secure files and archives in Mascow. I only reached Smolensk with this order, therefore, I had no reasons to send reports.
Q And you didn't do it?
A No, I didn't.
Q Did you make reports to the Einsatzgruppe B? Office directly and there was no point, there was no reason and no duty to report to Nebe. situation reports? during this trial, but I assure that these reports are not due to my own initiative. before I do so, will you give me some data you have on the VKM? order to establish the VKM. On 14 July I left Minsk; from the 16th to the 23rd of July I was in Tolochino;from the 23rd to the 4th of August I was by myself in Smolensk. That is, I was with the Vorkommando Moscow. That is the date when Smolensk was still being attacked. On 5 August the group-staff arrived in Smolensk, and as to this I was luckily united with the group-staff; from the 20th of August - - on 20 August at six o'clock I left Smolensk.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I am now forced to name a number of operational situation reports which unfortunately have not been submitted by the Prosecution. The use of these documents, however, has been promised me by Mr. Ferencz, who told me I could use them outside of court, and which I shall offer in evidence in my document book for the defense. May I put a few questions from the contents of these operational situation reports?
THE PRESIDENT: By all means. Since you have mentioned document books, the Tribunal would like to announce to defense counsel that we are informed that up to this point only two defense books have been prepared, and two are in the state of preparation. We would like to repeat that defense counsel should interest themselves in the immediate preparation of any documents which they intend to submit, so that we will not he confronted with a state of congestion towards the latter days of the trial. You may proceed.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, as to my own case, and my own defense, I can say that my document book is being prepared very actively, it has already been stencilled, and it is only a matter of having them run down and translated. Therefore, shortly after my direct examination of the defendant Six, it will be submitted to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. ULMER: operational situation report of Einsatzgruppe B covering the period o of July and August 1941. There is one operational situation report for instance, of the 9 of Julh 1941, which lists first of all the advance kommando Moscow, and states: "After negotiations in Minsk the Special Kommando VII-A is being transferred from the AOK-IX which is to march past Moscow to the newly formed armored AOK 4 to which an Advance Kommando is attached, including interpreters, and those who know the locality of Moscow under the command of Standartenfuehrer Dr. Six. The present AOK-IV has been turned into AOK-II, and the Sonderkommando VII B will be at the disposal of AOK IV". How do you explain the compilation of this report? it to Berlin. ferred from AOK IX, to AOK IV?
with my archive-assignment.
Q Would you have been able to carry on with your task? (Film not to be heard here). not have inspired my task as both Kommandos had completely different tasks. But this report, in my opinion, confirms my task's concerning the archives ahd the independence of the Advance Kommandos Moscow.
Q Why? one AOK which the Einsatzgruppe with its personnel status could not have afforded to carry out.
Q You mean a double staffing , in what way?
AA double staffing with the two kommandos. I mean, the same character, but if I really just simplify, VII-A was a special Einsatzkommando, and my unit was an Archive-kommando.
Q There is an operational situation report of 23 July 1941. This states: "VKM is still stationed in Tolochino". Is this report correct? stationed in Tolochino in the combat zone AOK-IV. this report? inflammation of the jaw. He had to leave for home via Minsk, evidently Nebe reported that fact.
Q And Nebe made a report of this?
Q On his own initiative, without your suggestion?
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, another operational situation report has to be presented, so would you like for me to proceed, or would you like to call a recess?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that we should have a recess at this point. The Tribunal will be in recess until L;45.
(A recess was taken until 1345, 24 October 1947).
(The hearing reconvened at 1350 hours, 24 October 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. ULMER: situation report about Tolochino. A further operational situation report on 26th of July 1941 reports the VKM to be in Smolensk, is that correct? with some quartermaster since the 21st of July, 1941. The city was still being fought over as the report mentioned.
Q How do you explain this report? who suddenly got sick and had a severe appendicitis and had to leave immediately. He went back by way of Minsk. Therefore, it may be assumed that he gave his report to Nebe orally. of the German text, Exhibit 118, the Staff of Einsatzgruppe B is reported to be in Smolensk, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Which Document Number please?
DR. ULMER: I beg your pardon, your Honors. It is Document NO-2949, Exhibit 118.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you.
Q (By Dr. Ulmer) Is that correct? his group staff on the 5th of august, 1941. been yet submitted of 6th of August 1941 reports from Smolensk as follows:
"In the City of Smolensk in the House of the Soviet important material was safeguarded. The material, after having been examined, will be forwarded." Is that correct?
Q How do you know that? safeguarded in Smolensk by the Advance Kommando Moscow.
Q What did this material consist of? USSR shortly before the outbreak of war.
Q You know that - how did Nebe know about that? was lacking, I saw to it that those secured documents were handed over to the staff in order that the staff may send them on to Berlin. Further material was sent on to the staff also as it was found.
Q It was sent continually to Berlin in this manner?
Q Thank you. According to these operational situation reports the group staff under Nebe's direction and the Advance Kommando under your direction was in Smolensk from the 5th of August 1941, until the time of your departure on the 20th of August, 1941, and they were locally together? to the Einsatzgruppe or to the Einsatzgruppe staff in that time? kommando.
Q On Nebe's approval? that time? sent to Berlin by courier. If Nebe wanted to process this material in his reports this was completeky outside of his duties for it was safeguarded by the Advance Kommando Moscow.
Q Thank you. Why did you yourself not report the safeguarding of this archive material to Berlin? the way the other kommandos had it and had no other means of communication. The safeguarding in Smolensk was caused by the special military situation and by the fact that we had stayed there without having planned to do so.
Q Now, I have the operational situation report, No. 67, of the 29th of august 1941. This is Document No. 3837, Document Book II-B, Page 5 of the German text, Page 6 of the English text, your Honor, Prosecution's Exhibit 58. Do you know this document?
Q Since when? mentioned according to which the Army gives 740 civilians over to the Advance Kommando Moscow in two days. Is this report correct?
A Factually yes, but formally no. The field command, because of lack of interpreters, had handed over some hundred civilian prisoners to the Einsatzgruppe who had been handed over to it by field units. Since there were so many of them, Nebe asked me that the interpreters of the Advance Kommando Moscow be used in order to screen these people.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, unfortunately this operational situation report which I have just mentioned has not been fully submitted by the Prosecution. I intend to submit several of the paragraphs from the operational situation report which have a direct Bearing on the questions submitted by the Prosecution, and I want to read these paragraphs now, and later I want to submit them in my document books.
It says there, "During the screening the following took place: First, the main group of civilian prisoners were people who, in the course of the advance of the combat troops, for security reasons, had been taken into provisional civilian or prisoners of war camps, for the most part outside of their regular identification papers they hold discharge papers from a Dulag, from a transient camp. Secondly, one group of punitive prisoners who had been sentenced to prison-terms by the Bolshevists for misdemeanors such as drunkness during work and reporting too late for work, had been used as punitive labor for digging ditches after the outbreak of the war and for building improvised fortifications. When combat took place in their territory they had mostly fled and were later arrested as vagabonds by the Army agencies. This group usually lacks identification papers since, when they were brought into the Russian prison their identification papers were taken from them by the prison officials. Third, a group of draftees who had an order to report to the Army and were on the way to join their unit but were no longer able to roach their unit. They were mostly to be used as drivers, as road builders and railroad engineers."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ulmer, how long is this quotation which you are going to read?
DR. ULMER: I just read about half of it, your Honor. I could summarize it.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is what you should do, summarize it, especially in view of the fact that you intend to submit the entire text later. You give us the content in a few brief words indicating that you intend to let us have the entire text later?
DR. ULMER: Yes, your Honor. people who had been ordered to join the Army and who were no longer able to reach their unit. Their identification papers consisted only of their order to report to a certain unit. A Fourth group is also mentioned, persons who had been taken away from their field work and farmers who had been arrested without any reason. They have identification papers issued by Army agencies, Wehrmacht agencies as workers on collective farms.
Q. (By Dr. Ulmer) Witness, my question in reference to this is as follows: Outside of these four main groups were any more persons isolated, selected?
A. The distribution of the prisoners was done as follows: It was done the way the report says, and the exactness of this report shows how much care was taken in this to see to it that these partly half-starved people be distributed justly and that they be subdivided into these four groups. Any further subdivision of prisoners or even execution did not take place since there was on reason to do that. These civilian prisoners, after the subdivision into these four groups had taken place, were led away by soldiers of the Field Command who had been present during COURT II-A CASE IX the subdivision.
More than that I cannot tell you about this subject.
Q. Thank you. In Document Book II-B, Document 2844, Prosecution's Exhibit 61, Page 22 of the German text and Page 22 of the English text, we find an operational situation report, No. 73, Do you know this one?
A. No, I did not see it until the trial here.
Q. Thank you. Can I have it back, please? This operational situation report mentions, on Page 29 of the German text, that group staff and Advance Kommando Moscow from the 22nd of June to the 20th of August had shot dead 144 people. Is this report correct?
A. No, The Advance Kommando Moscow in the time between the 22nd of June, 1941, and the 20th of August, 1941, did not shoot any people. As far as the Advance Kommando Moscow is mentioned in this report, the report is wrong. As far as the group staff is concerned, I cannot give you any details.
Q. How do you explain that this report came to be made out?
A. An explanation is easily to be found. The report was made out after my departure, that Is to say at a time when I had already subordinated the Kommando to Nebe.
Q. How do you come to the conclusion that this report was made out after your departure?
A. That can be seen from the report itself. It is here a collective report of all kommandos of Einsatzgruppe B with the deadline 20th of August. These reports took at least a few days until the Einsatzgruppe received them from the various Kommandos. At that time, that is when Nebe made out this collective report, I had already left.
Q. How do you come to conclude that this report was made out unjustly as far as the participation of the Advance COURT II-A CASE IX Kommando Moscow is mentioned in the execution?
A. Until the 20th of august, 1941, that is the day of my departure, the Advance Kommando Moscow did not carry out any executions. This is proved by the total reports which are submitted here. There are single individual reports about all kommandos of the Einsatzgruppe, about executions by the Kommandos. There is no such report about the Advance Kommando Moscow, but the operational situation reports show that executions were carried out by the group staff.
Q. For what reason did Nebe give a point for the Group Staff and Advance Kommando Moscow?
A. On the 20th of August I left. On the same day, Nebe put the Advance Kommando Moscow under his command. Thus Group Staff and Advance Kommando Moscow were under his command. This fact was unknown in Berlin. Nebe therefore used the first opportunity to report this subordination.
Q. To report it where?
A. To report it to Berlin. He thereby explained that now the Advance Kommando Moscow in reference to its position was equivalent in its position to all the other Kommandos. Furthermore, Nebe wanted to accomplish with this report that in this first collective report of all Kommandos - for this was the first report like that-no report like it existed before that - that all Kommandos under his command would now be listed as being under his command.
Q. Could one imagine reasons for the report mentioning jointly Group Staff and Advance Kommando Moscow from those commands being in the same building?
A. As I have already explained, Nebe tried, when I was still there, to use my interpreters for his own purposes. After my departure, he had a free hand in doing this and he certainly made use of that. Thus, there probably was an organizational unity between the Group Staff and the Advance Kommando Moscow, as it is expressed in this report at hand.
Q. Then you consider this report an arbitrary action on Nebe's side?
A. Yes, Nebe wanted to express to Berlin that now Group Staff and Advance Kommando Moscow Were both under his command. If the Advance Kommando Moscow really had carried out independent executions on its own, then it would have been listed separately.
Q. Thus you exclude completely the participation on the part of the Advance Kommando Moscow in this figure of 144 executed people during the time of the 22nd of June until the 20th of August?
A. Yes, for reason of time, of location, and for reasons of the proof of the Operational situation reports. Therefore, in my opinion, the claim of the prosecution in Letter U in the indictment, according to which the executions are supposed to have taken place in the vicinity of Smolensk in unfounded. For then the prosecution tries to limit the time of the execution between the 5th and the 20th of August, out the operational situation report states that the executions took place in the time from the 22nd of June until the 20th of August and not during the time of the 5th of August to the 20th of August, that is to say, during that time during which Advance Kommando Moscow and the Group Staff were together at the same place.
Q. In the same document which was just submitted to you, namely, in the operational situation Report No. 73, the Advance Kommando Moscow is supposed to have executed 46 people among them 38 intellectual Jews, who had tried to engender discontent and dissatisfaction in the newly erected Ghetto in Smolensk. How do you explain this report?
A. I have no explanation whatever for this report. As I have stated, in general, the advance Kommando Moscow between the 22nd of June until the 20th of August did not execute any people and I also want to say especially that the Advance Kommando Moscow between the 22nd of June and the 20th of August did not shoot any Jews.
Q. Do you have any proof of time for those months?
A. Yes, the subdivision of these civilian prisoners brought in by the Field Command took place on the 18th and 19th of August, that is, one or two days before my departure. This is the last incident in which Advance Kommado Moscow participated which can have any reference to me, as far as the date is concerned. This incident of these prisoners brought in by the Field Police are mentioned in the Situation Report of the 29th of August.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you have stated several times now that between June 22 and August 20, 1941, that your Kommando did not exe cute any Jews.
THE WITNESS: I have said between the 22nd of June and the 20th of August.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes
THE WITNESS: 20th of August.
THE PRESIDENT: Well during what period of time did they participate in executions?
THE WITNESS: I don't know. I am just trying to analyze to you for what reasons no executions can have taken place in the period down to the 20th of August. Especially, I tried to analyze at the moment why this report about the execution of 38 Jews and 8 other people could not belong to the period up to the 20th of August.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, during what period or time, did the Vorkommando Moscow conduct any executions?
THE WITNESS: Until the time of the 20th of August, non, but Advance Kommando Moscow continued to exist and I shall come back to these questions later together with my counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: well, do you know of any period of time during which this Kommando executed Jews?
THE WITNESS: No, I don't know. I merely tried to prove by the dates in the report that this report about 38 Jews and 8 other people, since this the Prosecution charged me with the responsibility for itthat I should try to prove that this does not belong to my period of services there.
THE PRESIDENT: proceed.
Q. (By Dr. Ulmer) Did you continue to be informed after your departure from Russia about what the Advance Kommando Moscow continued to do or in what manner it continued to operate?
A. No, I had no knowledge of that at all.
Q. In other words, what you can say about the Advance Kommando Moscow refers only to that period you mentioned, between the 22nd of June and the 20th of August. The execution of 46 people from the Ghettos is stated in the operational Situation Report of the 4th of September, 1941.
The subdivision of the prisoners as undertaken by the Army is mentioned in the report of the 29th of August, 1941; you were just about to explain that the subdivision of the prisoners is therefore the last event which happened during the time of your presence and the registration mentioned in the report of the 29th of August, 1941, is included in this. why should the execution of the 46 people and, especially the registration of this not appear in the Situation report of the 4th ofSeptember, 1941? Why can that not fall within this period?
A. As I just said, the last event which can have any reference to my presence there was the distribution of the civilian prisoners and this distribution of civilian prisoners appears in the report of the 29th of August. The report about the execution of 46 people, among them 38 Jews, does not appear in this report of the 29th of August, but in the one of the 4th of September. The incident of the execution of these 38 Jews plus 8 further persons, must therefore, be later than the incident about the subdivision of prisoners mentioned in the previous report of the 29th of August, but, since I left immediately after this distribution of prisoners, namely, on the 20th of August, 1941, the time of the execution of these 46 people cannot fall in the period of my presence in Smolensk.
Q. In this operational situation report of the 4th of September, 1941, the execution of the 46 people in Smolensk is mentioned once and then it mentions the liquidation by Einsatzgruppe B, according to the status of the 20th of August, 1941. Can you give me any explanation for this?
A. Yes, for these same logical reasons of the date. If the execution of these 46 people in Smolensk took place between the 20th and 30th of August, then this date corresponds to the date of receipt of the reports of the Einsatzgruppe, for the Einsatzkommandos as of the 20th of August, 1941, had to report the figures of liquidation. These reports took a few days, as I said, in order to reach the Einsatzgruppe from the advance Kommandos.
After the receipt of these individual reports, the collective reports could be made out by the Group Staff, that is, Nebe. This also could only have been possible in the last August days. This explanation then that the execution of the 46 people, including those 38 Jews in Smolensk, judging by the receipt of the reports from the Einsatzkommandos to the Einsatzgruppe must have happened at a time when I was no longer in Smolensk,
Q. But where were you?
A. I was in Berlin.
Q. In this document which reports the execution of these 46 people by Advance Kommando Moscow on pages 28 and 29 of the German text you can see reports of liquidations by Einsatzgruppe B, about these collective figures, about which we just spoke.
A. Yes.
Q. In the last mentioned report, the Advance Kommando Moscow and the Group Staff are mentioned. Would you find any explanation for this?
A. There is really a further explanation for what I have already said, if the above mentioned report of the 4th of September, 1941, that is, the collective report of all of the Einsatzkommandos, mentions the Advance Kommando Moscow in reference to the killing of 46 people, that is, as an individual report, and then one page later mentions the various execution figures of the various Einsatzkommandos, then it would have been conspicuous for a reader in Berlin if the collective report of all the Einsatzkommandos would not have mentioned the Advance Kommando Moscow too, since no liquidation figures for the time until the 20th of August existed for the Advance Kommando Moscow, the report merely mentioned the Advance Kommando Moscow together with the staff. which the Advance Kommando Moscow in the report of the 4th of September, 1941 is also mentioned in connection with the liquidation of 144 people. Do you have any personal knowledge about the origin of this report?
A. No, I have seen this report for the first time during this trial. Therefore, I can give no explanation of my own knowledge. I can only make short explanations with my own reasoning, which can be gathered from the above mentioned reasons of location, time, etc.
Q. I shall give you my document book with the three last mentioned reports, which have been submitted and which I want to show you. First of all, there is Document No. 3143, Prosecution Exhibit 64, Book II-B, page 42 of the German, page 47 of the English. This is a report on the 29th of September and the Group Staff and the Advance Kommando Moscow is mentioned with a number of 12 executions of people. What do you have to explain about this?
A. I have already explained that on the 20th of August, 1941, I left Smolensk, and, if I give my explanation about the collective reports, the collective reports after the 20th of August only can be a collection of reports of later executions of the Einsatzgruppe B, that is to say, at a time after the 20th of August, about which I cannot say anything from my own knowledge.
Q. 2,029 executed people, this is what the Situation Report 108 reports on the 9th of October, 1941, Document 3156, Prosecution 60, Book II-B, page 15 of the German text, page 16 of the English. Please give an explanation for this.
A. Here too again We are concerned with the collective report of a still later date about which I can merely repeat what I have already said. I left Smolensk on the 20th of August and I have given my explanation about the first collective report of the 20th of August. About this report, too, I cannot say anything from my own knowledge.
Q. Finally, under the date of the 26th of October, 1941, I have a collection of execution figures of 2,457 people for the Staff and the Advance Kommando Moscow. This is mentioned in the Operational Report 125 of the 26th of October, 1941, Document 3403, Prosecution Exhibit 63, Book 211-B, page 39, Page 41 of the English.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ulmer, when you give us these citations you start out with the most minute thing first and then finally lead up to the biggest thing last, which is the document book, so we are compelled to keep all this in our mind until finally you tell us the big secret, in which document book it is. Please tell us first the document book and then give us all the details.
DR. ULMER: Yes, Your Honor, I shall try to do this, but this was the last Quotation:
A.(By Dr. Ulmer) I would like to have an explanation from you for this collective report.
A. Here, again, I must repeat what I have said about the two preceding reports.
This is a report of a still later date which is a summary of executions which Were carried out within Einsatzgruppe B, that is, at a time when I was no longer with the Einsatzgruppe in Smolensk and therefore I can make no statement about it.
Q. Then you left Smolensk on the 20th of August, 1941?
A. Yes.
Q. And when did you arrive in Berlin?
A. I arrived in Berlin on the 21st of August.
Q. why so quickly?
A. From Orscha I used a transport plane which brought me back by way of Warsaw.
Q. To whom did you report in Berlin?
A. I reported to Streckenbach, since Heydrich was not in Berlin at the time.
Q. How did Streckenbach receive you?
A. He received me in a friendly manner, out he told me that Heydrich was angry about my application to be relieved, it would have been my duty to take on this partisan warfare order. He told me that until he had discussed this question with me, I should not take up any work in Berlin.
Q. who said that, Streckenbach, or Heydrich via Streckenback?
A. Heydrich via Streckenbach.
Q. What did you say to Streckenbach in answer?
A. I told Streckenbach in answer to this, and I am certain about it, that I was an officer of the Waffen SS and that if any steps were intended against me, I would ask for a proceedings to be started against me myself.
Q. what was Streckenbach's attitude about that?
A. He understood my attitude, but he told me he would pass on this report to Heydrich.
Q. Did you tell your military agency, the SS Main Operational Office about it?
A. Yes, I reported to Juettner, the Chief of the SS main Office and I asked for his protection, since I was still an officer of the Waffen SS and that I had been taken back from the troops against my will, and that I was still on an army status.
Q. what did Obergruppenfuehrer Juetner have to say about that?
A. Juettner promised me his protection and he promised me not to have me released - from the Waffen SS until this Question had been closed in a satisfactory manner.
Q. what did Heydrich or Streckenbach do in the meantime?
A. In the month of September and October nothing happened; the matter just rested.