A He didn't ask me that. He gave me that one answer, and that had nothing to do with it.
Q Now, Professor Dr. Six, you are telling us about executive measures, and you say that means imprisonment, interrogations, etcetera. Isn't it a fact, known to you now and known to you then, that executive measures meant taking the Jews out,all of them, and killing them? Now answer that question.
A I wasn't present. used.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, he already answered that basic question, and now he is getting off on a side track. You asked him when did he first learn of the order to annihilate Jews. He said between July 7th and July 10th. Now, that is the answer to the question. He learned of the order to annihilate Jews at that time. Now proceed from that point. BY MR. FERENCZ: the Jews? executions of Jews.
QA Is that all you said to him? He says -- "Will you carry out executions of Jews?" -- and the first time you hear this you said, "My Commando does not carry out executions of Jews." Is that all?
A I said, we are not concerned in it. It is not our task, nor our assignment.
Q If that was the first time you heard of it, weren't you surprised, didn't you ask him "What do you mean -- executions of Jews?" or was it customary to have someone come to you and tell you, "I am carrying out executions of defenseless peoples" -- and you didn't ask him anything about it? Please try to be a little more credible.
and he told me that he had found it out at his garrison -- I don't know what name he mentioned -- he had been told then that it was an assignment; and I learned it then, and I told him that this was not our task.
Q You didn't tell him, "That sounds to me like a shame and a scandal" -- did you?
A I told him we had nothing to do with it; it is not our assignment. or shame, or displeasure, at this prospect of German soldiers or troops murdering defenseless people? measures. elimination of Jewry you never had any knowledge. Tell me, between yesterday and today, when did you suddenly acquire this knowledge?
A What general measures; what special measures?
Q Let me read you from the transcript. You were being questioned about your activities of Vorkommando Moscow, and the question was, "Well, then, before your march with the Advance Commando Moscow, did you receive any knowledge about the execution order? Answer: Yes. Question: When? Answer: when the leaders of other Commandos arrived, these questions --"
Q "......these questions naturally were mentioned and discussed. But I myself -- and I have to make a point in stating this -- had no knowledge about the general elimination of Jewry. Especially about the extermination of Women and children. As I said, I had no knowledge, and never received any knowledge."
When did you change your mind, between yesterday and today? about information. I emphasized I received information from the leaders of the Commandos, but I received no instructions. I made a difference between instruction and information. "instruction" and "knowledge"?
Q Does than transcript say "knowledge"?
A Then it would have to be examined. I said information and instruction.
Q Information and instruction, is what you said?
A Dr. I said I received information, and I have not received instruction.
Q Let me read it to you again: "As I said, I had no knowledge and never received any knowledge." Does that mean "instructions" to you?
Q Now it should. I agree. You didn't say it yesterday, though. Now, to whom did you protest about this general order about the elimination of the Jews? certain personality. The only possibility to lodge a protest would have been in Berlin; therefore, I never discussed this question in the given situation, and I could never actually protest.
Q Isn't it a fact that you were in favor of the elimination of Jewry, and therefore you didn't protest?
Q It isn't a fact that you were in favor of the elimination of Jewry? You just said no. Now, are you changing your answer to yes? shootings of the Jews.
Q When did you agree to the elimination of the Jews?
A I don't know what you mean.
Q You didn't agree in June or July. Isn't it a fact that you did agree at some time to the general elimination of the Jews? is that correct?
A What do you mean - agree to it? That I just said, "I agree to the shooting of the Jews." Is that what you mean?
Q I mean this. You heard of the order, or you gained knowledge, of the program to exterminate the Jews. You said you didn't protest to anybody because there was nobody there to protest to; whereas, it is actually a fact, and you know it, that you didn't protest because you were in favor of the program. Now, isn't that true? East because there were no superiors to whom I could protest.
Q Didn't you in fact tell the others that it was & good thing to eliminate the Jews, that it was necessary - as a good National Socialist didn't you further Hitler's program?
Q You did not?
Q What kind of a National Socialist were you? You read the report that you were a good National Socialist. You admit that you knew Hitler's program concerning the Jews.
Are you now trying to tell us that you were not in favor of that program? I could say - I tried to express it. I have no possibility now, or at least words do not suffice, for the expression of what I have to say. a loss of words. Isn't it a fact that as a good National Socialist you favored the program to exterminate the Jews? That you spoke in favor of it... if you want me to be more specific. Yes or no?
Q Then let me show you that you are a liar. I have here a confidential report made at the Works Session of the Consultants on Jewish questions on German missions in Europe. 3 and 4 April 1944. Krummhuekel.Do you remember that?
Q Were you there?
Q Did you make a speech? it. going to put to me.
Q You have seen the document, haven't you?
A No, I never saw it. And I always doubted the authenticity of it.
Q Well, let me read it to you. Perhaps you will remember. This was a session of members of the Foreign Office, was it not, to discuss the Jewish question. Is that correct?
A No. It was not. It was a session of the Foreign Office in which an information office was to be erected to deal with the question of a counter intelligence on so-called Jewish propaganda.
Q Did you make a speech on the Jewish question at that time? contained in the minutes....I just spoke about the Jewish organizations as such.
Q But you did say something about the Jewish question. You remember that? speech can be proved outside the context of the speech, and I can therefore, without a confidential agent, menage to remember what I said at that time. Therefore, it is of main importance for me, and it is only relevant what I know and what I can produce here as evidence.
Q At that meeting didn't they discuss the measures which were being taken to murder all the Jews? I was only for two hours at this meeting, and I left immediately afterwards. Therefore I could not have knowledge on any questions that were dealt with there from own experience or later informations. but while you were there, nothing happened, is that correct? bear me out, and they will say that after two hours, after I had delivered my short speech which lasted 30 minutes, I left.
Q Forty people weren't discussing the same subject, were they? They were 40 of a kind, were they?
Q Let me read you something. These are the minutes of the meeting, end it says here, in parenthesis: "As to the details of the state of the executive measures" -- and we just discussed executive measures -"in the various countries reported by the Consultant, are to be kept secret.
It has been decided not to enter them in the protocol." Now, let me read the minutes of what you said.... I will only read parts of it, though they are all consistent.
A It is a excerpt, Mr. Prosecutor. It is not the complete text.
Q No?
A The Minutes are not signed. They are not signed with a name.
Q For a man who hasn't seen this report you certainly know a lot about it.
A I am only asking. You said it was a confidential report. that it is Unsigned, that it is just an abstract; and a minute ago you said you never saw it. Now let me read what it says for the benefit of the Court - the Court doesn't know it. by now I know what it says in this report, what it is supposed to say and what it does not say.
Q Your knowledge of archives is amazing, Professor. It says here, under Professor Six: "Elimination of Eastern Jewry to deprive Jewry of biological resource. The Jewish question must be solved not only for German but also internationally". Jewish question you mean going for all documents in the archives and go study them somewhere. what did you mean by that? uttered, and I have no confidence in confidential reports which bear no signature, and I have no confidence in a witness who cannot be cross examined in this Court. Furthermore, I have heard about the participants and I have asked for affidavits to be made out, because this statement is so extensive and of such importance that it appeared to me even during the first days of my interrogation - and I thought that it must be corrected as from then.
Q What kind of a National Socialist were you if you didn't believe in those ideals? You mean that you repudiated Hitler? Is that what you are trying to tell us now? You were a good National Socialist but you did not believe in what Hitler proclaimed end carried out throughout the world? Is that what you are trying to tell us?
Q Yes or no. Then you can explain it.
A May I have this question repeated. It is very complicated.
Q It is not very complicated. You said you didn't make those statements, statements furthering the annihilation of the Jews. Your reports have shown that you were a good national Socialist. I am asking you if you repudiated the Hitler doctrine for the annihilation of the Jews.
A Evidently I said that, yes. I give an affirmative -
Q You say now that you repudiate Hitler's doctrine?
MR. FERENCZ: I have no further questions, your Honor.
DR. ULMER: Why I ask that this last document, so-called Krummhuebler Speech, be shown to me -- or has it been submitted? I never saw it.
MR. FERENCZ: I will introduce the document in evidence, Your Honor, and at that time the defense counsel will have access to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
(A recess was taken.)
MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. MAYER: Counsel for Defendant Klingelhoefer: tomorrow, Tuesday, and the day after, Wednesday, in order to prepare his examination, I ask that he be excused from the sessions?
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Klingehoefer will be excused from attendance tomorrow and Wednesday in accordance with the request by his counsel.
DR. MAYER: Thank you, Your Honor.
DR. ERICH M. MAYER: Counsel for Defendant Braune: Braune.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Braune will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow in accordance with the request of his defense counsel.
DR. KOESSL FOR DR. GAWLIK: For the Defendant Seibert: from attendance in order to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Seibert is excused from attendance in Court tomorrow Tuesday and Wednesday.
DR. ULMER: For the Defendant Dr. Six:
May I address a few brief questions on re-direct examination?
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed:
DEFENDANT, DR. SIX BY DR. ULMER: research? against Jewdom for Streicher or for whom was it prepared? ly the Jewish philosophy and Jewish Arab philosophy and the German philo sophy, concerning mysticism and other philosophies that was the program which I was to develop in this research but it never really come to that.
Q What scientific publications did Ovvice VII make during that time?
A Five or six books were published. I will give a few, for example, "Die Illuminaten", that is Free Masonary, an organization between 1790 and 1820, and another one was called the "Golden Rosen Kreuzer", that is a mystic organization in the 18th century; then the influence of the Great Prussian Landes Logen, and the participation of the dynasty in Germany, altogether there were five or six books.
Q About Jewry no publications were made?
Q Now another problem. How strong was an EinsatzKommando with executive tasks compared with the personal of your Archive Commando which amounted to 23 men? whole commando in front of me and, therefore, I can only say, what I heard, that the so called Sonder Commando had 80 to 100 men and an Einsatz Commando about 200 men, but I did see that with my own eyes.
Q And with the Vorkommando Moscow you were Standartenfuehrer?
Q At that time what was your rank as a soldier in the army? Waffen SS. I had been out on leave and had been requested for this task.
Q What was your military rank in the Waffen SS at the time? relieved only later. as an organization? or police troop?
self a colonel or could a brigadefuehrer call himself a major general, or did this extra military or honorary title have to be given out expressly? to be set up because at the same time it was a position in the civil service and that was unnecessary for me because I already was a civil servant. Therefore, I did not need it. officer in the Waffen SS, ever given to you? or Major General?
Q And now a third suggestion: In the approaches of the Prosecution about the recommendation for/promotion, the word "Einsatz" is mentioned. How was the word "Einsatz" used in the last war? Was it used as a collective definition for military service? front, then he was "un Einsatz", he was in the committment, that is, in the "Einsatz". 1941 as a special privilege or were you due for promotion or did you feel that it was high time you were promoted?
A I had not been promoted for three and a half years. And as Gruppenleiters, that means people of a lower rank and workers in the RSHA had become Oberfuehrers already, and I as a Standartenfuehrer, of course, could expect that the office chief had to have a rank no lower than the person subordinate to him, the Gruppenleiter. some committment ("Einsatz") had to be concerned or confirmed it, what I am trying to say is that if the promotion and the suggestion for pro Coutt II-A, Case IX motion had not referred to some kind of committment, would a promotion have been possible at all during the war?
A War service itself was condition for such promotion. Through the war, for example, I had been a soldier for more than a year with the Waffen SS, fighting at the front as an artillery officer.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, those were my questions on redirect examination. It is all of the questions I have to the defendant as a witness. I want to explain some things. that owing to the difficulties in obtaining documents and the delays owing to the translation of documents, at the moment it is impossible for me to submit my document books to you now. I, therefore, Ask you to permit me that the documents may be submitted later, but fairly soon.
THE PRESIDENT: Your request is granted.
DR. HEIM: For the Defendant Blobel: witness, would you permit me to state here expressly that I do not consider the witness to be an expert on international law and an expert on the moral laws end laws of humanity without having the intention to under estimate the ability or moral attitude of the witness. Since, however the Tribunal end else the Prosecution have put some hypothetical Questions to the witness concerning this matter and for the reason of his replies to this question from which possibly some conclusions for the judgment on and the actions of the other defendants could be made, particularly concerning my client Blobel, I want to address a few questions to the witness in order to clarify so far as I consider them to be necessary for the defense of the Defendant Blobel. BY DR. HEIM:
Q Dr. Six, you said this morning during the cross-examination by the Prosecution, "If I had been given orders to shoot women end children, then owing to my inner attitude I can say I would prefer to die." Dr. Six, I want to ask you about this: Do you believe that the moral laws and the laws of humanity absolutely require to prefer suicide particularly then during the war and particularly in a committment then to carry out an order, that is an order to shoot women and children?
MR. HOCHWALD: If your Honors, please, I would like to taise an objection to the question of Dr. Heim. He has just said he does not consider the witness to be an expert for moral law and Laws of humanity but the question he is putting to him is a question to an expert. Do you think it is necessary, I do think that there is a strong contradiction between the explanation of Dr. Heim and the question he puts to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, you will either have to take this witness as someone exceptionally qualified to answer such a hypothetical question and which he will be bound by for himself or you will have to exclude the possibility of any expertness on the part of the witness, and then take him as he is and answer for himself.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, the Tribunal and also the Prosecution have addressed questions about this to the witness concerning the basic ideas of the laws of humanity and the moral laws. I must say that the witness throughout several hours stated his opinion on this. I believe this justifies me in addressing questions concerning this without being able to consider the witness to be an expert on the principles of the laws of humanity.
DR. HOCHWASL: If Your Honors please, if the Tribunal and the Prosecution asked the witness a hypothetical question and the Tribunal and the Prosecution wanted to know the position of the witness for himself, Dr. Heim, of course, has the liberty to ask his client what he was thinking at the time but if he asks Dr. Six about hypothetical questions on humanity and on morals then he obviously takes him for an expert on this question, and the question on the part of the Tribunal and the Prosecution put to Dr. Six are very different from what Dr. Heim is doing. The Tribunal and the Prosecution wanted to know the position of the witness himself and Dr. Heim wants a statement of what his client would have eventually been thinking which is a completely different situation.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, on the part of the Prosecution the witness is supposed to be an expert. I think owing to this fact I have the right to address other questions concerning this to the witness. In my previous statement I merely stated my personal opinion as defense counsel for the Defendant Blobel.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, this witness has presented himself in a multiple personality at various times. He has testified using a defendant's roll, he has been a professor, he has been a soldier, he has been a journalist, he has been a Dean, he has been an archive collector, and now, you want to qualify him as an expert, that makes him six different people, now his name happens to be "Six" but still he is only one person, and whatever question you will put to him he will answer as Franz Alfred Six, so we will permit the question, but let's remember at all times that he is answering the question and not some abstract personality. BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Herr Dr. Six, would you personally as yourself, not as any abstract personality, answer my following question: Do you believe that the laws, the moral laws and the law of humanity absolutely requires to prefer to commit suicide than to carry out a military order during a war, particularly where there is a commitment concerned , an order to shoot women and children.
A. I am trying to formulate my reply as clearly as you have asked the question, Dr. Heim. From a legal point of view this is a question of personal discretions, and from a moral point of view, if I can separate this at all, and I think this is difficult,it is a question about the decision of ones own personal will, is the first item. Everybody has to decide for himself. If a man chooses for himself to carry out any such kind of an order, then this is his own personal decision. If he rejects it is an order which should not be given to him then that's a different decision. In the case I think I have to say that the order in itself puts everyman before the question and everybody had to give the answer himself. This is not a question which appeared only today but it is a question that is going throughout the history of modern moral law, and this tension cannot be done away with in the future either. It can only be answered in each individual case.
Q. Witness, is it at all possible to explain today whether you or, for instance, the Defendant Blobel, would have had a possibility not to carry out an order ?
A. There is the danger with all hypothetical questions. For that reason it was a great experience for me to know that in the English Parliament hypothetical questions are prohibited. But it is difficult in the year of 1947 to but oneself back to the year of 1941 with all the circumstances involving it, with the psychological tension, and then to decide with the utmost correction and to say what would have been done at the time. Have I replied to this question sufficiently?
Q. Dr. Six, what would have happened if you had been given an order to shoot women and children , and in order to avoid carrying out this order you would have committed suicide? What would have happened to these women and children then? What would it have saved -- their lives?
A. The order would have been transferred to somebody else.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, that question is much too hypothetical to be answered. He is asking if - -
THE TRIBUNAL: What he is asking is for now he takes another roll. Here comes as a necromancer one who can speak after death. Dr. Heim has asked Herr Six to tell us what happens after he died, what would happen after he died. We were willing to allow this witness to answer in some very unusualmental and spiritual qualities, but that he can talk to us as a spiritualist is a little bit beyond that we can permit here. BY DR. HEIM:
Q. Witness, I will address another question to you. Do you believe that it contradicts the principles of humanity and the moral laws, to execute women and children if these women and children had been condemned by a court martial because of sabotage , espionage and so forth?
A. If the actual situation can be established, if the individual guilt can be proved, if they had means to define this legally, then I think all that is necessary has been complied with, as and which judgment.
Q. Dr. Six, you were not the leader of a commando , but your task was, as we found during your examination, to secure archive material in museums. As a leader of this Vorkommando Moscow, can you form a judgment on the moral attitude and activity of a Fuehrer of the SK IV -A for example, can you imagine it?
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honors, please, I object to that line of questioning on the part of Dr. Heim. He first stated that he does not consider the Witness an expert; then he ask the witness a question which obviously can only be but to an expert, and then he himself questions the possibility of the witness to answer such questions. So I really fail to see what line of questioning in this case is. So far as I understand it, the witness has said nothing about the activity of the Defendant Blobel in the East. He has made no judgment of that, what B lobel should have done, didn't do, or did do, so I absolutely fail to see the relevancy of this.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, on Friday the witness, in answer to a very specific question put by you, replied as follows: "It is, of course, evident that whoever received an order had to carry out the order." Factor No, 1. Factor No. 2 is that this morning he said that if he received that order he would refuse to carry it out. Now, he either has established one line of conduct for your client and one line for himself or those two answers are inconsistent.
Now, we are thoroughly willing, Dr. Heim, to allow you to question him on that apparent inconsistency, but I think we should limit ourselves, insofar as it is possible, to a determination of that apparent inconsistency, and you may put any question that you think is in order to clarify that point.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q : (By Dr. Heim) Witness, I go back to your answer of this morning where you explained that you would have preferred to die rather than carry out an order to the effect that women and children were to be shot. With this explanation did you only want to refer to yourself personally or did you also want to try to express that in your opinion the leaders of the executive kommandos, the Defendant, Blobel, for example should have acted in the same manner?
A: I again repeat that I see no contradiction in saying that I personally considered the order to shoot women and children wrong and therefore did not carryi it out and that somebody else did carry out the order, because in every human being, on receiving an order it is a personal decision and every person has to decide for himself. I once again repeat that the order as such I did not receive, but I was asked what I would have done, and since I was requested to tell it I gave a reply, which, owing to my present position, is quite obvious, and I further add I think it is almost certain that it would have been my decision at the time as well.
But actually carrying out such an order is up to personal discretion, and if I consider this solution to be suitable for myself this does not mean that it is the same for everybody else either. It is my decision, my personal decision, and every human being has different views about carrying things out. This was my opinion, and I repeat it still is my opinion.
Have I answered your question in sufficient detail?
Q: One more question about this, please, Witness, If I understood you correctly you were trying to say that not in every person by Nature the same moral principles are based in his soul from which he can come to such a decision?
A: That is right. I wish to add I lost a sister when she was very young, and I am fully convinced that this sister died innocently, and this death moved me so strongly and supported my personal judgment to such an extent that I personally have the strength to bear out what I have said here. That is my personal opinion.
Q: Witness, now the last question on a different subject. You explained today during cross-examination by the Prosecution that on 15th of August you sent a telegram to Berlin, and as a result on 20th of august you were transferred to Berlin. Could you say whether the leaders of the executive kommandos, my client Blobel in particular, would have had the same possibility, in such a simple and fast manner, to be transferred from his office as leader of SK-4-A?
A: I tried to explain the particular situation in which I was the particular position. I said that taking over a different task would have menat an integral Change of my position and my being subordina te to another office chief.
This fact I emphasized very strongly in my letter to Streckenbach, and that certainly was the reason why, owing to the fact that time should not be wasted until my original assignment be carried out, I was granted such time. I have no personal experience about the possibility of others being transferred, but I believe in a normal case it is like this, according to my experience in the SD, throughout many years, that transfers and appointments are made by superiors and are not made on personal suggestions.
Q: Witness, since this morning, did I or anyone else talk to you about these questions?
A: No.
DR. HEIM: Thank you. I have no further questions. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q: Witness, did you ever witness an execution?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever see the preparation for an execution?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever happen upon a scene after an execution had just been completed?
A: No.
Q: In all the time that you were in the East you never saw preparation for the killing of anybody?
A: No.
Q: So that all your answers are entirely theoretical and academic insofar as executions are concerned?
A: Yes.
Q: You have indicated very strongly that you disapproved of the execution program as laid down by Hitler, that is true?
A: Yes.