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.
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Under the heading "Religion"?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And there it says "left church"?
A. I don't know, No, Your Honor, it says there, Religion: believer in God, and in brackets, "Protestant" in the original here.
The president; Well, what does it say after that, the next line?
A. Church K.A. Might mean: left church.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, is that true?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You did leave the church?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, so, therefore, your interest in these churches in Moscow was not because you had any reverent belief in the church, was it?
A. I believe the question doesnot exclude that even if I was not a member of the church I could still be a religious person, or am one.
THE PRESIDENT: Well you were not religious enough to want to stay in the church?
A. I was not religious enough not to have to stay in a church, but I claimed for myself, from reasons of freedom of conscience that I had to try to find a relation to God, as I thought I had to find it.
THE PRESIDENT: Why did you leave the Church?
A. Why?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
A. Why, for the simple reason because I believe that I could find my way to God without an intermediary.
THE PRESIDENT: Then why did you believe in saving these churches in Moscow? Couldn't all these other parishiners and worshippers also find God without an intermediary of the church?
A. That is a principle of freedom of conscience and belief i.e.
That every human being can find his way to God, ashe considers it to be right.
THE PRESIDENT: You feel that the church is necessary for these others but not for yourself?
A. Not that I consider it necessary, but for this fact, that every individual may search a vasic way to God, whether it be through the church, or whether it is done intermediarily.
THE PRESIDENT: When you answer my question this morning---
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: (continuing) as to whether you were a religious man, we gathered the impression that you were a man who believed in God, and attended church?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: But you do not attend the church. You left the church?
A. Yes, I left the church, but I want to assure you, Your Honor, that it does not change my statement that I am a religious person, and that my belief in God has nothing to do with my leaving the church. BY MR FERENCZ:
Q. You say that your special task was collecting archives, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your general task?
A. May I have the question repeated, I did'n get it.
Q. So you think your special task was to collect archives, but what was your general task? Did you have another function besides that?
A. No, I didn't say it was my special task, but it was a specialized task within this commando.
Q. I want to call your attention to Document Book- III-B, page 34, perhaps your defense counsel can give it to you in the German.
A. Thirty-four. (discussion between counsel)
Q. You will notice in paragraph 2 which begins on page 33 of the English, and goes over there to page 34, discussion of the functions of commandos expected to enter Moscow. It says: No assignment will be made until the fall of Moscow; thence, "neigher important material nor Communist officials can be seized." This is right before the end of paragraph 2. Wasn't it also part of your function in addition to the confiscating of documents to seize Communist officials if you could find them?
A. No.
Q. When you were in Smolensk, did you participate in combing the city for officials, experts, criminals, Jews, etc?
A. No.
Q. I want to call your attention now to Document Book II-B, page 8, at page 6 of the German, Document NO-2837, on page 7 of the English, it states: "In Smolensk some quarters of the town were systematically combed for officials, agents, criminals, Jewish intelligence, etc." Didn't your interpreters assist in this work?
A. There were few cultural quarters of the city where a systematic search for functionaries, partisans, and Jews and that were combed for such people, the result of which 74 people were shot. I never participated in any thing like that.
Q. Didn't your interpreters assist in these search actions throughout the city of Smolensk?
A. May I have the exact words again please?
Q. Didn't your interpreters assist in these search actions throughout the city of Smolensk?
A. In this search action in which several quarters of the city were completely destroyed, as a result of which 74 people were shot, no interpreters of mine took part in such activity, either.
Q. Did they assist in other search actions to find Jewish intelligencia, and Communist officials?
A. They didn't take part in any other either, in which people of that kind were searched for, or found, or shot.
Q. You and your own particular men who were qualified for this type of work did nothing then in Smolensk, while the rest of the troops was we busy, is that correct?
A. We did nothing with the rest of the troops?
Q. While the rest of the troops were so busy hunting Jews and Communists?
A. That troops do you mean?
Q. The SS-troops, or whoever it was. The Einsatzgruppe- which participated in these killings, in this particular case, EinsatzgruppeB troops?
A. In every case I can only repeat, that I didn't take part in any action in which Jews, Intelligencia, Functionaries, agents and looters were searched for, and as a result of which 74 people were liquidated, or had been arrested. That was the answer, of course, wasn't it to your question?
Q. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, you didn't ask whether he participated. You asked whether the interpreters did.
Mr. FERENCZ: Whether the interpreters participated. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q. Did your answer cover your interpreters, too?
A. No, nor did my interpreters take part in such task as described here, in particular, with such results as the shooting of 74 people.
Q. What other unite were in Smolensk at that time to do this sort of work?
A. In Smolensk ?
Q. Yes?
A. First of all, the Wehrmacht might have been there. Secondly, the police might have been there. The field commands. That is, quite a number of units.
Q. Anybody else?
A. Group-staff? Do you mean those?
Q. I am asking you -
A. In any case, I don't know of any action where the Group-staff had to carry out such an action in which 74 people were executed.
Q. Was the group-staff present in Smolensk?
A. From the 5 August on the Group-staff was present in Smolensk, I already stated that.
Q. This particular document lists these killings under Einsatzgruppe-B, part of a report from Einsatzgruppe-B?
A. My document here shows me only a heading, "actions against funtionaries, agents, Jews, sabotuers, and looters," without a date.
Q. The date is on the document, and that is before you, you have just read it, the heading, "Einsatzgruppe-B, location Smolensk." And then it goes on and describes the killing of these 74 persons?
A. What am I to reply to this?
Q. You were trying, to convey the impression that Einsatzgruppe-B or the staff of Einsatzgruppe-B certainly could not have done these things.
Is that still your impression after looking at this document, or do you think after looking at this, this was the activity of Einsatzgruppe-B?
A. I can not say from the documents who might have carried out this action, but I can assert and say one thing for certain, and I want to repeat this, that in this action the vor kommando did not take part in any form, and in this respect didn't participate in any search action, and these results they were not connected with it, and I did not take part in it.
Q. You are an expert on archives and documents. Did you look at this item, Document saying, "Einsatzgruppe-B, location Smolensk," describing killing of 74 People in Smolensk, and you say you can't tell whether it was done by the Einsatsgruppe-B, is that correct?
A. I can not say that because I don't know anything about it.
Q. You stated that you were not part, or the Vorkommando Moscow was not part of Einsatsgruppe-B, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. As an expert on documents, can you tell me why, if you were not part of Einsatsgruppe-B, the reports continually lists the Vorkommando Moscow under the heading of Einsatzgruppe-B, and in the place where they are describing activity of units of Einsatzgruppe-B?
A. I already stated during my direct examination that there are two location reports, simple location reports, which Nebe mentioned in his reports. These two which quoted, namely of 23 July and I believe of 27 July, they are only location reports; the next report which is submitted again in which Vorkommando Moscow is mentioned again is 29 August, and on 29 August I was no longer in Smolensk. Even if the time of the report and the time of the courier deducted from it, one can assume for certain that it was made out after my departure. Therefore, to repeat, and I want to mention this specifically, that the first two location reports were not made following reports from me, but must have certainly been compiled by Nebe, in his own authority and that I, furthermore, in this report of the 29th in my own handwriting--, and at my suggestion, made no reports, therefore, I can only repeat that the first two reports were made up after my departure, that is, at the time when he put himself in charge of the kommando, I can not be responsible for that.
Q. In other words, to summarize it, you say that if the reports show Vorkommando Moscow, or your unit, under description of "Einsatzgruppe-B activities" during your time, the reports are wrong, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that Vorkommando Moscow, at least during your time, was not part of Einsatzgruppe-B?
A. It was not part of the Einsatzgruppe-B during my time. I have confirmation of that; I have proof of that, and that is my opinion to the very end.
Q. Why did you turn Vorkommando Moscow over to Einsatzgruppe-B?
A. There was no other leader in Moscow, that is, in Smolensk to whom I could have handed it over.
Q. How about Klingelhofer?
A. Klingelhofer, didn't have a special function in my commando; that is, he was not commissioned , nor was he brought along by me for any special task; or thus appointed by Berlin, therefore, there was not any other way, if there is a recall for me from Berlin than to hand over the commando until new instructions came from Berlin, to the highest SS leader.
Q. Who was your deputy in Vorkommando Moscow?
A. I never had a deputy.
Q. Who was the next highest ranking officer?
A. The next highest ranking officer was Sturmbannfuehrer Klingelhofer, but it was a mere coincidense, because he was not chosen for that, nor did I know him previously, and owing to that he did not act as deputy at all for me.
Q. You are saying then when you went back to Berlin, instead of turning your unit over to your next highest ranking officer, the defendant Klingelhofer, you turned it over to a unit which you were not connected previously, Einsatzgruppe-B, is that your answer?
A. No, that is not my reply. My answer is: Until a new commander or chief of this kommando was sent by Berlin, unless Klingelhofer's name had been mentioned especially from Berlin, I had to hand it over to the highest rank at the place.
Q. And you could not just leave it with the highest ranking officer in your unit, but you turned the whole thing over to a completely different unit with which you were not previously connected?
A. Well, when the Vorkommando Moscow was set up, it was attached to me personally. I personally took up the commitment with the Division Reich. It was founded on my activity---
Q. Please answer the question, and then give us the explanation.
A. What did you want me to answer now?
Q. Is it correct that instead of turning it over to the next highest ranking officer, Klingelhofer, you turned it over to a completely independent unit, Einsatzgruppe-B, with which you had not been previously connected? Is that correct?
A. According to the channel of command it seemed to be the only right way for me.
Q. What do you mean by "channel in which the news came"?
A. I did not have my own technician set, so I could not get news to my aid, owing to that the order for transfer from Berlin came through the Einsatzgruppe, through the radio, therefore, if no other specialized order had been given, I must consider it to be right to choose that way.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you like to recess now, Mr. Ferencz?
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be recess until 1:45 o'clock.
(The Court recessed unti 1345 hours, 27 October 1947).
(The Hearing reconvened at 1350 hours, 27 October 1947).
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q Six, What is your connection with Himmler? on occasions when there was a larger circle present. with him?
A What do you mean, official relations? Of course, as an SS leader, as an SS Reich Leader, he was my highest superior.
Q Did you ever talk to Himmler?
Q Did Himmler know about your work?
A What work do you mean?
A It is possible. No, he had no special knowledge in a way that he might have known where I was aprat from a special appointment, no. a document we discussed or you discussed briefly yesterday. There are two interesting points in this document I would like to look into again. You will notice on Page 29 of the German, Page 27 of the English, that it states that the Staff and the Vorkommando Moscow liquidated 144 persons up to the 20th of August, 1941. On the page before that, page 26, the middle of the page, it says that the Vorkommando Moscow was forced to execute another 46 persons, amongst them 38 intellecutal Jews who had tried to create unrest in the ghetto at Smolensk. Do you tell us that the Vorkommando which you headed had nothing to do with these killings?
Vorkommando Moscow killed 144 persons up to the 20th of August applies only to the staff and not to Vorkommando Moscow, in that correct? gruppe B, say that the Einsatzgruppe B Staff was not occupied and could not have carried out any killings. In view of his answer how do you reconcile that with your statement that these 144 were killed by the Staff? Group Staff and the Advance Kommando Moscow had carried cut 144 executions cannot concern the Vorkommando Moscow as a matter of fact. That is for a variety of reasons. As I stated the Advance Kommando Moscow never carried out any shootings, and as this Vorkommando, this Advance Kommando did not carry out any shootings, there is no other conclusion that they must have been carried out by the staff. 144 persons. You say it could not have been the Vorkommando Moscow inasmuch as you did not have the facilities for killing. Naumann says the staff did not carry out any killings because the staff did not have the facilities for killing. How can you reconcile the two. fuehrer Naumann made his statements. As far as I can see from his statements here that must have arrived in Smolensk in either November or December. Whether conditions changed or he made any alterations I don't know in detail and I cannot it. could not have carried out these killings inasmuch as there were only twenty-three men and they were transistors and interpreters, is that correct?