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?
executions; I said that it has not carried out executions. It did not carry them out. I first made an absolute concrete statement about the Vorkommando Moscow not carrying out any shootings. And then there is a report here which was made after my departure which mentions the staff and the Vorkommando Moscow, and I have tried to find an explanation, how I can concoct and explanation analytically. If I say the Staff carried cut 144 executions and the Vorkommando none at all, then there will he still 144.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, the Witness mentioned the month of November which I don't reconcile with this report which specifically says August. Can you give me an explanation as to what he meant by November?
MR. ERENCA: No, Sir. Perhaps the witness can explain it.
THE WITNESS: I was no witness of it, and I have no personal knowledge of shootings of the Group staff. Whatever I have said and analyzed out of these documents applies only to the documents we have here.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, I understood you to say in making an explanation of this item that a certain group arrived there in November. Did you use the month of November in a previous answer?
THE WITNESS: I was asked by the Prosecutor how HerrNaumann came to his explanation and my answer was that according to what I heard here Naumann must have arrived at the Einsatzgruppe at the beginning of December and I have to find out whether the documents, refer to November orDecember. Personally I can not give an opinion to this because I wasn't there at that time. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q Were your interpreters armed? rifle. That was merely a matter of security in a military fighting combat zone. It was after all a territory which was a combat zone in those days, which can be proved by the dates.
to have executed 144 persons, would it not?
Q Now you say, of course, that they didn't. On Page 26 we have the statement that the Vorkommando Moscow was forced to execute another 46 persons, amongst them 38 intellectual Jews. My question is if the Vorkommando Moscow was only there to collect archives, as you have been telling us, how do you explain the fact that they suddenly started killing the Jews?
A I don't know whether this report is correct and true. I accept it as a fact from the reports we have here. I furthermore testified that at my time there were no shooting of any kind. To this report in particular furthermore I said that the Advance commando Moscow did not carry out any shootings of Jews. If this report was made at any period after my departure, which, of course, I do not know, then it could be possible that the changeover brought it about, the changeover, I mean, which Nebe carried out After my departure, but again I cannot say anything as to this because at the time of my presence there there were no changes. Forkommando may have started to kill Jews as shown in this report, but during your time they were just archive collectors, is that correct? Whether they were carried out afterwards, after I had left, I do not know. Vorkommando Moscow carried out considerable numbers of executions. Do you have the same explanation about those, that the character of the Vorkommando changed after you left and then they started executing the Jews, but during your time they were just archive collectors?
A Here again I can only give the spine answer. At my time there were no executions. With the date of my departure, this becomes evident from the collection I have here, a uniform kommando was established, a common Kommando. For what reasons and why it was established I do not know.
twenty-three men, were they all scholars and students as you have tried to picture them and yourself?
A What do you mean? certain knowledge and training. You have explained at great length that you are a professor with many degrees, a learned man, and that is why you were put in command. Was it equally true about the other members of your unit, Were they also scholars and learned gentlemen? principles. Some had an intimate knowledge of Moscow, some were interpreters and had knowledge of achieves. killing the Jews the moment you left? attitude as to this. were you not? keen on shooting people or that they had the wish to do so. left, the Vorkommando Moscow started shooting at least hundreds of people?
A You mean when I left? been then after you left. You can see the documents now. If you like I will place them before you again, but you have seen them, saying the Vorkommando Moscow executed thousands of people, or at least hundreds. Didn't that surprise you in view of your knowledge of the nature of the assignment and the caliber persons you had working with you?
put in charge of the kommando he changed the Vorkommando Moscow for his own purpose - perhaps not or perhaps partly with perhaps. I mean that I am not certain whether the whole number of various u its referred to the Vorkommando Moscow also. did you refuse? my kommando from an archive kommando to an Einsatzkommando from this moment I am in charge of an Einsatzkommando, and as such I am subordinate to the Einsatz orders fro various reasons, for instance, in the assignment of task in the operational theater, whereas I had no operational theater before when it was an archive kommando.
Q Why didn't you want to be in charge of an Einsatzkommando? charge of an archive kommando. This archive kommando was within my field of interests. I cannot imagine if Nebe suddenly would have had the idea of putting me in charge of an Einsatzkommando, that I would have complied or would here like to comply with such a wish. When I was supposed to be entrusted with it I said there was no reason why I should take it over, and I made use of the only means of my disposal, I sent a teletype message to Berlin and asked for my relief. Einsatzkommandos which made you object to becoming an Einsatzkommando leader? authorized to assign me to such a task. That alone was quite sufficient for me. with the Einsatzkommandos but you didn't like Nebe to have higher authority than you?
A My decision at that time was of the following nature. I did not want to change my kommando and for that reason I asked my release.
The other reason was an entirely different one. Einsatzkommandos? I did not see them with my eyes. Therefore, from my own knowledge here I can give no answer to that question, or no satisfactory answer. requesting your release? correct?
Q You say: therefore, that it was possible, at least for you, to get released from duty on the Lastern front by simply writing a letter or sending a cable, and in five days you get back the reply saying you were released, is that correct? to Streckenbach, and in this letter I stated that the tasks with which I had been entrusted would take months as the military situation was a new one, and that under these conditions my presence was no longer justified and no longer necessary, and therefore this order or this assignment by Nebe to take over such a task as I had a special assignment with which I had arrived from Berlin, and that under no circumstances I would be Nebe's subordinate. And to this I got that answer. ivities taking part in Smolensk and you didn't want to be a part of them?
Q Why didn't you ask also for the release or withdrawal of year twenty-three men who also had a special assignment, you say?
subordination. It is quite possible that the others would wait for a few mouths until the Moscow assignment was topical again. Personally I did not have this intention. For this reason I asked for my release. The aim was to conquer Moscow, but as I said, according to the information we received, this might have taken months. to a strange organization and reported back to Berlin. What happened when you got to Berlin?
Q Just one question. What happened when you got to Berlin?
A I said before that I left the kommando to its tasks. I said in Berlin that would be necessary to send a new commander. gather, what did he say? November, and in between there was a period of two months, and as I have already explained, and I tried to make it as explicit as possible, he reproached me very severely and he drew my attention to the fact that for a lone time I had tried to leave the SD for the Waffen SS and as he accused me with desertion then I was from the SD since I was now trying to get to the Waffen SS. He also said that he was not pleased with my attitude during the last few years and he reproached me and said I had been unfaithful and disobedient. activity. Did he mention anything specifically about your activity in the Einsatzgruppe? Was he pleased about that, or was he displeased about that too?
A What should he have been pleased with? I don't understand the concrete question. disobedient and disloyal. I am not quite just sure why he called you those thing? Was it because of your activities with the Einsatzgruppen? time previously and especially, of course, because of having applied for being released. On the other side, of course, he could not expect me to have myself as a chief of an office subordinated to another chief.
Q Isn't it a fact that contrary to what you have just told me, you were highly regarded and that your activity with the Einsatzgruppe had been exceptionally well done?
difficulties, which lasted two months and that it lasted until the end of November, until the difficulties were put aside and then these dealings with Streckenbach come to comprise. I also stated that in the beginning of December I got my promotion re-effective with the 9th of November. If you mean that, I cannot say anything further. These are the facts and I have already stated this-
Q Isn't it true -period of three to three and a half months in between.
Q Isn't it true that you were promoted on the 9th of November because of your exceptional service with the Einsatzgruppe? about special merits. I am quite certain of that.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer isn't specific, Mr. Ferencz.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, his last sentence that he has said that in his recommendation it doesn't say anything about his exceptional service, but that appears to be an absolute falsehood and I mean to show him him letter of promotion.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed.
THE WITNESS: You said, Mr. Prosecutor, because of exceptional service in the Einsatzgruppe. That is what I denied.
Q (By Mr. Ferencz) Did you get promoted for exceptional service in anything? Did you get promoted for your exceptional service in anything? My question is put just now; you are telling us now that for years you were in disfavor with Heydrich. You never did anything right, for the SS, trying to paint a picture as though you were very unpopular; now I am asking you: Did you get promoted because of exceptional service in anything? You say that you did not get promoted because of exceptional service in anything?
You say that you did not get promoted because of exceptional service in the Einsatz; was it because of exceptional service some place else that you got promoted a few weeks after you left the Einsatzgruppe?
A That is not known to me. I only know that there were no special merits concerned with my promotion, nor was it in the least in the Einsatzgruppe.
Q Did you receive your notice of promotion?
Q Whom did it come from?
Q Who signed it?
A I cannot remember the details. As a rule, or, to a certain extent, I do not know up to Oberfuehrer Handattenfuehrer - they were signed by Heydrich promotions to higher ranks were signed by Himmler. give you a copy so that you can look at it. "To SS STandartenfuehrer Dr. Six, Franz Alfreds, SS No." so and so. "SD Main Office."
"I hereby promote you, effective 9 November 1941, to SS Oberfuehrer for outstanding service in Einsatz." Signed "H. Himmler." Would you take a look at this, please? Now tell me is that you, Dr. Franz Alfred Six? Is that you? by Himmler promoting you for your outstanding service in the Einsatz? any promotion letter of this kind containing this sentence. for your outstanding service in the Einsatz?