twelve to fifteen, possibly eighteen. made was the execution of the 94 Jews carried out?
A I don't remember that. arrests were made that the executions happened? ment of these detachments lasted only two weeks, but I have already said that the officer of this particular unit reported to me saying that he had arrived in Babtschinzy, and this Babtschinzy had been one of the first villages he had arrived at.
Q Now then, in two weeks' time, eighteen people, some of whom, I am sure, could not speak Russian, thoroughly investigated 94 cases of sabotage, and the commando fuehrer passed sentence and had them executed, all in two weeks' time? 94 Jews? these suspects to offer proof of their innocence to him?
A Certainly. They were interrogated. I am convinced that some of them were interrogated, and they could exonerate themselves through witnesses who proved their innocence. I can only say what he reported to me, and I can only refer to his careful report which he also gave me in writing even at the time. to supervise the harvest, and he was acting in your stead, was he not?
Court No. II, Case NO. IX.
Q. And as your military subordinate, he was in effect carrying out your duty for you in the Babtschinzy area, wasn't he?
A. Yes, by order of the Wehrmacht -- because it was a Wehrmacht order and I myself visited the area and I convinced myself of the order and the condition in this area.
Q. Was the fomenting of this type of situation such a heinous offense against the Third Reich that is deserved the sentence of death?
A. This sabotage was one of the offenses which was regarded a major offense by the Wehrmacht just as the carrying of arms, for instance, was also punishable by death, although he fact in itself in other times -- normal times, that is -was not an offense to be punished by death, in my opinion.
Q. Well, couldn't this particular situation be controlled in view of thefact that it was near the end of the harvest season by apprehending these 94 people or 94 Jews who were fomenting this resistance and putting them in prison or behind barbed wire -- couldn't they have controlled the situation?
A. For this, one must know the Russian sector, Russian conditions. There was no barbed wire nor could any measures have been carried out there. Regarding these special conditions, it seems to me that the Wehrmacht leadership was forced to issue such strict directives or warnings to the population because this large Russian sector could not be manned with soldiers at each little corner.
Q. Then is was expedient to control the situation by shooting people when they had done anything against the orders of the Wehrmacht or the Einsatzgruppen, is that correct?
A. If special cases were involved, yes, and if the warning as in conformity with such special cases.
Q. Now, according to this report, it mentions that these same 94 Jews were guilty of spying on the population and had already created a basis for numerous deportations to Siberia. Did these deportations occur under the Russian Government or under German occupation?
A. That was when the Russians were still there, but these people were not arrested and convicted for that reason, but the results established by the staff leader were mentioned in his reports, in order to confirm the thoroughness of his searches and investigations, perhaps it was that he wanted to show me in this connection that the people concerned were perpetrators who would be capable of carrying out such a deed in such times.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, I don't draw from this document what seems to be implied in your last ---- I don't gather from this document what seems to be the basis of your entire cross-examination on this particular episode. The report indicates a certain situation in this area, that Jews were interfering with the harvest, that other Jews had apied on the population, that as a result of that there had been deportations to Siberia, then comes this statement, "as a countter-measure, 94 Jews were executed". It doesn't say that these who had been interfering with the harvest and those who have been saying on the population were executed. It indicates that 94 Jews were seized and executed in the nature of a hostage business.
MR. WALTON: I am coming to that, sir. He testified, however, that through investigations this Teilkommandofuehrer had determined that 94 Jews were guilty of these two offenses.
THE PRESIDENT: But the report itself says, "as a counter-measure", it doesn't say, "as a result of investigations and as a result of apprehension of certain guilty elements that there were executions".
MR. WALTON: That is right. That is what I want to ask the witness, how does he reconcile his statement that these careful investigations were made over a fortnight by this commando fuehrer and 18 men, and that 94 Jews -- no one else in the population, but 94 Jews -- were found to have either sabotaged the harvest or to have reported these people and had had them sent to Siberia. How does he reconcile these executions with the fact that this was a counter or hostage me asure? Now, I have just come to that, and I wanted to establish the deportation before I ask him that question.
THE PRESIDENT: He has indicated that this report was made up from his own report, so call his attention to that actual language. BY MR. WALTON:
Q. Witness, according to this report which is lifted out of your report, did you state in your report that as a counter-measure 94 Jews were executed?
A. I don't know whether this formulation was contained in it. I only know that important and even supplementing parts in this report are not included this report, and the context is not very clear, as it was clear in the summarized report. I would also like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that also in the original, that is, in the photostat, that is the original text, the original document from Berlin, the sentences are not complete, that one sentence does not ale sense -- I am just looking for the sentence. The sentence reads, "These Jews had" -- well, this really doesn't make any sence "had supplied documents concerning this agent for the guarding of the population". In the original it says, "These Jaws had supplied documents for these deportations to Siberia via this agent, was the agent for whom" -- this again shows that the report has been made either in a hurry or that it just doesn't actually show the facts. It isn't complete.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the sentence that follows the word "Siberia".
THE WITNESS: "As counter-measures, 94 Jews were executed".
THE PRESIDENT: There is no trouble about understanding that sentence, is there?
MR. WALTON: No, not at all.
THE WITNESS: This sentence is not in immediate connection with the preceding sentence, and I must point that out. BY MR. WALTON:
Q. I will ask you to state to the Tribunal according to your best recollection and belief, was every one of these 94 Jews guilty of sabotage in that harvest and of having people deported to Siberia or not?
A. Aiding the deportation is only a supporting element. It is mentioned, and I know that it is mentioned in another connection, in the original report. I can only remember the report as given to me by the unit officer. In his report he showed me the circle of perpetrators whom he punished in this way. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Now, Witness, we are getting the Siberian deportation and harvesting business intermingled in a way, but it's not clear why these 94 Jews were executed. Let's put it very directly, why were these 94 Jews executed, what had they done? Let's put that in one sentence.
A. Only because of having taken part in sabotage acts and because they were later convicted.
Q. Yes, They had nothing to do with this Siberian deportation?
A. The punishment did not have anything to do with it BY MR. WALTON:
Q. Then why does the report state that a number of 94 Jews were executed as a counter-measure, why didn't it say, "The guilty ones were executed"?
A. This must have been contained in the complete report in another context.
Q. Now, Witness, as a matter of fact, isn't the basic reason that these Jews were executed, that they came under the provisions of the fuehrer order?
A. No. The subcommandos were only sent out in order to carry out their measures in connection with the harvest. I am convinced -- I don't want to maintain anything specific because I myself had never visited these villages, and it was never determined whether there were any Jews in these villages other villages where the harvest had been organized there should have been no Jews. In this connection, I would like to emphasize that at that time, that is, until the Reichfuehrer in Nikolajew refused to give consideration to the Wehrmacht in the plains, especially to its needs until then the Hitler order was not generally carried out, and was even suspended.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Mr. Walton. BY MR. WALTON: were absent from your kommando because you were in the hospital in Nikolajew, is that correct? absent from kommando because you were in the hospital in Nikolajew, is that correct?
A Not in Nikolajew. I was in the hospital but in Novo-Odessa on the Bug River at the time from the first days of September until about 24 or 25 September.
Q To whom did you relinquish command of your unit when you left? sturmfuehrer Hausmann at the time.
Q That is former SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Emil Hausmann, is it not?
Q How long did you know Hausmann during his lifetime?
Q Did you know his general reputation for truth or varacity? although I don't like to talk that way about a dead man.
Q No. No. Just a moment. Did you know it? That's all I asked you. him -
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, please answer the question. He merely asked you if you knew him. Now "yes" or "no".
MR. WALTON: I asked him did he know his general reputation for truth or veracity.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Did you know what his reputation was for being a truthful person?
THE WITNESS: When the kommando was being set up - not yet, but later on... BY MR. WALTON:
Q Just a moment, witness. Witness, answer the question "yes" or "no", end wait for my next question. You will be given an opportunity.
A May I ask the time you are referring to? time that the kommandos were being set up in 1941, and the next question I ask you I assume that you continued to know him all during the service in the kommando and I assume that you still knew him up to the time of his death. Certainly you knew who he was. My question was did you know his general reputation for truth or veracity since June of 1941. Now I would like for you to answer that question "yes" or "no".
Q Was is good or bad? discuss the duties of a kommando leader with Hausmann?
A What do you mean by Kommando chief? I was kommando leader, and after me Hausmann was in charge of the kommando while I was in the hospital. actual command of the kommando to go to the hospital? did you have any discussion with him concerning the duties of a kommando leader?
Q Hausmann was a member of your kommando, was he not?
Q And what was his usual duty in Einsatzkommando 12? while en route to Roumania I gave him the task of keeping the column together when we marched in close unit.
But later on, until the end of August, Hausmann was in reserve together with a kommando. The work only started when we came into the Ethnic German territory, and, therefore, the activity extended only to a few days. Apart from that in my personal relationship I had already gained a personal impression.
Q. Now what was his usual function when you reached the territory of the Ethnic Germans? What generally did he do? What duties did he perform in the kommando? the few days which remained for this -- he was the chief of a small detachment which was located in Speyer, as successor of the kommando 10-A which had been there previously. were turning over to him the temporary command?
A I don't quite know whether I discussed reports with him, but I do know that he objected to the manner of reporting, and that during my time in the hospital he used to say bad things about me to the Einsatzgruppe chief behind my back.
Q Isn't it a fact that you showed him one of your reports where a total of three hundred to three hundred fifty executions had been performed by Einsatzkommando 12 in Kantakuchinka, Speyer, Hoffmanstal and NikolaJew?
A No. That is quite impossible because, during that time in particular, not a single man of Einsatzkommando 12 was in Nikolajew, and in the few days in which I was still in charge of the kommando I could not possibly have been in the out-of-the-way places. Such a measure could not have been carried out.
Q I am not speaking of you personally, but weren't units of your command in Kantakuchinka, Speyer and Hoffmanstal? Speyer did not know anything about such executions, you soothed him by telling him that he had eternal conscientiousness, or words to that effect, didn't you?
A No, that is not at all clear. I can't make sense of that question. That Iremember is after I had handed the kommando over to him -
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't quite catch that phrase, Mr. Walton, eternal conscientiousness?
MR. WALTON: That is the way it is translated, sir. I will make it clear in a minute.
BY MR. WALTON: all, because I did not find it at the usual place. The reason was because the territory was now Roumanian sovereign territory, and all the German offices had withdrawn from this territory beyond the Bug River -
Q Well, witness, we are not interested in this. Just a minute; just a minute.
Q Just a minute. Did you have a conversation with Hausmann concerning executions prior to the time you left the actual command of EinsatzKommando 12?
A No. No.
Q You did not. On this occasion when Hausmann was talking to you about taking over the kommando, didn't you request him to sign a report of executions in Speyer of ninety-one persons which he know the true number to be nineteen, and he flatly refused to sign such a lying report?
A Matters were slightly different. That is just what I was trying to describe. I did not personally hand the kommando over to him. That means I did not travel to him and tell him about it, but I had the order handed over to him in a suitable manner. He now travelled around in the area as the new kommando leader and came to the location in particular where I had been with my unit. The radio equipment which I had there he wanted to take over as kommando leader.
He had a report with him about shootings of -- I don't know how many -- it might have been nineteen looters. I don't quite remember, and information existed, which had been given by Wehrmacht office with which we were connected, of another location Wosjnesensk on the other bank of the river in German territory, and outside my field of activity where shootings had been carried out by the Secret Field Police, and this made up this difference between nineteen and ninety-one. When Hausmann arrived at this office where I was not present at the moment, the chiefs made up a figure from these two reports, and Hausmann assumed that I had changed his figure nineteen around and made it into ninety-one. Events about which I heard - no matter whether they concerned my unit or other units, - I had to report about; that is what I did. executions at Kanakuchinka when in truth and in fact these executions happened at a place called Wossnesensk?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, Dr. Hoffman wishes to object.
MR. WALTON: Yes, Sir.
DR. HOFFMAN: Your honor, I have the impression that the Prosecuter submits documents to the witness which have not been introduced yet. I therefore ask that these documents be shown to him because the Prosecutor is talking about what the witness says about some location, the name of which I did not catch. He has to know the document or else he cannot comment on it. Apart from that I think the document was not Introduced.
MR. WALTON: He was there with Haussmann, Your Honor, I am asking him about events which were in his personal knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Hoffman. He is not now questioning him on a document. He is questioning him on facts. He asked him whether a certain thing did or did not happen, and the witness, of course, is privileged to answer any way he sees fit. It is likely that later on the cross-examiner may confront him with a document in order to show some contradiction, if there is any contradiction, and then at that time you have the right to demand that the identity of the document is given to the witness and to his Counsel.
DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, may I discuss one question on these cases which will crop up. It is my opinion that the Prosecution has an affidavit of Hausmann. Hausmann was here and committed suicide. In my opinion it is not admissible that such an affidavit should be introduced at this time because I cannot cross-examine that man anymore. A similar decision was reached by President Shake in Court No. VI a few days ago. Added to this is the fact that Hausmann committed suicide so that his character also is doubtful. This affidavit has not been submitted yet, but doubtlessly the Prosecution is asking question out of this affidavit. The position of my client is therefore unfavorable, and I ask you to rule whether questions can be asked from this affidavit or not.
THE PRESIDENT: The cross-examiner can put any question at all which is relevant. He can take it from an affidavit; he can take it from the thin air, so that it doesn't matter that he happens to be looking at an affidavit, if he is. He hasn't yet offered that document in evidence. He can certainly question the witness on any subject whatsoever which is relevant to the case, and it is up to the witness to reply as he sees fit, but we have nothing before us now to rule upon at all. He is conducting a cross examination entirely in accordance with the rules.
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, that question is a little premature now. In just a few minutes the Tribunal will be asked to rule on it. However, I should like for them to hear from the Prosecution, too, at that particular time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, surely BY MR. WALTON:
Q If I heard your last answer, I certainly don't remember it now.
Can you tell the Tribunal your reasons for reporting 150 to 200 executions at Kanakuchinka when in truth and in fact these executions happened at a place called Wossnesensk?
A I do not remember that. I cannot imagine that this was thought to have been changed to another location. In my opinion Hausmann should have known under all circumstances and did know that a shooting -- I don't know how many -- by an outside unit took place in Wossnesensk. Under no circumstances could Hausmann have testified anything else. I simply cannot imagine that. Why he wants to make me responsible for transferring the shooting to another place I simply cannot understand. The only explanation I can find is conditioned by his own personality. weren't they?
A Wossnesensk was not occupied by me. Wossnesensk was on the other side of the Bug River in the German Rear Army territory in an area which was not under my competency and where we were never active, and took place while you were in the hospital, after you came back to take active command again?
A I didn't get the words, what did you say? Reporting on the time when Hausmann was in charge of the commando was that no reports were made to me at that time. The file of the commando I received, of course, from which I saw the activity of the commando in general. For other reasons I also believe that not all reports were contained in this record, but to talk to Hausmann himself, I was hardly over able to, at least, not to conduct an official transfer because Hausmann was the last man who had to remain in his garrison in Speyer. He was chief of the Executive Service and had to be relieved in October, and he also returned to Berlin. The transfer, sofar as I remember, was never transacted personally with me for lack of time; in any case, I was never able to conduct any detailed discussion about his activity. under your command, you were not friendly towards each other, is that correct?
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, please, at this time the Prosecution offers into evidence Document MI-4147, which, if accepted, will be Prosecution's Exhibit No. 188. This is the affidavit of one Emil Hausmann.
DR. HOFFMANN: I knew it was coming. Your Honor, if I mentioned Tribunal No. 6, before, where that same question arose, it was only because I believed that I wanted to introduce such a case, as it already had been dealt with before. I know, of course, that this Tribunal is not controlled by the rulings of the other Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Was it also a co-defendant in this case, Dr. Hoffmann? Did the affidavit come from a potential co-defendant?
DR. HOFFMANN: No. There it was the question whether the affidavit of a dead person could be introduced. The affiant in this case has died and I cannot cross-examine him, therefore.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Hoffmann, we have many affidavits in these trials from people who have since died. The mere fact of death does not vitiate a document. There must be something move than mere death.
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes, that is a fact, but this Hausmann committed suicide, and I think that the fact that he committed suicide after giving an affidavit has thrown doubt upon his character and his credibility.
THE PRESIDENT: Well.
DR. HOFFMANN: So that his testimony because of this suicide seems par ticularly incredible; the fact that somebody commits suicide must have special reasons.
THE PRESIDENT: Well. we have many documents in this case, and other cases, in the War Crimes trials program, which came from individuals who have committed suicide. We have documents signed by Himmler, documents signed by Goebbels, documents signed by Ley, documents by any number of suicides which are in evidence.
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes, Your Honor, but these documents were all introduced while the affiant was still alive, these persons could be crossexamined.
THE PRESIDENT: Himmler?
DR. HOFFMANN: Not Himmler.
THE PRESIDENT: Goebbels?
DR. HOFFMANN: Not Goebbels.
THE PRESIDENT: Ley?
DR. HOFFMANN: No, Your Honor. We have not any affidavit of Himmler. He was already dead when the trial started.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but in the IMT there were any number of documents introduced.
DR. HOFFMANN: No, Your Honor. Today we have affidavits of twentyone defendants in the INT who have been executed, but they all could have been cross-examined while they were alive, and these documents because they, too, became official documents, can be introduced, But to introduce new ones now of people who are already dead, Tribunal Six ruled not admissible.
It is not that all statements and documents become void but these people were all cross-examined at some time, like Hoess, who was also cross-examined by the IMT; these documents can be used, if necessary, but we never had the opportunity to cross-examine Hausmann.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton.
MR. Walton: Your Honot, please, in the deciding of this question, I concur with the defense counsel, Dr. Hoffmann, that this man in a matter of hours after he gave this affidavit did commit suicide. A strong presumption arises that this affidavit, therefore, is a true statement of a true fact, since he was in his own mind in the presence of death. While I know it is not a dying declaration, it definitely, in view of the circumstances surrounding it, is an affidavit of probative value , and should come under the probative value rule. I might add one thing more, sir, without giving any circumstances in the same document is the conviction on the decision of a murder of an Ethnic German, and in the same document it contains the facts on which I have cross-examined the witness.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, the fact just mentioned by the Prosecutor here, that Hausmann committed suicide soon after giving the affidavit does not prove that it is the truth. I deny this, the fact that Hausmann committed suicide, because he know he had said an untruth. I think one reason can be considered as well as the other, and to point this out to you again, Your Honor, you mentioned documents concerning Himmler, Ley and so forth. In this sense, as these were documents which were signed by those persons, they were only being discussed because this was only an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Hoffmann, I can put even a better argument in your favor in this respect; that these papers, or most of them, with the Himmler signatures, that is, Himmler's and Goebbels' signatures, were all perhaps part of official business, and would be introducible in that ground, so you have an argument there that the documents can be distinguished.
The Tribunal will reserve decision on this point. You may continue with the cross examination and we will render our decision tomorrow morning, as to whether this document should or should not be accepted as an exhibit.
MR. WALTON: In that case, until the Tribunal's decision, I should like to reserve the Exhibit No. 188 for that document.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that number will be reserved.
MR. WALTON: And in this connection I assume that the Tribunal through deference of its decision, does not went to see the document at the present.
THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not necessary. We understand the contentions of both sides now.
BY MR. WALTON: page 52 of the English text, and page 58 of the German text, Document No. 3147, Prosecution Exhibit No. 96. This is a report of the activities of Einsatzgruppe-D from 19 August to 15 September 1941.
A 19 August until 15 September, did you say? where it is continued in the first line, saying, "from 19 August until 15 September, 8,890 Jews and Communists were executed." Document you see that sentence? that group can be chargeable to Einsatzcommando XII? Einsatzcommando XII is neither mentioned nor does what happened here have any geographical connection with Einsatzcommando XII, because Einsatzcommando XII was in a different area.
during this period? have indicated, was at some distance, which I have mentioned before, from the district of Ananjew and also distant from Nikolajew.
Q Had your commando left Tschanamin at this time?
left Tscharnomin. had not yet left Tscharnomin. All this indicates that there is not connection with my Kommando and cannot be. by Einsatzkommando XII? BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q When did you leave Tscharnomin? took place?
Q How long would it take you to drive 100 to 200 kilometers?
A Well, it all depends on the road conditions in Russia. In this connection I would like to emphasize again that in this territory first Kommando X-A and later Kommando X-3 were stationed.
THE PRESIDENT; Proceed, Mr. Walton.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q All right. I will ask you the same question. It says that the total number which is the total to this particular date of the report, is 12,315 executions. During this time, did Einsatzkommando XII perform any executions from 21 June up until 15 September 1141? time from 10 to 25 or 23, the shooting in Babtshinzy took place and then later on several shootings took place. For example, the one by Hausmann at the time when he was in charge of the Kommando. Whether these figures are contained here I cannot judge. In any case these figures and the places named in this report are not at all connected with my Einsatzkommado and it is not named but certificates and affidavits have already proved that Einsatzkommado X-A and B were stationed there.
were performed in the Babtschinzy area and the executions which were performed at the time when Hausmann was in temporary command were the only executions performed by Einsatzkommado XII? I cannot remember exactly because from 15, to, 25 August onwards the Kommando was on route and small units were dispersed throughout all localities. This territory where the Kommando XII moved was declared Rumanian sovereign territory; certain shootings occurred but didn't quite know. Our own and other people's reports mentioned this. I already said, after looking at the final records of the Kommando I read it. Of course, shootings were carried out, in particular in this whole territory and shootings were reported about on the principle that not only our own shootings but also shootings by the others were reported later on including events which had been in other territories. awarded to Rumania and go into Russian territory which constituted the rear Away area? October.
Q 1941? distributing your whole Kommando in different localities, 4, 5, 8 or 10 men in different villages or towns?
A No. My explanation just showed the opposite. The following occurred. The Kommando was halved and with the half which I retained I want to the territory around Mikailowka. From that time onwards until Federowka I was in charge of the entire Kommando, that is the half under my command.