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.
Q: So to that extent you had a reservation in your mind when you took the oath of allegiance to Hitler?
A: Yes.
Q: This morning I quoted the oath from memory as I had recalled it. I will now read it literally. "I vow inviolable fidelity to Adolf Hitler. I vow absolute obedience to him and to the leaders he designates for me." You took that oath, did you?
A: Yes.
Q: But you were not willing to live up to it according to its letter?
A: First of all and most of all I did not think that such an oath would include an entire program which varied very much.
Q: Then when you learned that it did include a program which conflicted with your conscience, you desired to deviate from the program and an allegiance to the oath, is that might?
A: That is a question which is very decisive, and I don't know whether I can reply to it in three or four words.
Q : You can give me more than three or four words.
A: If I am to answer this question freely, such a decision does not arise suddenly, but they are very difficult situations of development which only form by and by and throughout the years since 1939 whether a person was a National Socialist or a German, a growing criticism arose against political measures, and a certain attitude did not come about all at once but was a result of a great number of realizations and experiences. I believe my attitude or my relation to Adolf Hitler did not come about all of a sudden but through years and they changed.
Q: Witness, when did you take your oath, what year?
A: I gave my oath in 1935 or 1936.
Q: Alright. So that you had several years to ponder over the solemnity of that oath. Between 1936 and 1941 you had five years so that you can't say that this suddenly hit you like a lightening flash and you had to make an instantaneous decision. Now we ask you again, did you feel yourself free to deviate from this order when you received an order that conflicted with your conscience or with your system of morals?
A: I did not put this question to myself with such clearness.
Q: Well, thik of it now.
A: I am prepared to give this answer, your Honor, but I don't quite realize what alternative you expect of me.
Q: I don't expect any alternative of you. I only expect a true and honest straightforward answer. You took a solemn oath to follow Adolf Hitler, to obey not only his orders but the orders of all leaders appointed by him, unquestioningly. That was the oath. Now I want to know if you were willing to live up to that order unquestioningly or whether you made exceptions here and whether you side-stepped somewhere else?
A.- I certainly did not follow this oath -- I cannot think of the proper expression -- I did not follow this oath without any doubts or considerations, but I had a lot of doubts and misgivings on various occasions.
Q.- Then you were wailing to deviate from the oath?
A.- Owing to the fact that at the points which I mentioned just now, I did not follow the oath.
Q.- Then you were willing to use your own mind in deciding which part of the oath you would follow and which part you would not?
A.- With such clarity, which part of an oath I would obey and what parts I would not obey, as in a scale of figures, I could not express it so clearly, but it was clear to me that certain requests made to me, I could not comply with.
Q.- Yes. You then did not regard the oath as having a sacred binding obligation, in accordance with this letter?
A.- If I answer this question, I must say that political revolutions, spiritual revolutions, and conscience revolutions, always existed.
Q.- Now please answer that question. You were willing to deviate from the oath?
A.- I already said that.
Q.- Yes, now, are you willing to deviate from other oaths that you take?
A.- I have not given any other oath in my life.
Q.- You gave an oath here the court to tell the truth. Did you ever deviate from that oath, because of the situation with which you were confronted?
A.- I do not think I will have any advantages if I deviate from an oath in this tribunal.
Q.- So, therefore, you will deviate from an oath only when it will be to your advantage?
be to your advantage?
A.- No, just no -
Q.- No? Then you make a difference between the oath which you gave to Hitler and the oath which you gave somewhere else.
A.- The oath I gave to Adolf Hitler was a political oath. The very moment when a relation exists between the person administering the oath and the person giving the oath, or, rather, if a breach occurs here, then I believe it is possible to make political reservations.
Q.- Then you do make a distinction between the Hitler oath and another type of oath.
A.- I make a difference between a political oath and an oath only directed to God.
Q.- So therefore a political oath, you can treat as you wish, but another kind of oath you regard as sacred and binding?
A.- There are people in Germany -
Q- No, don't tell me about people in Germany. I am asking you, here, in Nurnberg.
A.- What question?
Q.- You do make a distinction between this oath to Hitler, which you call a political oath, and another oath?
A.- The oath I gave to Adolf Hitler was an oath of allegiance and only of allegiance. The very moment where I think I can not give my allegiance here on one point, then I believe I can make my reservation there.
Q.- Yes, and did your superiors know that this was the way you were treating the oath, that you could abide by it when you pleased and ignore it when you so chose?
A.- On this particular question, that is the Fuehrer Order to kill women and children, I tried to evade the oath by my thoughts. I never received it personally. Nobody told me I should shoot women and children and I believe that this refusal in my mind is one of my rights as a human being, and, if I have the courage to say this, to express it here, not matter what results I may derive from this, I believe I did this after mature and serious consideration.
I also accept the danger that the only oath I gave in my life should be questioned while I am sitting here in this Tribunal.
Q.- Did you have the courage to express yourself that way when Adolf Hitler was alive?
A.- I believe that through many individual actions, I have dared to disobey this order, through practical measures.
Q.- Then you did receive the order. You say you have dared to disobey it.
A.- I did not say that I received the order, I merely said I had the courage at that moment to take certain measures, for example, to help Jews.
Q.- You helped the Jews when you were there in the East? Is that the reason you received the promotion? Tell us how you helped the Jews when you were in charge of this Moscow Kommando, Tell us what you did to help the Jews while you were there.
A.- I did not help them then at that time.
Q.- You didn't help them when they needed your help?
A.- I didn't understand the question.
Q.- You knew that an order was out to exterminate Jews, because you spoke to a Kommando leader. You told us about this, on July 7, between July 7 and July 10, you knew that there was an order out to exterminate Jews. Then was the time for you to show your humanity and now tell us what you did then to help the Jews.
A.- At that time I did nothing.
Q.- You did nothing? And when you went back to Berlin, did you tell Heydrich that this order was unconscionable one, that the extermination of Jews was contrary to every law of civilization and humanity -- did you tell him that?
A.- I did not have much opportunity to speak at the time. During the discussions, he mostly talked.
Q.- Yes. So that it all comes down to this: that your courage in defying Hitler comes to you in 1947 and not 1941. '42, '43, '44 or '45?
A.- I believe - but it would go into too much detail -- other political factors played a part here.
Q.- Yes, now you were promoted, because of what you did in the East, weren't you?
A.- According to the words of this declaration. Not in my opinion.
Q.- Well, you didn't promote yourself. Others promoted you and it was their firm believe that you had conducted yourself in so examplary a manner that you were entitled to a promotion?
A.- I already said that I am not sure that it wasn't a pretext used on the 9th of November to promote a great number of leaders and it did not depend on the examination of the merits of the person at all.
Q.- You were willing to have yourself considered as an exterminator, one leading those Kommando groups closely in the execution of innocent people, so that you might receive the promotion, even though it was untrue?
A.- I said that I did not see the promotion in its wording, I said that from the very beginning, I wasn't conscious of the fact, therefore and the second letter, which was submitted to me concerning my second promotion I did not see either because this was an internal memorandum. Therefore, on both occasions, I did not know the reason.
Q.- So that it wasn't until 1947 that you learned why you had been promoted?
A.- Yes, until that time I did not know that the reason for my promotion were to be my special merits in the East and I don't know what special merits I gained in the East.
Q.- You don't know of anything which you did in the East which would have entitled you to a commendation or a promotion?
A.- No.
Q.- And you think that this promotion came out of the goodness of heart of Himmler?
A.- No, I said that obviously it was a result of Streckenbach's intermediation and the fact that it was only expressed in the beginning of December seems to be a very good reason for this.
Q.- So that what you want the Tribunal to believe is that Streckenbach, out of his great friendship for you invented the story that you had conducted yourself gallantly in the East in the execution of these orders at the head of your Einsatzkommando and that he manufactured this story out of his love for you in order to have you promoted?
A.- This record in the document, as I can see, says merits in the commitment, the Einsatz. This does not mean, Your Honor, that they are concerned with merits concerning the extermination of Jews.
Q.- Well, you have stated that you didn't do anything in the East which entitled you to a commendation or promotion, insofar as your original mission was concerned, as you told us your original mission to be.
A.- That is my personal opinion.
Q.- Yes, so, therefore, the promotion was not given for what you tell us you did in the East, namely, collecting archives. We at least can exclude that. You say you did nothing in that respect.
A.- In any case, I cannot say why Streckenbacj should have said this, Consequently I can say neither the one nor the other thing.
Q.- So it was all a mystery why you got this promotion and the mystery wasn't solved until you reached Nurnberg?
A.- No, I did not say that. I said it was my turn. I had not been promoted for 3 1/2 years; that Gruppenleiters had already been promoted to Obergruppenfuehrer and I was still a Standartenfuehrer. What this printing part in this is -Q.- Are you speaking of the promotion in 1941 or the one in 1945?
A.- 1941.
Q.- Yes, when you were a member of the SS?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And an actual member, not an honorary member?
A.- I repeat again I was not paid and it was not my main task. There is a difference between an honorary position and a main position.
Q.- One has to believe now that you did all this work just out of charity, that you didn't receive any pay, while you were wearing the SS uniform?
A.- Not a penny.
Q.- You didn't receive any pay?
A.- No.
Q.- From nobody?
A.- I was paid by the State as a university professor, but I was not paid by the SS.
Q.- But you were being paid?
A.- Yes, certainly, but not by the SS.
Q.- But you received a stipend every month regularly?
A.- Yes, I was paid by the Reich Education Ministry.
Q.- You were paid by the Reich Government?
A.- Yes.
Q.- The same government that paid all SS people?
A.- But from their own resources of administration and from other field of administration.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at 09:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 28 October 1947, at 0930 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
Military Tribunal II-A is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
DR. VON STEIN: (Dr. Von Stein for the Defendant Sandberger) today and tomorrow to prepare his examination.
THE PRESIDENT: You want him excused immediately?
Dr. VON STEIN : Yes, please, Your honor.
THE PRESIDENT. The Defendant Sandberger will be excused from attendance in Court today and tomorrow in accordance with the request of his counsel.
DR. RIEDIGER: (Dr. Riediger for the Defendant Haensch.) that he be excused for today and tomorrow in order to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Haensch will also be excused today and tomorrow for the same purpose.
DR. MAYER: (Dr. Mayer for Defendant Steimle.) morrow to prepare his examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Steinle will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon and tomorrow for the purposes indicated by his counsel. left the room?
Dr. Ulmer, have you finished with your client?
DR. ULMER: (For Defendant Six) I have one final request, whether it would be possible to get the record also in the English version of the days that the defendant Six was in the box in order to check up on the translation, since on "Einsatz" which is commitment, and "Einsatzgruppen" there might have been some confusion.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will authorize your receiving an English copy of the transcript. The mechanics of your obtaining it will be worked out through the Defense Center.
DR. ULMER: Thank you, Your Honor, and may I reserve the right, if I should find out that something is wrong, may I point it out?
THE PRESIDENT: By all means that, right will be reserved to you.
DR. ULMER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Ulmer, what more will you have to present in behalf of the Defendant Six?
DR. ULMER: First I shall only have to submit documents, Your Honor, concernining witnesses, it depends on whether Witnesses are to appear and can appear here who can state that the witness did not take part in any shootings. Bringing in such witnesses has its difficulties and not the least is the fact that it has been in the papers that all people who had anything to do with Einsatzkommandos may be sent to Russia. The result of this might be that possible witnesses nay be hiding, and for me as a Defense Counsel it is particularly difficult to bring the witnesses here at all. But anything witnesses could prove I could prove here thorough affidavits and documents. I already have these here, and very soon I will submit them to the High Tribunal. The delay is not owing to me but only owing to the technicality of mimeographing and translating the documents.
THE RRESIDENT: Dr. Ulmer, you, of course, present your defense in any way that you desire. We will merely inform you that the Tribunal stands ready to offer you any and every assistance within its power to facilitate the obtaining of such proof as you believe is relevant and which is available in behalf of your client.