Q I don't know of anyone who could speak better about yourself than yourself. No one would know your experience; because of your training and education and culture no one would know you better than yourself and if you received such an order, you would go into a conference with yourself and then you would reach a decision. Now that decision would be either to execute the order or not execute the order. Your Honor. I would have to take the actual act of this order and I would have to discuss this act with myself and either would have to agree with this act personally or I would have to refuse it. I would have to make an inner decision.
A To think myself back into such a position I cannot do. I can only take an abstract case and I say this officer has to carry out this order and, if the officer, which in this case is Six, is in this dilemma, he had to carry out this order, but between the receiving and the carrying out of an order, there is a personal decision. At any rate I did not experience such a decision and therefore I can only look at it in an abstract way. involved in this theoretical question. Usually when one is confronted with a theoretical question, he desires to know all the factors. You, with your training and education and having bean a professor and a teacher and having lived many years and now having been in a courtroom since the beginning of this trial, and knowing all the factors, there is no reason why you should sidestep a direct question. Now you have gone so far as to say that if Officer Six were ordered to execute the order, he would execute the order. Now, are you -- is your name, "Six"?
Q Were you Officer Six?
is, "Yes," is it not? slip of the tongue -- between the receipt of an order and the carrying out of an order, there is, as we can recognize now in many cases, of my comrades, a very difficult human decision. This difficult human decision is not merely theoretical and cannot be expressed in the abstract and can only be experienced and it can only be answered as a human problem.
Q Dr. Heim asked you a very direct question. He asked you if his client were present with an order could he do anything other but obey it and you said, "Yes." Now I am asking you, if you, Six, were confronted with that order, to execute, would you have obeyed and followed out the order? In the position of an officer I have to carry out an order. But carrying out of such an order, as has been mentioned and asked about by the Prosecution again and again and the mental struggle with the moral problems, these moral values are of such consequence and severity that they cannot be theoretically discussed. They can only be experienced. like that unless you reflected on it and unless you discussed it. Now you have discussed it. We have discussed it for many minutes. Now I come back to the original question: If you received this order, would you execute it?
Q What your can you answer it in? How long do you want to reflect on this? We still have two more months left of 1947. What year could you answer such a question in? Your Honor.
Q Well, then, we come to this conclusion: that although you were an officer in the German Army for many years and although you have had the benefit of a very thorough education, and although you were a professor in a university, and although you were also a Dean, and although you also knew about religious values, and although you had spent many years of your life in the consideration of psychological and philosophical questions, now in this courtroom, when listening to this very simple question and especially in view of the fact when you realize that every other defendant is confronted with the same question, you refuse to answer it?
Heydrich to move and in full knowledge of the Fuehrer Order to carry out certain measures, I could answer this question exactly to day, but, as I have not received such an order then and neither was put in front of the alternative to carry out shootings, it is not possible for me.... decided the question on July 22, 1941? order first..... have come to a decision on July 22, 1941.
Q You could have come to a decision on that day?
Q And now with the benefit of six years' reflection upon such an order, you feel incapable of answering this question? receive this order as an order directed to myself personally and as a consequence I was not put into the personal position to struggle with myself and to have to come to a decision to carry it out. if Officer Six had received that order, Officer Six would have executed it. You made that statement. Do you confirm it now?
A I add, not this order, but "an" order, "an" order I said Your Honor.
Q Well, "an" order, "an" order might be merely to take a drink of water. We are speaking about "the" order. We are not speaking of play things here. If Officer Six had received the order which we are discussing here would Officer Six have executed that order? You answered that in the affirmative. Now, do you want to change your answer? Do you want to say that you do not agree with yourself of 15 minutes ago.
Q Well, then, do you confirm that answer?
A Yes, I said so, but I meant "an" order, generally, any order whatsoever.
Q Any order whatsoever, which could also include the Fuehrer Order?
Q Would it also include the Fuehrer order? I am considering all the phases between the receipt and the carrying out of an order, that is, the personal, the moral, the inner decision, which was not put to me, and, therefore, I must repeat that I can only say in the abstract that a leader or an officer has to carry out orders, but between the receipt of an order and the carrying out of an order, is the most important decision in human life; that is the mental dispute I think, and the fight about such a deliberation about such an order, that is the conflict, the most human inner quality, even if an officer; otherwise a question for morale and ethics would not exist at all.
Q Well, this is just merely an outpouring of words. I asked you whether you confirmed what you said 15 minutes ago and you said you did. Now I don't know whether this expenditure of rhetoric has in any way changed that original statement. We will take from what you have said that if Officer Six had received this order, he would have executed this order. You would have said that if Officer Six received any order, he would have executed that order and within that generic and comprehen sive expression, "any order", we will assume that you can include also such an order as the one which we have just discussed, namely, the Fuehrer Order.
attitude in this case without any moral and ethical participation, between receipt and carrying out of an order.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel ready to cross-examine?
DR. MAYE : Dr. Mayer, for the Defendant Steimle.
I must correct myself, Your Honor. I am sorry. It is for the Defendant Klingelhoefer that I plead now. BY DR. MAYER (Attorney for the Defendant Klingelhoefer):
Q Professor, when and where did you meet Klingelhoefer? Moscow?
AAt this time he was drafted to Vorkommando. That was in Minsk.
Q Why was he drafted to VKM? Advance kommando Moscow? all objects for the ministry in Moscow. Smolensk? work out the files in the Soviet House and in the NKWD house, and he made the corresponding excerpts and these were sent to Berlin. during his activity in the VKM under your command, with these executions of Jews and other persons?
the VKM and I can now say in detail that until the day of my departure Klingelhoefer was not in charge of such measures and did not deal with them. left? personally.
DR. MAYER: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel wish to cross-examine?
Mr. Ferencz, are you going to conduct the cross-examination of the witness?
MR. FERENXZ: Yes, Your Honor, I am, but in view of the late hour, I think it is better to recess at this time than to be interrupted after ten minutes by a weekend recess.
THE PRESIDENT: For that reason, in view of the fact that after two days perhaps we would not be so fresh on what you have said, now in view of that fact, the Tribunal will recess for the day and for the weekend and will reconvene Monday morning at nine-thirty o'clock.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 27 October 1947, at 0930 hours).
of America, against Otto Ohlendorf, et all., 27 October 1947, 0930-1630.
Justice Mussanno,
THE MARSHALL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 11_A.
Military Tribunal 11_A is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q. Six, at the outset I would like to clarify a matter which was being discussed just before the recess. As concerns the defendant Blobel, you stated that if he received an order he would have to carry it out and there would be no possibility for him to prevent executions. You refused to judge whether you would have carried out such executions How can you make that judgment for Blobel? Blobel whether I was of the opinion that an officer could refuse to obey an order. I assume, of course, that if he puts such a question to me he does not refer to it as being especially pertaining to his client, but which referred to commanders as such; therefore, I stated that the order must be carried out, objectively speaking. From the very beginning, though, I made the reservation that between carrying out the order and the actual receipt of the order, there is an important factor to be considered, namely the personal will to come to a resolution. In this personal decision there is no way, of course. question and in your reply you did not intend to make any specific reference to this defendant, is that correct?
A Noo Mr. Prosecutor, I did not want to do so. I did not want to make a special remark as referred to the defendant Blobel.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you have stated again what you have stated a number of times, that between the receipt of the order and the execution of the order, there would need to be a passage of time for reflection. The question which Mr. Ferencz has repeated to you this morning, which was given to you on several occasions last Friday, was very specific. Now this situation was put to you on Friday. Since then, three days have intervened, and you say that there would need to be a passage of time between the receipt of the order and the execution of it. Now three days have passed since this Question was put to you, do you think now you can answer that very specific question. That if you received an order which Blobel received, would you execute it?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, you are asking a hypothetical question.
THE PRESIDENT: We are not asking a hypothetical question at all. Now listen to this. Dr. Heim asked you a very specific question. I will read it to you. "Question: Dr. Six, several minutes ago you said when you were asked to that effect by the President, that you had the possibility -- you would have had the possibility to prevent executions if you or your commando had received an order to carry out executions. Do you mean to say by that, Dr. Six, that this was equally valid for leaders of other commandos, for instance, the leader of Kommando_SE_IV_A, do you mean to say that that Kommandocommander of SK_IV_A would have had the possibility to prevent executions which he had been ordered to carry out." Your answer was: "Noo I did not want to say that." Then after another little discussion here you said: "It is, of course, evident that whoever received an order had to to carry out the order." Now you took it upon yourself to answer for Blobel. You took it upon yourself to answer for a brother officer, a brother soldier. Now, if you could answer for him, and you go even farther, and answer for the whole German Army, you answer for every officer: if you could answer for these officers, all these other officers, you should he able to answer for yourself, because no one knows yourself better than DR. Six knows him. Now that is what Mr. Ferencz has put to you this morning very specifically and you have replied to the question, by saying you would need time for deliberation. Now, you have had three full days for deliberation, and we would like to know if you would answer that question directly, specifically, and not with a great deal of circumlocution? Proceed.
THE WITNESS: If I had received the order to shoot women and children, I, knowing my present inner attitude-- and I believe it still is the same as it would have been at that time if I should have received such an order, I would have refused this order by own death. I can not give you a clearer answer than that. If I would have had to shoot women and children, I would have refused to obey this order, even if I had paid my own life for it. BY MR. FERENCZ: caught in January 1946? disposal of the American troops, when I met my wife. However, she told me that there had been two raids by the secret service, and conviction had been expressed against me and my family; then upon her wishes, I decided to wait for some time. That was the reason.
Q Did you give yourself up, or were you Caught? correct?
Q When did you become a member of the SS?
Q What was your rank in the SS?
Q Was that an honorary title?
not those for full capacity service. That was not a real rank. than any other SS man had, or was it just an honor to be a member of the SS? holds. At that time I was already, a paid member of the University Corps in Koenigsberg, therefore, this title was not merely an honorary one, that is what I meant to say.
Q Were there any different SS titles which were was honorary? honorary title because if you had been active you would have had something in addition to just the title of Brigadierfuehrer. Now I ask you whether any other titles in the SS different from Untersturmfuehrer, which were not honorary? Untersturmfuehrer and at the same time a lieutenant of the police, or a lieutenant of a Waffen-SS, but at that time there was no such thing. your title as Untersturmfuehrer and any other Untersturmfuehrer, no matter what he was doing, is that correct?
Q What was your SS rank three years later on, 1938?
A In '38 I was SS_Standartenfuehrer.
Q That is equivalent to a colonel, is it not?
Q And what was your SS rank in 1945?
A 1945?
Q 145?
Q In other words, in ' 35 you were lieutenant, in '38 you were a colonel, and in '45 you were a Brigadier General, is that correct? SD? Tribunal has declared that Offices III-VI and VII of the RSHA were criminal organizations?
Q You were chief of Amt - VII, were you not?
Q During what period were you chief this criminal organization? then again from December 1941 until July 1942.
Q Isn't it between November 1939 and May 1940, and November 1941 to March 1943, '41 until March '43? I was granted leave from my office VII, that is, I mean the activityother activity. I was granted leave from it by a representative appointed thereto, therefore, I was not responsible at that time.
Q But you were a chief in title, at least?
Q Then you were still the chief in title? with museums, archives, and libraries, and literature, and similar materials. With what matter was Section VII-B of your office concerned? churches of all denominations, and scientific socolism.
Q By scientific socialism do you mean Marxism?
Q Or Communism? docialism, or at least the field that can he called as such; that is practically the terminology that was used by Karl Marx, and which was used by him and other scientific lecturers. called it, or Marxism, did you also study the question of Communism? as it was part of the whole scientific complex, but no special question of Communism as a political organization. question? was included Also.
Q You did not answer my question. I asked if you had a special section concerned with the Jewish question?
A. No, there was no such special section.
Q. What was Section VII-B-I?
A. Department VII-B-I was non-existent. There was just a subdepartment of VII-B-I, that was free masonry and liberalism.
Q. You are sure it was not free masonry and Jewery?
A. Yes, I am absolutely certain, quite certain. cerned with liberalism?
A. According to my recollection and knowledge, it is absolutely certain that I was in charge of this office. There was no such section. It depended on what time you are referring to.
Q At any time did you have a section concerned with Judeism?
A. No, as such there was no department. There were plant, and it was within the church department to take up Jewish church history.
Q. Do you Know Hauptsturmfuehrer Ballensiefen?
A. Hauptsturmfuehrer Ballensiefen, yes.
Q Isn't it a fact that he was head of Section VII-B-2 which was concerned with Judeism?
A. I could not understand this question exactly.
Q. Isn't it a fact, that he was the head of Section VII-B-2 Which was concerned with Judeism?
A. well, obviously he was in charge of several departments in the Church Department. whether it was VII-B-2 or I, I can not remember, and I don't know what time you are referring to.
Q. Isn't it a fact that you had a separate sub-department concerned with political churches aside from the Jewish questions?
A. No, no sub-department on political church matters, just one small department on church and all its denominations.
Q. Do you know SS-Captain Morawsky?
A. Morawsky?
Q. Morawsky?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. wasn't he the head of sub-department concerned with political churches?
A. No, not for a moment, never for a moment.
Q. what political churches did you regard as opposing groups?
A. I have already said that the term political church matter was not used in my office, and that it said it was churches of all denominations, and that within these churches, the Christian Church, as well as the Jewish Church was the aim of the cultural research.
Q. In other words, you were concerned with the Jewish Church, out only from a point of view of cultural research, is that correct?
A. In any case at the period when I was responsible, that was the aim of our work, yes.
Q. Didn't the other SS men regard that as a little curious?
A. I did not understand the question.
Q. Well, you said that you were concerned with the Jewish cultural research matter; everybody else was concerned with exterminating the Jews, so isn't it a little bit odd that your department should be so different from all the others?
A. Will you repeat that? It is a well known fact that this office dealt with the cultural research of these churches, therefore, it was up to the office as such, and it also dealt with the historical research, and in addition to this, which I have already said, and which I can prove, that there were no matters of Jewish interest but the Jewish culture with which we dealth, because there was no expert and no scientist that could deal with this matter.
Q. In other words, you did have a subsection but no one dealt with the question, it was just an empty title?
A. Again I must repeat that Herr Ballensiefen was theonly man who was in this subdepartment, but dealt with churches generally, and his work, which he carried out at the period when I was responsible, and I can take responsibility for the truth of this, was cultural development of Jewry, and I can especially remember that in the period when he was subordinate to me he was mainly dealing with preparations for the establishment of assimilation between 1780 and 1815, and he wanted to write a thesis on this.
Q. For what purpose did you have this section on Jewry, just to take historical theses on it?
A. when it was instituted and at my time, this was its main and only task.
Q. Isn't it a fact that your purpose actually was to uncover whatever you could in Jewish history or elsewhere to be used to further the SS-Anti-Semitic actions?
A. No, never for a moment, at least not during the period of my position.
Q. Did they ever use your materials for that purpose?
A. Not during the time when I was in charge of the office. BY THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, that not for a moment would you even think of looking for material which might be used against Jewry in connection with its historical past. Does it shock you very much that any institution, office, branch or organization or such like should seek material for propagandistic purposes against the Jews?
A. No, your Honor, if that assignment would have been given to me while I held the office---
Q. Do you mean to tell us that in your department that you weren't interested in locating material which could be used against the Jews?
A. I do not understand, the nucleus of your question.
Q. Well, the actual basis of the question that Mr. Ferencz asked you if you did not have a department which was interested in locating material which could be used against the Jews, and you said horrifiedly, "No, not for a moment." Now, I am calling to your attention the basic policy of the Nazi party with regard to Jews, namely that the Nazi Party was going to make war on the Jews from every possible angle. You were a member of the Nazi Party, weren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes, and you were interested in carrying out the policies of the Nazi party, were you not?
A. Which question an I supposed to answer, whether I am innocent or whether I dealt, with this question at all?
Q. You are supposed to answer the questions which are put to you, and the reasons they are put to you is this, that you volunteered, and remember this witness, that you volunteered this. It was not put to you by the Tribunal and it was not put to you by Prosecution counsel. You volunteered here on the witness stand to prove yourself a champion of religious freedom. You told us a very dramatic story of how in the field you opened the churches, that you led the population to the churches, so it is a subject which you opened up, not which anyone else invited you to address yourself upon. So therefore, these questions are put only because you opened the door to such questions. So, now we come back to the question which was this namely; were you interested in advancing the policies of the Nazi Party?
A. I was certainly not interested during my tern of office to supply propagandistic material with which another practical propaganda point could be supported. That was not the task I was in charge of.
Q. were you interested generally in advancing the Nazi Party?
A. I carried out what was within my field of task, but I cannot say that during any time, any period since 1939, I was interested in order to support the National Socialist Party in all its aims, but within the course of years certain very strong differences between my own attitude and the developing aims of the National Socialistic Party came into existence. garding Jews, did you not? Please answer that question, yes or no.
A. Yes, I know this point of program.
Q. Very well, and as a member of the Party and a member of the SS you were sworn to carry out the policies of Hitler, were you not?
A. No, I had not taken the oath as to that, to carry out everything without conditions, everything that Hitler ordered.
Q. You did not take the oath of allegiance to Hitler?
A. Yes, I was supposed to be faithful to Hitler, but not-
Q. Did you take the oath of allegiance to Hitler?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes, and that oath goes something like this, does it not: "I swear - or I vow - inviolable allegiance to Adolf Hitler, I will follow whatever he says or whatever his leaders direct me to do." Generally speaking, isn't that what the oath says?
A. Yes.
Q. That you were to follow Hitler and his leaders regardless, that is, what the oath says, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q Very well, And the basic principle of Hitler's policy, one of the basic principles, was war on the Jews. That is true, isn't it?
A. No, that was not the basic idea.
Q. I said one of the basic policies of Hitler's program was war on the Jews. You mean to deny that?
A. No, not at all.
Q Very well. Then since you had sworn inviolable allegiance to Hitler, and that included necessarily hostility toward the Jews, now do you tell us that in your work you were not interested in using material which you would find against the Jews?
A. I can only say this, if I had done so, your Honor,--I cannot say here that the plan when the department was instituted, that the plan then was in existence.
Q We are not speaking of the plan. Mr. Ferencz merely asked you whether you would not be interested in material against the Jews, and you were horrified at that question. You said, "not for a moment," and that is what provoked this long exchange between the Tribunal and the witness. Now we are asking you whether it is not a fact that in your work that any material which you came across, either through research or accidentally, which could be used against the Jews would be very important in the discharge of your duty toward Hitler?
A. I had no opportunity to do so.
Q. The answer isn't very clear to me. I ask you whether you would not be interested in material which came to your attention, hostile to the Jews, whether you would not be interested in using that material or making it available for others to use against the Jews?
A. No, I had no interest, no personal interest in doing so.
Q. Therefore, to that extent you did not follow your allegiance to Hitler, you had reservations on the Jewish question?
A. It depends what is intended by the Jewish policy of Hitler. I-
Q. We understand you to say that you do not know now what Hitler's policy was against the Jews?
A. I do. Far be it from me to say that the Jewish question was kept a secret in Germany until 1942 or had a different importance or significance than after 1942, and what I have already said. The Jewish question in 1930 or 1935 had an entirely different importance and significance, and I personally state these matters only for the reason that when I entered the NSDAP I did not regard the Jewish question as a basic question of the NSDAP.
Its very shape too must pass now. But at random, in order to prove my opinion and attitude at that time, my tutors were Jews.
Q. I didn't understand you. Who were Jews?
A. In 1934 I was made a doctor, got my doctor's degree under the sponsorship of these people, and if I had been an Anti-Semite I would not. I would not have come to see these two people and I would not have been in charge of them, my two very best teachers. Today I only want to say, to tell-
Q. Two of your teachers were Jews?
A. They were not only my teachers, your Honor, but they were the people under whom I had to work. My doctor's thesis, my thesis to make my doctor's degree, to take the test, as it were, that means a tutor has a certain confidential position.
Q. That was in 1934?
A. 1934.
Q. And you had a great deal of respect for these two men?
A. Yes. I was in the university and in the school and in the lectures. I was invited to their homes, and I must say that this certainly cannot be a bad relationship.
Q. Yes, you had a friendship for these two Jews.
A. The relationship was that of a pupil to his teacher. That means I had respect for them. I regarded one of them particularly with tremendous respect.
Q. And this great respect that you had for these two Jews, did it continue after you left the university?
A. Certainly. For instance, I corresponded with one of these two, and I was in close contact with him for years after.
Q. Do you regard these two Jews as exceptional men, or did they in themselves typify Jewry?
A. They were just as much Jews for me as were others, and I had no experience at that time.
Q. Then if they carried out the general characteristics of Jews, then you would feel very much offended if they were persecuted, wouldn't you? Please answer that question. You would feel very much offended if these two Jews were persecuted, wouldn't you?
A. I personally tried to protect then as far as I could.
Q. Would you please answer that question. You would feel very much offended if these two Jews were persecuted?
A. I regarded it in any case as highly unpleasant that these people were concerned in new laws and regulations.