A May I ask you to repeat?
Q The question is this: You stated that you regarded the killing of defenseless women and children as a result of the Hitler Order to be a shame sad a scandal. You also stated that you did not regard the killing of defenseless men to be a shame and a scandal. The question is: What is the distinction -- and by defenseless men, we meant to say, as the Tribunal pointed out, Jews who were killed just because they were Jews?
A Normally women and children are not waging war. On the other hand the man is a potential bearer of warfare. I underline this, I emphasize this "potential". If therefore the shootings are based on his characteristic of being a "potential" bearer of warfare, and if, furthermore, they are carried out when their potential guilt has been established in a concrete situation, then I think the shooting is justified. every day. The Jews were ordered to be registered. The old men who had never born arms in their lives were taken out and shot, along with the others. You have made a distinction between men whom it was justifiable to kill without limitation as to their condition or age, or class or anything else, and the killing of women and children, are you saying now that you regarded all men because of the mere fact of their sex as potential bearers of warfare, are therefore justifiable victims of this murderous order? and the women and children are disregarded. That, at least, is my opinion, and that is why I must make the primary and primitive difference between the potential bearer of arms and on the other hand the woman and the child. This difference is unambiguous and is in our cultural and moral code, and if I act according to this moral code, I must recognize this difference, but, if you ask my own opinion, I must give you the answer that according to the European moral code, the man is the bearer of arms, the bearer of warfare.
Therefore, I must make this distinction and I make it for this reason and for no other.
Q Then According to your cultural and moral code, it was justifiable to kill any man who was a Jew, regardless of his condition, age, or previous act, is that correct?
THE INTERPRETER: Would you repeat the question? It did not come through. perfectly justifiable to kill all men, because they were Jews?
A No, that has nothing to do with my moral and ethical code. According to my moral code, guilt has to be established, a guilt from a concrete situation. Europe, and your cultural and moral code, men were regarded as bearers of warfare? killing Women and children.
A This specific conclusion I did not draw. You did. I only stated facts of the case. children, out it was justifiable to kill men. is what I mean. were Jews was justifiable? it is justifiable, or, at least, was justifiable. It is another question whether it was also morally justifiable. any way? atmosphere, I regard the Fuehrer Order as unmoral, if I can speak as a citizen of a state. If I may be permitted to say so, who have, during the last thirty years, watched the establishment of a fighting moral, together with and in addition to a Christian and humanitarian atmosphere, and when I saw, according to these new orders, women and children were killed, not in actual combat, with your permission, I must say, as a citizen of a State, if I may be regarded as such, I regard it as amoral, but, of course, I can no longer say that as a humanitarian and as an individual.
I am justified to regard it as immoral. I want to say that quite clearly, out, as a citizen, I can only regard it as immoral and I give you the reason. The whole warfare moral or the so-called civilized world is overshadowed today.
MR. FERENCZ: It was a long speech.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you get an answer?
MR. FERENCZ: No, I didn't.
I would like to put the question again very simply. As I understand your answer, you regarded the Hitler Order as amoral, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Now, listen, Witness, you can't be two individuals. You're one men and you can't day, "over here I am a citizen. Over here I am a person. Over here I am a professor. Over here I am a, soldier." You are one man. Please answer the question as one man, and we have spent a great deal of time on this. It has all been very interesting and it hasn't bear lost, because we got angles which might not have occurred to us before. Now let's epitomize it in one very simple question, did you regard the execution of a Jewish man, a male, did you regard his execution - merely because he was a Jew as a shame and a scandal?
THE WITNESS: As an individual, I regard -
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no. Did you, not as an individual, just one certain individual, you. I only see one person. You talk to us as if you were a whole platoon of men.
THE WITNESS: I have Said that I regarded it as amoral. BY MR. FERENCZ: defendants, that the Hitler Order was a proper order?
THE PRESIDENT: While you are right at this point, I think I would like to acquaint Dr. Heim with what -- would you please step up to the podium, Dr. Heim? Because the witness has mentioned -- the witness has just Stated that he refused to answer this question, which might concern other defendants. I would like to call your attention, Dr. Heim, since you were not in the courtroom at the time, that this morning the witness made an answer which might seem to be contradictory to the answer which he made to a question put by you last Friday and, since it involves your client, we believe, in the interest of fairness and justice, you should know this answer, which could, be contradictor to the answer he gave on Friday. You had asked the witness this question: "Do you mean to say by that that the Commander of the SK 4a would have the possibility to prevent executions which he had been ordered to carry out. The witness answered among other things, but he made this very specific reply, "It is, of course, evident that whoever received an order had. to carry out the order." This morning he stated that had he received such an order, he would have refused to carry it out so in that he made a distinction between himself and your client, and we believe that you should be acquainted with that answer made by the witness. If, later on, Dr. Heim, you would like to question the witness on that, you, of course, will be permitted to do so.
DR. HEIM: (Attorney for Defendant Blobel): Your Honor, above all, I went to thank Your Honor for drawing my attention to this. Secondly, I take the liberty to ask you whether after the conclusion of the cross-examination of the prosecution, I can ask a few relevant questions of the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you will be permitted to do that, Dr. Heim.
DR. ULMER(Attorney for the defendant Six): Your Honor, may I ask you to inform Dr. Heim of the fact that the defendant refused for his own person and therefore provided that the question has no relevancy.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I'd suggest that you acquaint Dr. Heim with the general nature of the witness' statements so that Dr. Heim may be entirely at home in this for the cross-examination when he takes it up.
DR. ULMER: Will that be now, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, during the recess, hut I will say this for the information of the Marshal, that during the recess, the witness is not to speak to anyone.
DR ULMER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, I think we might recess now.
MR. FERENCZ: If Your Honors please, I have just one question I would like to put. BY MR. FERENCZ: answer this one too?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. He refuses to answer why he refuses to answer.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, thank you for giving me the possibility of informing Dr. Heim. I used the recess for this, and at the same time Dr, Heim. I used the recess for this, and at the same time Dr. Heim was informed through his assistants who were present throughout the entire morning's session.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes,
DR. HEIM: (For the defendant Blobel): Your Honor, I an very well informed about everything the witness stated this morning, but my questions relating to this, I would like to ask at the end of the cross examination of the Prosecution
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, we are disposed to let you do that, so you do not have to argue about that. Yes, the Prosecution will finish its cross examination and then you will be given ample opportunity to go into that subject or any other Subject which you deem relevant in behalf of your client.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome. BY DR. FERENCZ:
Q. Six, do you know a police major named Johannes Hermann Mueller?
A. I do not remember that.
Q. How has made some statements about your character, which I would like you to have an opportunity to explain. Therefore, I am going to give you an interrogation of this police major, and will ask you to read two of the questions which were put to him, as well..... I will ask you to read to of the questions which were put to him concerning you, and to read his answers out loud, and then to give us an explanation of his statements. The questions are 27 and 28. Would you please read that out loud? Would you please read it out loud? I won't hear anything.
A. I am just ready.
Question No. 27. To the person to be interrogated, (probably it is meant to be Nebe, N-e-b-e) at the time?
Answer: That is a very important question. Do you know all those people.
...it was such a strange mixture of people.
that he had the execution carried out. I don't know whether he was an old-time Nazi.
He fitted very well into the circle.
"Question No. 28; What kind of an impression did he make?
" Also one of those wild worriers. This repelled me a little. A full stop I always thought , Good Lord, that man is a Professor. At the time He was dull. He had worries about his family and his wife, I don't know, but apart from that he was not very quiet." given to those questions?
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, the name Muller, is the most popular name in German. For that reason it would he very nice if the Prosecution would submit this document as evidence in order to give me the possibility of informing myself which Major Muller from the police is concerned, and to use that in my cross-examination and how it comes about that he holes such an opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel let me make one suggestion which has nothing to do with your request, that when any attorney steps up to put a question or makes a statement, especially right in the middle of an examination being conducted by someone else, that he give his name and the client he represents so that it can be seen from the transcript at once who it was that made the declaration.
DR. ULMER: I beg your pardon, Your Honor, as defense counsel of the defendant in the witness box, Dr. Six himself, it escaped me at the moment.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not mean it as a criticism. I am only stating that for the purposes of the transcript, the record which is printed afterwards, it would not he too apparent that you were the defendant's counsel.
DR. ULMER: I know, Your Honor, but still I had to beg your pardon because it was a mistake on my part.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, now Mr. Ferencz, Will you please answer Dr. Ulmer's questions.
MR. FERENCZ: I shall be very glad to give it Dr. Ulmer and make it a part of the record. I am talking about Johannes Hermann Muller.
I will give defense counsel whatever information I have about Herr Muller in order that he may acquaint himself with who this person is. I know he is a police major and I have given that much to the defendant. Now to come back to my question.
Q. Do you have any comment to make or examination concerning this police major's opinion about you?
A Well, I don't knew this police major and I don't know who he may be. The explanations are so general that I cannot comment on them, no decisive fact is put down here upon which I could comment. tyrant, particularly as regard to your subordinates? me. If you can give me details about it I can tell you what I think about it.
Q I will give you part of Schellenberg's interrogation and I will ask you again to read the questions concerning you and the answers, and then you will be given an opportunity to explain it, it is question No. 29.
DR. ULMER: For the defendant Six; introduce these documents as evidence and to give them an exhibit number.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the derendant has asked to see the document so that he may be able to explain it, I have given him the document and it will depend. upon his answer whether I choose to submit it as a rebuttal document or not. I submit we are not obligated to make a document of ever piece of evidence we present to the defendant for the purpose of cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: So long as defendant and defense counsel are given every opportunity to see, study and scrutinize the document or Paper or memorandum whatever it may be, that the Prosecution is using, there is no necessity of making it an exhibit unless the Prosecution desires to do so.
BY MR. FERENCZ :
Q Now would you please read that question and answer? and subsequent questions and I must say that this question as such is rather taken out of the context, because a few pages previously and a few pages later other questions are mentioned:
"Question No. 29 What was the general opinion of him in the SD?"
Q He is talking about you there, is he not? time afterwards, "What was the general opinion of him in the SD?
"He had a way of treating human beings. He was a ruthless tyrant towards his subordinates. One must not take this amiss but one must blame those people who were the cause for his character becoming like this." your character? liberty of giving the same opinion of him. In any case I doubt that he tried as much as he could to observe the way I treated my co-workers. Schellenberger was so close to Heydrich and Himmler and always cooperated with them so closely that people in a position like mine did not seem important and interesting to him. In any case it is interesting for me that he gave this very careful answer, because as he says, I had a way of dealing with co-workers, this may represent a good way of treating them or a bad way. I know from my own experience that treated my co-worker's very well and that I concerned myself with their worries, but I am sure of one thing that I never thought myself in a position to determine or order their wills or opinions concerning the ways of their lives, that is all I can say.
Q Do you know why he regarded you as a tyrant?
little opportunity to be together with me. kommando Moscow? 20th of August.
Q Are you sure it was the 15th of July? July?
A I beg your pardon?
Q The fourth?
A I have never said that. May I just explain this: Of course, I had been appointed since the 23rd but the departure took place on the 14th or 15th. I not only stated this today but I have said it since the first day of my interrogation. it was explained to you that you were to perform a mission similar to that performed by the Einsatzstaff Rosenberg, is that correct? beginning your activities with the Vorkommando Moscow? that one did not have to study them in particular. Apart from that I must say that my office carried out such tasks in any case. Einsatzstaff Rosenberg in Paris, and you said that you were to do a similar thing in Moscow? berg was sentenced to death partly because of the activities of the Einsatzstaff Rosenberg in Paris?
A I don't know that, but I cannot see any connection between this and the activities of my commandos. the Einsatzstaff Rosenberg did in Paris?
A No, Mr. Prosecutor, there is a very important difference. May I explain it to you? The Einsatzstaff Rosenberg had the task to secure items of art and culture.
Q Does the word "sicherstellen" does that mean confiscate?
A Certainly for him it meant confiscate. He had the task to confiscate items of artistic and cultural value. My task was set down in a special agreement as confiscation of archive material, that is documents of the date prior to 1939; the confiscation of art and cultural items according to Article 56 of the Hague Convention is considered to be prohibited because they are to be considered to be private property, however, the confiscation of archive material, that is, such which are not considered of value for culture and art internationally, they are considered as a war booty and every power at war today considers it their right to confiscate such materials, for example in Germany, during the last two years the Ministerial Collection Center. tion to examining documents, also had the task of confiscating art works, is that correct? time.
Q Do you know about the "M"-action of Einsatzstaff Rosenberg?
Q Perhaps this will refresh your memory. The "M"-action, as found in the judgment of the IMT, was an action by the Einsatzstaff Rosenberg in which they took all the furniture away from all the Jews in occupied territory in the west and sent them back to Germany, did you ever hear of that?
have heard the word "M"-action here. that you were to perform activities similar to those of the Einsatzstaff Rosenberg, is that correct? the measure required that they confiscate the documents and archive material, that was to be carried out, and the rest of the material, the Einsatzstaff Rosenberg would have to confiscate on their own. This could not overlap because of an agreement as laid down in the year 1940.
Q I am not quite clear in your answer. Did you say you were a part of the Einsatzstaff Rosenberg? with the Fuehrer order and on the other hand the tasks of the Archive Commando of Office 7 was set down definitely by this agreement of the year 1940, and in this it had been set down expressly that only archive material and only archive material from the date since 1933 was to be taken, only these, the security police were to confiscate only these. the East similar to what the Einsatzstaff Rosenberg did in the West, which you explained after the examination and studying of documents? in the West but I had to deal with such things Which according to the agreement of Heydrich and Rosenberg in the year 1940, had been given as a task to the SD, only they were to confiscate archive material from the time after 1933.
Q Was the Einsatzstaff Rosenberg to do this by themselves? separately, that this be a task of the SD and the security police and in the future they should carry it out on their own.
Eastern front? berg were to be sent to the East as well but I have never come across any nor did I meet him previously.
Q You stated that there were 23 people in Vorkommando Moscow. How many vehicles did you have.
A Shall I repeat?
Q No, how many vehicles did you have? did you wear a uniform?
Q what want did your uniform indicate?
Q That is equivalent to Colonel, isn't it? Was that an honorary colonel or an honorary uniform? job was a university professor and as my files show, which you have submitted as documents here, I was still practically a member of the Waffen SS.
Q How were you addressed when a soldier came up to you? Did he speak to you as Professor Dr.Six, or did he cell you Colonel? you were just an honorary colonel, if you were dressed as a Colonel, as a commanding officer of a unit and soldiers addressed you as colonel, what do you mean that you were just an honorary SS Colonel now? honorary office.
position? colonels?
Q But you had another job, you used to be a college professor?
Q But one of your positions at least was to be an SS Colonel?
Q I am still confused by that "honorary", was your position as SS Colonel, aside from the fact you had a job elsewhere as a college professor, any different from the position of any other SS colonel? Are you trying to give us the impression that it was just a title that it had or do you mean to tell us that you were wearing the uniform of a colonel and addressed as a colonel and then you say it was an honorary position. Will you please tell me if it was any different from any other SS colonel? This fact is shown by the files you submitted yourself from the main SS office, where it says it quite clearly. I cannot repeat anything else but what I have always said and apart from the fact I did not know about this position and this had been indicated in my files several years before.
Q Did you get paid as a colonel?
Q Did you have the privileges of a colonel?
A What are the privileges?
A I can't say what privileges come within that position. Anyway, I didn't have any.
Q Did you have your own territory or area of operations?
Q You are sure you didn't have your own Gebiet or area of operations? that Smolensk belonged to your Gebiet or area of operations. Can you explain that? mean by saying now that this was in your advance territory? less than an area which was under my competency to carry out the Einsatz tasks, and it would have been like that, and as the title shows Vorkommando Moscow, this was a Commando which had the special task of securing the archives, and it was not an Einsatzstaff Commando owing to the fact I had no operational territory. lensk belonged to your territory? this territory. with 23 men it could be regarded as your area or was regarded as your area by another defendant, is that correct?
A I beg your pardon, would you repeat the question please? your 23 men that is the explanation why Blome said Smolensk was in your territory?
A That is a possible explanation. What he means I don't know, of course.
DR. ULMER: For the defendant Six.
Your Honor, they are referring to an interrogation of Blome. May I ask that the Prosecution state whether this concerns a document already submitted in one of the document books, what exhibit number it has and which book it is in, whether it is a document which had been submitted about a statement of Blome, and I ask that if it is not to be introduced or if the Prosecution does not intend to submit it, that the same reservations be made as concerns Muller and Schellenberger and the dependent Six and that this may be indicated.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, this is an interrogation of the defendant Blome which was not introduced as a document in as much as it is an interrogation. However, in view of the request of defense counsel I will submit the interrogation to the defendant Six and ask him to read the questions and the answers which he has just explained and I will at that allow his defense counsel to examine the document and he may use it any way he sees fit for further questioning of the defendant Blome or when he takes the stand.
DR: ULMER: I am very grateful and I believe this will avoid a number of misunderstandings. MR. FERENCS:
Q. Please read the question and the answer out loud?
A. Who carried out the Action Smolensk? Answer: Smolensk was not one. You are making a mistake here. Well, I know nothing about it. I only went in with the front troops and safeguarded the NKVD building, which was still in good order and then I left again because that belonged to Sixis territory. Shall I continue?
Q. No, thank you, that covers it. Your explanation then, of course is that you don't know why Blume stated that Smolensk was your territory?
A. No, I don't know that.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, please. Since you refer to the witness's rank in the SS, I have been able to locate the personnel records to which the witness referred. Would you please let him look at that document? III-B on page 79 in the English.
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, I am giving the English copy, Your Honor. I don't have the German copy with me.
THE WITNESS: I can read in the English.
MR. FERENCZ: Can also read the English.
THE PRESIDENT: Document No. NO-4807, and he said he reads English so you can have it in English.
MR. FERENCZ: I'll later on give him the other copy so he may follow it also.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You indicated in answer to Mr. Ferencz's question that this personnel record shows that you were an honorary colonel. I don't find that phrase in the document. Would you please indicate which item it is, which can be interpreted as an honorary colonel?
THE WITNESS: On page 1 of the original document, it says, one moment please, I must look it up. It is different in the mimeograph copy. Under the column, "Profession" it says: Secretary: University teacher, and.
then in quite a different handwriting: SS Leader. My profession is given as secretary: college professor, and then SS-leader, I can only understand this to mean that at the time I gave as my main profession that I was a lecturer. Later, although it is not mentioned here, it says here, Employe: foreign office. If the RSHA or the SD Main Office had been my employer, it would have said here, SD Main Office, or Reich Main Security Office. For that reason I stated this.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the basis on which you make your statement that you were only an honorary colonel?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Who makes up this personnel record? Who makes up this Personnel record?
A. That is done by the expert in the So Personnel Department, and, as this file shows in the original, and in German, alterations are made continuously. This file was made in the year of 1937. Perhaps even in the year of 1936, because this time corresponds with the statement: docent, lecturer. Later on I was a professor, and later when all my changes were entered, it was never entered that my main job was in the SD, and I was paid for this, but under profession it says: docent lecturer, employer later foreign office.
THE PRESIDENT: Yo regard these as accurate then?
A. Yes, Your Honor, I also know it, owing to my position, and my payments, and soforth.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. As I glance at this document I see Another item which just fell before my eyes accidently. I would like to ask you a question.
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I asked you not very long ago, maybe only an hour ago, whether you were a religious man, and whether you upheld the church?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Your answer is, yes. Now I'll direct you attention to this personnel record.