ia and be became commander of the Security Police and SD for Estonia. for Lithuania. became KDS for White Ruthenia, is that a correct organizational picture of people who were under you as Einsatzgruppe A Chief and then weren't there subordinate units with you as the commander in chief of the Security Police?
A No, during my time it was different. During my time, Jager was commander of the Security Police and SD in Lithuania. Whether previously he was in charge of Einsatzkommando III I don't know. I know that he was commander of the Security Police and SD in Lithuania. I also know that Strauch was commander of the Security Police and SD in White Ruthenia, because the kommandos and Einsatzkommandos had disappeared from these territories and had been moved up to the Army territories.
Q Let's take them one at a time. Perhaps you can give us the answer then.
You have already stated that you were the head of Einsatzgruppe A and the BDS, commander of the Security Police. Was it true that Sandberger was at one time commanding officer of Sonderkommando I-A and at some time he was commander of Security Police for Estonia? Einsatzkommando III and he was at one time commander of the Security Police and SD for Lithuania?
A During my time he was commander of Lithuania. Whether he previously was in command of Kommando III, I really don't know. II and he was at one time commander of the Security Police for White Ruthenia? II previously. During my time he was Commander of the Security Police and the SD in White Ruthenia.
Q You don't know whether he was or was not commander of Einsatzkommando II is that correct, or do you want to state that you do know he was not?
yesterday, in Document Book III-A, page 3, Document USSR 41. Here it reports the killing of many people, including children on the 14th of April, 1942, which was during your time, in a letter sent from the Chief of the Security Police and SD in Latvia. You have seen the document listing the Security Police and SD for Latvia under you as commander in chief of the Security Police and SD for the East. Would you please explain again or for the first time, how it is that you deny responsibility for these crimes?
A Shall I give an explanation about the document? I am repeating it. I do not know anything about the action mentioned here; I would have stopped it the same way I did in Krasnogwardeisk, where I stopped them from liquidating insane people. The document itself does not prove who carried out this action. Also it is strange that this document was found in the office of the sender and not in the office of the addressee, because it is addressed to the Registrar Office of the City of Riga and therefore should have been found there.
Q General, on this point you say you can't understand how it is that a letter sent from one office and addressed to another is found in the office from which it is supposedly sent. Isn't it the practice to keep carbon copies? I do not have here, it is supposed to be an original. remained in that office? this is a true document and you are confused by it, and, even if it were true, you don't know anything about those things, is that correct?