issued to the co-defendant Braune in your official capacity? conversation. I ask you whether these disagreements arose over the fact you had issued him orders in your official capacity? reason. you had with Braune?
A Mr. Prosecutor, these were conv ersations among officers, or comrades, which usually brought various opinions about various problems. To give any details about these is very difficult.
had read reports from members of the SD in Russia which told about the kidnapping of labor for Germany, do you remember that incident?
A Yes, I said that. This was generally known to me by reports, that is correct.
Q From whence came these reports? of the Security Police in the East. Einsatzgruppe D? in the operational area, during the time I was in Russia, I did not see anything of transports of workers. Therefore, no reports could be made about them. This was chronologically later. This was, perhaps, in 1943, and I told Mr. Wartenberg at the time that I saw these reports generally probably in Berlin. then that you over saw any reports where laborers were shanghaied or kidnapped while attending a movie? example was known in practically all agencies in Germany which were concerned with labor allocation. Only every agency named a different movie. I do not mean to say by this that this did not happen. It might very well have happened, and I told this to Mr. Wartenberg, but a case from the area during the time I was present is not known to me, not as having happened. either remotely or directly, to do with an execution?
the seizure of the property of people who were sentenced to execution? except when you made inspection trips, and work on reports which went to Berlin or to the Army? of all the SD reports and all materials for the SD, and one man was so occupied with this job, for such a large area, that I was able to do only one small part of my job. you had charge of the training of Tartar defense companies? of the training of the Tartar defense companies?
A Yes, I understand now. During my inspection trips I inspected the Tartar companies which the Eleventh Army had put at the disposal and which had been distributed and stationed in platoons in the endangered villages in the Jaila Mountains, that is to say, in those villages which were continually attacked by partisans, and I visited these units during my inspection trips; not every time, but it did happen. their daily tasks? the men who carried out the training. that were not partisans?
A No. I never learned about that, and this was not their mission, for the Army itself had ordered that these subunits be stationed in the villages for the protection of their villages and not for any kind of other mission. properly armed?
A No, the Army supplied their arms. These were rifles and hand grenades. They did not have any automatic weapons. inspection of these companies?
Q Did you ever report to Berlin about these companies? mentioned. inspection, that they were adequately trained for the task at hand?
A They were never sufficiently trained, Mr. Prosecutor, for these were volunteer Tartars who volunteered on the basis of call by the Eleventh Army, and who were currently trained. That is, actually they were trained in their daily combat with partisans. Of course, their unit leaders trained them in the localities where they were stationed. before they were ever committed against the partisans? so that they could be committed? training was relatively brief, and in no unit was it ever completed while I was in the Crimea.
training before they should be committed against the partisans?
A No, I did not do that either. They were immediately committed in the villages,.and it might certainly have happened that on the next day, as far as they were in a position to do so, they had to fight if the village was attacked. interested in the efficiency, training efficiency which they had achieved, shouldn't you? look after the condition of the training during my inspections and to speak with the unit officers. in an action? company in three or four cases.
Q Did your outfit ever take any prisoners? all German Army units were committed. In the case in which I participated with one batallion, Rumanians were committed and Tartar Home Guard units were committed. These Tartars were not employed to start the frontal attack but to secure a large area. At the flanks they were to secure the left or right flank because better trained soldiers were available. Tartar companies under your command went into an area to search out all of the enemy who left there when a line moved forward, didn't they?
A No, the combat took place differently, Mr.Prosecutor. The German battalion had attacked the fortified areas, and the tactics of the partisans was as follows:
Either when they thought they were strong enough to defend themselves to do so or to see that they could flee as quickly as possible and to retreat, and this was to be prevented and stopped by the security belt at the rear and at the front and on the flanks. Otherwise the partisan camps could never be attacked. They would have immediately retreated to the next forest.
Q. All right. Well come back to my original question. Did -at any time you lead a fighting force -- did the unit under your command ever take any prisoners?
A. That happened, yes.
Q. That happened to them?
A. The prisoners were -- if they were soldiers -- among them were Russian troops and Partisans as armed civilians, then the soldiers were turned over to the army as prisoners of war, and the rest were either turned over to the secret field police or they were handed over to the unit which was committed there.
Q. That included your unit that was committed there?
A. Well, Mr. Prosecutor, not in the form that the Tarter companies would have taken prisoners along.
Q. Isn't it a matter of fact, Colonel, that under the Hitler Order, that where any Partisan was found with arms in his hand, he was immediately liquidated, you and your Tartar defense companies immediately liquidated all Partisans you captured?
A. This did not correspond to the Fuehrer Order, but this was an army order which had been posted in all places, which had been disseminated by leaflets, according to which armed civiliang and any people who aided armed civilians would be punished by death.
Q. All right. Did you and your Tartar defense companies ever execute people who had aupplied food or ammunition or medical supplies to the Partisans?
A. I never experienced it, Mr. Prosecutor, But in the combats I took part in ---
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Walton, I don't know whether you got an answer to your first question, what happened to prisoners.
MR. WALTON: As I understood it, sir, he said if it was a Russian army man.....
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now but then you made it more specific. You spoke of armed Partisans being captured. Now, what happened to them?
Did you liquidate them at once? That's the question you put and I don't recall hearing an answer.
THE WITNESS: I didn't experience that they were immediately liquidated at the place, but I am convinced that they were shot.
MR. WALTON: Were they shot by members of the unit under your command?
THE WITNESS: Now by these Tartars companies. They never carried out an execution as far as I know. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Why not get it more specific? Now, you led a detachment into action against Partisans, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You captured some armed Partisans? Right?
A. I personally did not capture any.
Q. Well, you lead a detachment which captured armed Partisans?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you order these Partisans shot?
A. No, I could not have ordered that because ---
Q. Why not?
A. Your Honor, because I did not have the total order about this action. I led one of the four or five committed units.
Q. Who then ordered them shot?
A. The order could only have been given by the officer who had the command over this action?
Q. You said that you led a detachment into action against Partisans. You said that this detachment captured Partisans. You said that these Partisans were then shot. Who ordered them shot?
A. Your Honor, I said I am convinced that these prisoners were shot.
Q. Well, who ordered them shot?
A. Only the officer who had the command over this operation. I was merely commanding officer of one unit of four or five which partici pated.
In this way I was only a subordinate officer.
Q. Well, very well. Who was the officer that ordered them shot?
A. That was the battalion commander of this German battalion.
Q. And what was his name?
A. Once it was Lieutenant Colonel Meyer. Another time it was the battalion commander of the Roumanian battalion.
Q. Well, he was the one who ordered them shot? These two that you have mentioned?
A. Yes. BY MR. WALTON:
Q. Did he ever order you to execute any of the Partisans which were captured?
A. No, he never gave me that order.
Q. Did you ever order men under your command to execute Partisans that were captured?
A. No. The auxiliary units were not used for this purpose, but regular units.
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution has no further questions at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, any redirect examination?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
Perhaps Dr. Gawlik, we would gain time if we would recess now and then you may begin immediately after the recess. The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. STUEBINGER (Attorney for the Defendant Braune): Your Honor, I ask that the Defendant Braune be excused from tomorrow's attendance in court in order to be able to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Braune will be excused from attendence in court tomorrow.
DR. STUEBINGER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Dr. Gawlik: BY DR. GAWLIK (Attorney for the Defendant Seibert):
Q. First now, let us come to the last point your assignment as leader of a Tartar Company. In order to clarify the situation, I have four questions to ask you, concerning your activity in the Tartar Company. Did you, as the leader of the Tartar Company, did you ever shoot a prisoner?
A. NO.
Q. Did you ever give an order for the shooting of one?
A. No, I never gave such an order.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, do you see anything wrong about shooting a partisan?
THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor, because this man had forfeited his life after the Army had ordered clearly that armed civilians should be shot.
THE PRESIDENT: But the only reason that you didn't order any partisan to be shot is that it just did not happen to fall within your activity at that time.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I could say that, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. For what reasons are you of the opinion that a partisan deserves death?
A. The Army order had proclaimed that persons who offend against the security of the German Armed Forces, to this category belonged armed civilians for thus the term "partisans" has to be understood in the Russian campaign.
It is therefore not a matter of regular soldiers and these people had been warned beforehand by these orders and they knew that if they armed themselves and fought the German Armed Forces that thus they would lose their lives.
Q. Perhaps you could tell us quite clearly what you mean by a partisan.
A. By a partisan I mean a civilian who is armed, therefore, carries arms and therefore is not a regular soldier.
Q. Is it known who, according to International Law, is entitled to be treated as a prisoner-of-war?
A. It is generally known to me that such persons are concerned who wear a uniform or some uniform badge, who carry their arms openly.
Q. If you had caught a partisan, what would you have done?
A. That depends on the situation.
Q. I mean, as a prisoner, how would you have treated him?
A. A partisan, as I am now describing him, would have been shot by myself.
Q. Did you receive any knowledge about the fact that members of the unit under you shot prisoners?
A. No, I never knew anything about it.
Q. I now come to another point. In the cross-examination, your joining the SD was discussed and you were asked why you remained in the service of the SD, although you received a lower rank than you had held in the Wehrmacht. Was the rank of decisive value to you, or was it something else that moved you to remain with the SD?
A. I should first like to answer the question of rank. I joined the SD and I became a department chief, a referent. This corresponded to a position which I held in the Wehrmacht before. As such I was paid. Therefore, I still received the same pay that I had received before from the army. The rank "Underscharfuehrer" of the SS formation SD is only a rank which was given to me as a member of this SS formation SD, but I was not paid according to it and that did not correspond to my activity, either.
Q. What was therefore decisive for you?
A. Decisive for me was the work. During my studies and also later practially before I became a soldier, I concerned myself with economy only and from the very beginning my aim was -- even after I had become a soldier -- to become an officer in order to be able to take part in an economic unit of the Army. I succeeded in getting one thing, but I could not find a position in an economic unit and therefore I joined the SD, Department of Economy, in order to carry on my profession.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, the Defendant has gone very thoroughly into this same material which he is giving at the present time on his direct examination; about his aims and his training and his reasons for taking a position with the SD. My own opinion is that since this ground has been covered and covered thoroughly, that it serves no point at this particular time. It is in the record it's for consideration of all parties concerned in this case and to go over it at this time merely wastes the time of the court and of the rest of us here.
DR. GAWLIK: May I say something, Your Honor? The witness does not want to repeat anything that has already been stated, but he is supposed to clarify the following point: In the cross-examination he was asked, that it was unusual to be transferred to the SD with a lower rank than he held before and I want to clarify that it was not at all unusual.
That, as far as I remember, was at the end of the cross-examination, the question was, "Wasn't there something unusual." The prosecutor therefore regards it as something unusual that the witness, as a lieutenant in the Wehrmacht, should become a noncommission officer, an untersharfuehrer, in the SD and therefore I want to clarify the reasons why he had himself transferred to the SD. It is only a supplement of the cross-examination and I think that is is admissible in the redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, the clarification is entirely in order, but he has already given us that clarification. The very thing which you have just now mentioned was explained by him in detail. The Tribunal itself asked that very question which you have put and the witness replied in great detail. Now it isn't required of him to repeat an explanation, just because in cross-examination it is referred to again.
DR. GAWLIK: May I then put the following question, Your Honor?
Q. (By Dr. Gawlik): Was your rank decisive for the transfer into the SD or was it something else?
A. Decisive was the work and my job as a Department Chief, as an expert for economic questions. I only received the rank later on, although as far as the date goes, the retroactive date is shown as November, but I entered the service as a referent for economic questions. That was decisive.
Q. During the cross-examination it was further discussed -- I am now coming to another point -- whether you remained voluntarily in the SD. I ask you now, after the year 1939, would there have been a possibility for you to leave the SD?
A. No, leaving from the SD was impossible. I never succeeded even, although I applied in applications which I made out immediately after the war, to rejoin my own troop.
Q. Was your membership in the SD therefore after 1 September 1939 voluntary or not?
A. No, it was not voluntary.
Q. Furthermore, in the cross examination it was mentioned that you joined the Einsatzgruppe, and on another occasion the prosecutor asked you concerning your relationship with Ohlendorf, and he stated that you put yourself at the disposal of the Einsatzgruppe. I now ask you: Did you join the Einsatzgruppe or did you put yourself at the disposal of the Einsatzgruppe ?
A. It was a very unequivocal order of command to become chief 3 of an Einsatzgruppe.
Q. In detail mention has been made in the cross examination concerning your work of reporting and you were asked, or it was put to you that you sent reports to Berlin although you did not know whether these reports were true, and there were no further questions put in this connection. I now want to examine you redirectly concerning this question and ask you; in how far could you take a responsibility for the correctness of the reports?
A. In so far as I had to take over the reports from the commandos-
MR. WALTON: This line of questioning is in the nature of a cross examination on a cross examination. Now, if I understand the rules of evidence, the counsel for the defendant can touch on what he wishes to on what came out in direct examination, but to cross examine him on the cross examination is going too far. I want to object to this line of questioning.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't think Dr. Gawlik intends to cross examine his own witness. He is of the impression that this matter which was brought out by you in cross examination is not entirely cleared up, and he is permitted to ask some brief questions for a further clarification, but, of course, he may not go into the matter entirely since the witness has already given his explanation. If the witness in any particular instance desires to modify an answer which he has given, to change it, of course, he is privileged to do so, but there is no point in having him repeat what he has already stated.
DR. GAWLIK: In order to clarify this point, Your Honor, I am of the opinion -
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is simpler if you put the question instead of telling me why you are going to put it. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. In how far can you take a guarantee for the correctness of your reports?
A. These reports which are being discussed here, I can take the responsibility for the correct transmission of the reports of the commandos to Berlin, but not for the actual facts which are contained in these reports, or, the facts on which they are based.
Q. Was it your task, and was it your duty to find out and examine the correctness of these facts?
A. It was not my task and I did not regard it as my duty.
Q. If a matter is mentioned in your reports -- does it then become evident that you are responsible for the facts?
A. No, that does not become evident from it. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Let us suppose, Witness, that the report contains a palpable error, something very obviously wrong, would you send it on just the same only because it was reported to you?
A. If it was so obvious, Your Honor, then I would have noticed it while compiling my report. I would not have transmitted it.
Q. And to that extent you would correct the report which was sent on to you by a commando?
A. I could not have done so on my own accord, Your Honor, only the commando leader could have done so. He was to point it out to me.
Q. You would have contacted the commando leader and you would have said to him, "Now, you have reported this, which to me doesn't seem to be in accordance with the facts, now would you please tell me, whether this is right or not", would you do that?
A. I would have done so, Your Honor, if it had happened.
Q. Yes, so that nothing was sent to you which did not appear to be absolutely correct?
A. Well, according to my memory nothing struck me to be particularly out of the usual way that I would have had to clarify it.
Q. To that extent, therefore, you placed your approval on the correctness of the reports sent to you by the commandos?
A. No, Your Honor. I only took the responsibility for the correct incorporation of commando reports into the situation reports.
Q. Now, we are starting to go around a circle. You get a report from a commando, and there is something in this report which doesn't seem to satisfy you as being correct; what do you do, do you send that on to Berlin without inquiry, or do you inquire?
A. I said already that if it had been such a striking instance -
Q. Don't tell me what you said, tell me now, answer that question. You have a report from a commando, it contains something which doesn't seem right, what do you do, do you turn it over to Fritsche, the radio operator, and it goes out, or do you call up the commando leader and discuss it with him?
A. That would certainly have been discussed, Your Honor.
Q. Yes, and then you would have got the real facts?
A. In that case I would have got a correction or an explanation of the commando-leader.
Q. Yes. So, therefore, the reports which you sent in were satisfactory to you insofar as correctness was concerned?
A. In as far as they could satisfy me in my own H.Q., because I did not know the local conditions and local events. If nothing particular struck me.
Q. Did you ever have occasion to call a commando leader and ask him whether a certain item was correct or not?
A. I did not call a commando leader, Your Honor, but it is quite possible that I discussed it with commando leaders in general discussions which we had.
Q. Well, when I said "call in", I meant, did you communicate with him in any way to correct anything which appeared in a report?
A. Yes, providing the case which I have just mentioned, that something extraordinary happened.
Q. Yes, and then after the discussion you got the facts straight and that is what you put into the report?
A. The fact was corrected by the commando leader and then I put it in my report.
Q. So that, therefore, the number of executions reported by you corresponded with the facts?
A. I cannot say that, Your Honor.
Q. Well, then they never struck you as being wrong?
A. No, that never struck me, and it could not strike me, either.
Q. So that regardless of the number which you received, you were satisfied that that number was correct?
A. I had to assume that the figure mentioned by the commando leader was correct, Your Honor.
Q. Well, now, how many executions in all did you actually witness?
A. I only saw those two executions which I mentioned, Your Honor.
Q. In your affidavit you speak of having witnessed two executions while you were with Ohlendorf, but then in the following sentence of that affidavit you said that occasionally you would make inspection trips alone, the same kind of inspection trips which you made with Ohlendorf. On these inspection trips which you made alone did you witness any executions?
A. No, Your Honor. These inspection trips were of the same kind because during those inspections trips which I did with Ohlendorf I did not have to deal with my own work with the commando and, of course, in the last six months there was also the inspection of Tarter companies.
Q. Although I am now going to violate a rule which I imposed a little while ago, I would like to have you tell me now just where were these executions which you witnessed and which you told us about yesterday.
A. The first execution took place in the town, as far as I remember, Petschanka, Your Honor.
Q. Yes, and how many were executed?
A. As far as I remember, four or five people were executed.
Q. And what had they been accused of doing?
A. According to statements of commando fuehrer to the chief of the Einsatzgruppe they were guilty of sabotage.
Q. What was the nature of the sabotage?
A. They had acquired supplies. They had obtained supplies illegally, and they also burned a barn. That is what I remember, Your Honor.
Q. And in the second case how many were executed?
A. Again five or six cases.
Q. You are sure that is the number?
A. Well, anyway there couldn't have been more than six, Your Honor.
Q. What did you tell us yesterday how many were executed?
A. Again I can only have said the number five or six, Your Honor.
Q. And what did they do -- the victims?
A. They were looters who for that reason were shot.
Q. That was the nationality of these victims?
A. I am not able to say, Your Honor.
Q. Did you not make any inquiry?
A. No.
Q. How long were you in the Crimea with Einsatzgruppe D?
A. In the Crimea, Your Honor?
Q. Well, how long were you with the Einsatzgruppe?
A. If I don't count the interruptions when I was in Berlin, it was about 10 months.
Q. When did you join the Einsatzgruppe?
A. Approximately in the middle of June 1941 I was detailed, so I was with it from the very beginning.
Q. Yes. When did you go to Berlin?
A. Approximately the middle of November 1941, and I returned on Christmas Eve, on the 24th of December 1941. I was able to join a Christmas celebration. I can remember this exactly because I could give some members the mail from their families.
Q. You know that Schubert made an affidavit in which he said that you ordered him to conduct some executions, about this time?
A. I know this affidavit, yes.
Q. Do you have any explanation of how he could have made this mistake?
A. I can find no explanation, Your Honor, because I never gave him such an order, and this particular one I couldn't have given him at all, because I was not then in Russia.
Q. You mean you weren't in Russia at that time?
A. Yes, Your Honor.
Q. Now, when you first began to testify you said from 1936 to the end of the war you were not active in any other department but Department 3, is that correct?
A. That is correct, Your Honor.
Q. Well, you have been telling us how you organized motor units, how you trained infantrymen, how you participated in a combat action which won for you the Iron Cross, how you led a detachment in partisan warfare -- does that all come under Department 3 of Economics?
A. No, that is not part of the Department 3, Your Honor.
Q. Well then how do you reconcile all these activities with the scholastic preparation of reports on economics?