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.
Q.- And what did you do during that time?
A.- At that time I took up my duties as lecturer at the university and as Dean.
Q.- When did this case come up for decision?
A.- At the beginning of November I was ordered to see Heydrich in Prague, and he reproached me about my so-called desertion from the SD to the Waffen-SS. He told me I was unfaithful and disobedient, and similar things.
Q.- Did you just take this, or did you answer him?
A.- One can only imagine my position at that time if one knows the relationship between Heydrich and myself which existed since the year 1938/1939. Heydrich had treated me like a dog for three years. And I believe that anyone who was in the RSHA at the time knew that, and knows it. And at the time I was in a mental state in which I no longer considered my personal fate, and it did not matter to me what Heydrich was going to undertake. It was clear to me that sooner or later he would break me in some manner. Therefore, I told him at the time that since the year 1939 I had tried to get out of the SD, that I had volunteered to go to the Waffen-SS in order to achieve my inner freedom; that was recalled from my troops against my will, and that I could see no sense in the situation in which the German people found themselves to take over such an unnecessary office, so unimportant for the war as Office VII was. I can only say that Heydrich broke out in a fit of rage and finally threw me out.
Q.- Did this happen in front of witnesses?
A.- There were some people in the anteroom -- the State Secretary Frank, Sturmbannfuehrer Ploetz, and a secretary.
Q.- What happened then?
A.- I returned to Berlin and told Streckenbach about the conversation and about my whole position. And I must say again today what had become clear to me at that time, - that Streckenbach at that time was the good angel in the RSHA.
At any rate be introduced and tried to eliminate this dispute in some manner. At the end of November, after Nebe returned from Smolensk, a conference took place at Streckenbach's office between Streckenbach, Nebe and myself. In this conference Nebe was absolutely stubborn, Therepupon, Streckenbach decided he would take up the matter with Heydrich personally. The result of this Heydrich-Streckenbach conversation was evidently the fact that I was informed that I was to take on my duties in Office VII once more; that he spoke to Juettner, and that I would be dismissed from the Waffen-SS, and that, therefore, some sort of compromise might be reached. I mention this only because it shows the special situation in which I found myself at the time. It explains the psychological situation I found myself in my relationship with Heydrich for three years. I also want to mention here that in the beginning of December, retroactive to the 9th of November, I became an Oberfuehrer, and this promotion came about at a time when all other office chiefs in the RSHA were also promoted.
Q.- This promotion to Oberfuehrer came about after the compromise achieved by Streckenbach, and it represented an awarding which should have been made before but it was withheld?
A.- At any rate, in September 1938 I had been promoted the last time. And I had wondered that I had been promoted, but at any rate I was promoted.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I just hear that when translating my question about the witnesses during this dispute with Heydrich, only two names Minister Frank and Adjutant Ploetz were given -- according to the answer of the defendant there was an another witness who was also present -- the Secretary Scherrer. Please, correct the English record.
THE PRESIDENT: What are you complaining about?
DR. ULMER: The answer to the question - "Who witnessed the dispute between the defendant and Heydrich" - were three names.
And the translation gave only two names.
INTERPRETER: No, I translated all three.
DR. ULMER: -- I think that you probably missed the Secretary Scherrer?
THE PRESIDENT: The interpreter states that he did mention all three. But at any rate, your statement is on the record and the official mechanical record will state what actually occurred.
DR. ULMER: I thank you; I just wanted to have it correct. I didn't want to complain.
Q.(By Dr. Ulmer) - When were you dismissed from the Waffen-SS?
A.- That took some time longer. The Division Reich had been completely destroyed in the fighting area near Moscow in December, and had to be reconstituted so that the dismissal only came about in March or April. This time corresponds with the repatriation of the Division into the Reich.
MR. FERENCZ: I think there has been another error in translation. The question was, "When was the 'Entlassung'"..... which is properly translated "release", and it came across as "dismissal", I would like to have that corrected in the record, or have the translator make it clear now how he translates the word "entlassung".
THE PRESIDENT: Now let's make this clear first. We haven't admitted that there was an error in the first instance. You now merely call attention to this situation which will be cleared up immediately.
DR. ULMER: My question was, "When were you dismissed from the Waffen-SS"?
MR. FERENCZ: The question is .... is translation of the word "Entlassung" -- "dismissed" or "released"?
INTERPRETER: TO me it is "dismissed".
MR. FERENCZ: Thank you.
BY DR. ULMER:
Q.- Did you speak with Heydrich once more?
A.- No, I got another order in May 1942 to take part in a conference in day at Prague, but I did not speak to any of the other office chiefs, and I was not addressed by Heydrich. A few days later the assassination of Heydrich took place.
Q.- After the death of Heydrich, did you dissolve your relationship with the SS?
A.- Immediately after the death of Heydrich a discussion between Streckenbach and myself took place. Strenckenbach agreed with me to the extent that I could now leave the SD. The offer at the time made to me by the State Secretary Luther of the Foreign Office, namely to take over the training of the diplomatic service, was then the official reason. From the 1st of August 1942 I was let out of the SD.
Q.- Why were you again called into the Waffen-SS in February 1943?
A.- I think there was a slight variation in the translation. On the 1st of August I was given leave not released, and Kaltenbrunner, the successor to Heydrich, on the occasion of taking over the RSHA, made the demand to me that I should be in charge of Office VII temporarily. I refused this, and I volunteered for the Waffen-SS.
Q.- But you were called into the Waffen-SS on the 22nd of February 1943 -- your call-up was revoked again. For what reason?
A.- I told the then Foreign Minister Ribbentrop that this was a forced situation for me; whereupon, he intervened with the FHA of the Waffen-SS and my draft was revoked.
Q.- And when were you taken into the Foreign Office?
A.- Immediately after the call was revoked. In February 1943 I made indispensable to the Foreign Office and I was given the direction of the cultural branch. At the same time as an Office Chief I left office VII, officially.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I just have a few concluding questions. If you wish the recess, this would be a good point.
THE PRESIDENT: If the questions are only a few, and by that we suppose they would not occupy more than five or ten minutes, then we will proceed until you actually terminate,
DR. ULMER: Yes, it would be finished in ten minutes at most.
Q. (By Dr. Ulmer) - Then the concluding question. Your activity as Dean, or University professor - was this in connection with your activity in the SD or Security Police?
A.- No; I can say at the most that I had great difficulties on behalf of this faculty of international politics through Gruppenfuehrer Mueller. Twice I was threatened with arrest by him. I only say this because I want to emphasize what great contrast could exist there between such workers of international politics and Office IV, the Gestapo, even though I was in the RSHA myself. When I built up this faculty of international politics in 1940 I had about 20 to 25 no-aryan students from the university "Foreign countries"; I had taken them into my faculty as students from another institute. On the basis of a denunciation with the State Police he demanded that those people be excluded - whereas I had my way about it -- and they were able to conclude their examination in my faculty. He demanded the arrest and dismissal of the 50% non-aryan professor, Albrecht Haushofer, whom I had suggested as a professor, and whom I kept on down to the last moment. He further demanded the recall of another professor, Professor Grave, who had married a half Jewish wife, and nevertheless I kept him as a professor. He arrested a number of students and lecturers in 1942, who had set up a resistance movement, and he threatened me with arrest and interrogated me for hours. This is only a short description of what the relationship of this faculty was toward the Gestapo.
Q.- Was your activity in the Foreign Office in any connection with the SD?
A.- No. Since 1941 a decree existed in the Foreign Office that no SD member may belong to the diplomatic service. And Ribbentrop made me promise that I would leave the SD since one could not serve two masters.
Q.- What were your principles in the cultural work with the Foreign Office?
A.- Those principles were conditioned by the war. I wanted to realize the principles or maintaining intellectual contact with foreign countries, even during the war, and thereby to maintain intellectual exchange with foreign countries during the war - for as the director of the cultural branch in the Foreign Office it was my uppermost duty, also during the war at least, to maintain those contacts and not to interrupt them which were the only connection there with world - at least European culture. This I did faithfully. Even though it was not easy to do this in the Foreign Office. My department chiefs in the Foreign Office had very bad disputes with Goebbels during the 2 1/2 years of my activity there. In the course of the years I had retained a pretty good picture of the relationship of the personality to the community, and of the originality of intellectual achievement. Whatever goebbles did in Germany was the greatest cultural mechanism which has ever been seen, and in my field, at least in foreign countries, I tried to maintain the idea of an intellectual liberty and of a genuine cultural contribution, It was not easy - for every thinker, every poet, every scholar who went abroad on my order, and with my signature, had to go there against the will of Goebbles. And if I can say one thing that I did in those years, it was to prevent that the barren cultural mechanism of Goebbles would become the token by which Germany is known abroad. The result of my attitude was expressed by the fact that in the year 1944 Goebbles via the State Secretary Mussehl, demanded the dissolution of my cultural branch and my being drafted. But just as much as I maintained the idea of intellectual freedom in my cultural work, I thought that it was also my job as director of the cultural branch to maintain and direct the intellectual and religious ties with the foreign countries.
Thus I took it upon my own shoulders and on my responsibility that from the time after 1942 and 1943 the German religious communities abroad got their contributions from me; that German priests, Protestant and Catholic, still were able to travel to their congresses and organizations abroad; that the parochial schools and religious hospitals should not be dissolved, but that under the great difficulties of securing foreign exchange continued to exist under my direction. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Are we to understand from what you are now telling us that the utmost religious freedom existed during the war?
A. I was just about to describe, your Honor, that in the field of cultural ties with foreign countries I secured these connections for those religious institutions.
Q. Well, I asked you a question... you didn't answer it. Do I understand from what you have been telling us that because of your efforts there existed in Germany during the war, religious freedom?
A. No, I did not say that. I said I tried to maintain this principle, at least abroad.
Q. You tried to maintain it abroad? What did you have to do with that abroad. We took care of that abroad.
A. For example, according to the demand of Bormann I should have refused my contribution to the German communities abroad.
Q. It would have been very interesting if you had done something of worrying about this freedom abroad; in fact, that seems to have been the difficulty --- Germany was too much interested in what was taking place in other countries.
A.- I thought that if I maintained the ties between the German church and the foreign church, that then I have made a contribution to the existence of the German church, too.
Q.- Why didn't you make a contribution to the German church in Germany.
A.- I was not competent for dealing with the parochial questions in Germany. But the relations between the German and the foreign church that was my job.
Q.- Did you do anything in Germany to ease the burden of the clergy that was not permitted the utmost expression of religion?
A.- If the German, or Catholic, church had the desire to attend foreign congresses in order to keep up the contact with the church; of if missionary work was to be done in China, or Africa, then I did so. That was the job which was entrusted to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
DR. HOFFMANN: Dr. Hoffman for Nosske. from Monday's session in order to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Nosske will be excused from attendance on Monday in accordance with the request of his counsel.
DR. FIGHT: Dr. Fight for Beberstein. excused from Monday's afternoon session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Biberstein will be excused from Monday's afternoon session.
Mr. Ferencz, I think the interpreter is ready to give a clarification on the translation on which you made an observation before we recessed.
INTERPRETER LEA: I have informed myself that the word "Entlass" can mean discharged, dismissed or released.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, The record will show that for the clarification of the word in question.
Dr. Ulmer, just before we recessed the witness was taking us on quite a tour around the world and we last saw him in China and Africa. Now, let us try to bring him back to the scene of activity which is the locale in the indictment.
DR. ULMER: Yes, your Honor. The activity of the defendant, of course, is concerned with the activity of the defendan in the Foreign Office, therefore it is necessary that he went out to larger regions are concerned, and therefore he could take no influence on church matters within Germany. My last question, your Honor, to the defendant, was what the last, the ultimate aim of your cultural activities.
THE WITNESS: As a scientist and research worker, I want to find and answer for young people to the questtion of the relationship between the various nations, the attitude of the various people and their cultural communities.
As a cultural politician I wanted to take care that this culture was being kept up and maintained, and to create a community conscience between the various peoples. This was even more valid for war than it was for peace.
MR. ULMER: Your Honor, I have now finished my set of questions as far as my direction examination is concerned. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q: Were you concerned, Witness, about the dissemination of these cultural ideas in the kommando groups?
A: When I took over the leadership of the kommando Moscow I proved my attitude by, for instance, making free two churches and giving them back to the population so that the purpose for which they were actually built could be fulfilled again. I think this is a proof of my attitude to these questions, even during the time of my commando.
Q: Do I understand that during the time that you were with Einsatzgruppe B that you exerted your influence to have the churches reopened so that the civilian population could worship in the churches, is that what I gather from your observation?
A: That is right, your Honor.
Q: Yes, so that your part in Einsatzgruppe B was not to herd the people together and take them out into the woods for the purpose of execution, but to rally them together and March them to church?
A: One has nothing to do with the other, your Honor.
Q: Well, you know the purpose of Einsatzgruppe B. You know what the main purpose of all these Einsatzgruppen was.