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?
Himmler for outstanding service in the Einsatz, but you have no explanation, particularly in view of what you have told the court now for a whole morning?
A I repeat the promotion with this particular text. I have not received. I I had received it, and I inspected it. I would have said so, here. Even if such a promotion was made, I cannot explain why it says special merits and does not say what it means. The Einsatz was mentioned, but it doesn't state the function and, aside from this, there is no special abnormal explanation of what I have just said. I cannot state -
THE PRESIDENT: Did you receive that document?
THE WITNESS: This document I never received. I cannot have received it.
THE PRESIDENT: You knew that you were promoted, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And how were you notified of the promotion?
THE WITNESS: I received a memorandum from Streckenbach and a special order.
THE PRESIDENT: And you say that you didn't receive this letter from Himmler?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: what is your explanation, why you didn't receive an important document of that character?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I am just saying that I did not receive this special order. Even if I had received it-
THE PRESIDENT: So then there is a possibility that yon did receive it?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: You volunteered that even if you had received it, then what? If you had received it, now, what were you going to say?
THE WITNESS: If I had received it, I would say that I have not received it in its form. I do not see any reason why, if such a document is availably and if I actually did receive it, I see no reason why, I should say I didn't.
THE PRESIDENT: Himmler's letters usually got to their destination, did they not?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no reason why this should not have reached you in a normal course of affairs?
THE WITNESS: In any case, I didn't receive it. I have already said that I got my promotion at the beginning of December. It is possible that a explanation is contained in the fact that I got my promotion late, or that for some reason or other it was not received by me. I don't want to deny that I have been promoted, and furthermore I want to say that if I had received this order, I would have said so. I see no reason to deny the receipt of a letter, if I actually received it.
THE PRESIDENT: And you offer no explanation as to why a letter of this importance would not have reached you?
THE WITNESS: From the fact that this was a late promotion, it would be possible that this letter did not reach me.
THE PRESIDENT: I did Not catch that.
THE WITNESS: Apart from the fact that only in the beginning of December I was promoted to Oberfuehrer, that is, not immediately, at the 9th of November, apart from this fact. I have no further explanation. That is what I meant, and I mean. That is to say, that it is possible through this late promotion, I never received this order. When I got my promotion I got a memorandum and I get an order and from these two facts, I assumed that I had been promoted.
THE PRESIDENT: But you offer no explanation as to why a letter of this importance would not have reached you in a normal chouse of affairs?
THE WITNESS: I have no technical explanation for it.
MR. FERENCA: Your Honor, on the letter it says, "for outstanding service in the Einsatz."
Q (By Mr. Ferencz) How do you interpret that?
A I have no interpretation for it. Apart from the fact that, as I have said before, all promotions on the 9th of November probably contained the same statements. The same letters were received. archives, and had no connection with the Einsatzgruppen, how do you explain the word "Einsatz" in there. Did the word Einsatz refer to your activity in the Security Police?
A There are various explanations which could be used. The one is that the promotion was not specified sufficiently by the office of Himmler. A second explanation is that the office, that is the Streckenbach office chose this particular explanation to got me promoted.
Q Doesn't that mean the Security Police Einsatz in the Best?
A Can you repeat the question, please?
Q I say, doesn't that term "Einsatz" refer to your activity with the Security Police Einsatz in the Last? sure, by Himmler. It was suggested and proposed by Streckenbach or Heydrich; I am not certain what reasons there were to use this term. moted for outstanding service, after what you have told us about Heydrich's opinion of you?
A I don't know. I never looked at the proposal that Heydrich or Streckenbach made to Himmler. I don't know whether it was just a routine matter to promote me at the 9th of November and put promotion orders into this form.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, I havehere in my notes that you said that "Heydrich reproached me severely, because I had tried to leave the SD, that he would turn around and recommend you for promotion for the wonderful work you did in the SD?
THE WITNESS: Am I suppose to give an explanation, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there seems to be an inconsistency in your declaration, first, you said that Heydrich reproached you severely, and in answer to a question put by Mr. Ferencz, you said that "possibly Heydrich recommended me for promotion." That seems an inconsistency to the Tribunal. If it doesn't to you, then we will pass on to something else.
Q (By Mr. Ferencz) Did you receive notice of your promotion to Brigadier General in the SS? service with the Einsatzgruppe?
A You mean promotion to Brigadefuehrer? No, that promotion took place in 1945.
Q But in the correspondence concerning your promotion, didn't it say that Franz Alfred Six, Doctor, or Professor, was exceptionally good with the Einsatgruppe in the last and therefore should have been promoted?
A You mean my promotion to brigadefuehrer or Oberfuehrer?
Q I mean in your promotion to Brigadefuehrer; when they told about all your great activities with the SS didn't they also say that you had performed exceptional service with the Security Police and with the Einsatzgruppe in the East?
Court No. II-A, Case No. IX.
A. There is a period of four years in between 1941 and 1945. In 1945 I got my promotion on the 30th of January. It is quite unimaginable that in 1945, again special merits in the past should be mentioned in my promotion.
Q To you it is unimaginable. Let me refresh your imagination and I will read to you, and I will give you the copy to read in a moment.
Q "Reich Main Secruity Office, Berlin, 2 October, 1944, Subject: SS Oberfuehrer Dr. Alfred Six,"is that you?
A. Yes, that is I, That is 1944.
Q "1. Memorandum. The Reich Main Security Office requests the promotion of SS Oberfuehrer Dr. Six to Brigadefuehrer effective 31 January 1945". Then follows a long description of your Party membership, your SS membership, the badges and decorations you have on and it also says, "SIPO Einsatz." "SIPO" means "Security Police", does it not? That refer to the Einsatzgruppe on the Eastern front, does it not? thing which is not true, it says further on that "in his professional career on 9 November 1941, S was promoted by the RFSS" which means the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler" to the SS Oberfuehrer for outstanding service in the Security Police, Einsatz in the East" and so on. I am going to give you this letter so that you can take a look at it. Will you explain, please, to the Tribunal, why it is that this SS correspondence refers to your activities with the Security Police, Einsatz from 22 June to 28 August, 1941, specifically saying East Einsatz and again refers to your promotion by Himmler, because of your outstanding service in the Security Police, Einsatz in the East, when you just went to collect archives and you didn't even do that well, you tell us.
A. The proposal was made by Erlinger, by Erlinger as deputy. That is, that is another man. This is not Streckenbach. Therefore, evidently in his proposal list, he must have referred to this list of the 9th of November, because the wording is exactly the same as the promotion list of November, and when I consider -
Q. Just a moment: The wording is not the same. Let me refresh your memory on that too. The letter from Himmler said "For Outstanding service in Einsatz" and the letter you have before you says "For outstanding service in Security Police Einsatz in the East." It is a little more specific. You haven't answered my question: In view of the story you have been telling us, that you were just collecting archives, how do you explain all this referring to your outstanding service with the Police and with the Einsatz in the East?
A. It says here, I repeat; "for special merits in the Security Police East" he was promoted. I see no large difference between the word Einsatz and Einsatz in the Security Police and the fact that I was a member of the Security Service and that for this Security Service I was in charge of Vorkommando Moscow is without doubt because Office VII was a part of the Security Police and the SD and, therefore, there is no special emphasis or difference as compared against the term used in 1941. It is only a special term which refers to my activity at that time.
Q. Tell me this. You notice it says, "SIPO Einsatz, 22 June 1941 to 28 August 1941, East Einsatz." Now you told us that on the 22nd of June you were ordered to establish the Vorkommando Moscow.
You told us that on the 20th of August, eight days sooner than your records show, you left the Vorkommando Moscow and that Vorkommando Moscow was not part of an Einsatzgruppe, even though the reports show it to be part of an Einsatzgruppe. Now here the letter again indicates that you were active with the Einsatzgruppe.
A. It does not say so, Mr. Prosecution.
Q. It says, "SIPO Einsatz," for those dates you gave plus eight more days.
A. Yes.
Q. East Einsatz.
A. Yes.
Q. Does that mean archive collecting to you?
A. In any case the fact exists that Office VII established the Vorkommando Moscow and that they acted also for their purposes in the East. This is not in contrast because otherwise it should read here "within Einsatzgruppe B." The fact that Vorkommando Moscow was active for the Reich Security Main Office, I never doubted for one moment. I merely said that it was not a part of Einsatzgruppe B.
Q. How do you reconcile your story that you were reprimanded by your superior officers; that you never were a part of an Einsatzgruppe, certainly not Einsatzgruppe B, with the fact that in your personal files you have a letter from Himmler promoting you for your outstanding service in the Einsatz and that in your letter recommending you for promotion to Brigadefuehrer in the SS gives the dates of your activity with the Einsatz and when it says more specifically that you were promoted for outstanding service in the Security Police Einsatz in the East , to me that doesn't resemble archive collecting either. That is, perhaps you can explain it, the same as you have explained everything else?
years after my appointment, that is, in 1941. Furthermore, it is a fact that another man proposed this and it is not the same man who made the proposal in 1941.
Q. So two people made the same mistake, Himmler and Erlinger, is that what you are saying?
A. No, the second is based upon the first, so to speak. The second used the same basis.
Q. And Himmler made the first mistake and Erlinger copied Himmler, although he didn't have the dates of the Einsatzgruppe, he out them down somehow or other, in order to get you a promotion, he told you the dates, which you conveniently forgot, since that was the week they were doing all the killing.
A. Himmler was sent the suggestions. The suggestions were made by the personnel offices. The basic files used are the same, and it is known that the proposals always painted a very beautiful picture and they emphasized all the details to get the promotion through.
Q. Is that the best explanation you have for that?
A. Apart from the fact that the proposal is based on the same basis as the one of the 9th of November, and that there were two different people who made these proposals on the same basis, and that it is also true that Himmler signed them, I have no further explanation. But I must say again that from this it does not become evident that Vorkommando Moscow was a part of Einsatzgruppe B.
got the dates 22 June 1941 to 28 August 1941, for your activity in the Security Police Einsatz in the East? You have told us that you left on the 20th of August, and that our documents showing killings after the 20th of August, and even immediately after, happened as soon as you left. And here you have an official letter saying, that you were with the Security Police Einsatz. until the 28th of August. Where did Erlinger get that information? that on the 20th of August I actually left, and not on the 28th, and I can only say tint after all the witnesses, the living witnesses, who saw when I departed, are more credible than the stated figure in the document books, the probative value of which I do not know, I shall prove that I left on the 20th of August. I think I can find manifold proof of this. My question is:
Q Do you know how Erlinger got that date, 28th of August 1941?
A I do not know ether he received the date, the 28th. It might have been the 20th. It can be a mistake in typing. It may be any mistake. I can only state, and I shall prove, that I left on the 20th, and the men who can bear me out are manifold. I do not know where Herr Erlinger is. Otherwise, he would have to bear me out on that. least as far as that 28th goes?
Q I also notice in this latter that it says, "SS Oberfuehrer Dr. Six is an active and proven National Socialist." Do you notice that?
Q That is true, isn't it?
Q Now let us go back a little bit. When did you first learn of the order to annihilate the Jews?
A You mean the year 1941?
Q That's right.
Q Where?
Q From whom? Einsatzkommnado 9 in Minsk.
Q Tell us something about it, That was the conversation like? He had a certain scientific knowledge and training; he spoke Russian -training concerning the killing of Jews, too. these particular questions were carried out, and he asked mo whether he would be employed in this here, too. out executive measures. executive measures, as yon call thorn -- I call them the murder of defenseless Jews -- is that what you wean by executive measures? measures.
Q What do you mean by executive measures.... writing letters to Himmler, or reading archives. What does executive measures mean? interrogations, etc. including shootings.
Q Interrogations and imprisonment, etc. By etcetera you mean taking people out and shooting them down, isn't that correct?