under greatest difficulties, to take men from fighting units, from the security units in these vast territories, even temporarily and to detail them for partisan combat units. a small nature against other small, movile units on the part of the partisans? tasks. There was first of all the espinonage and reconnaissance of small sabotage groups up to the actual warfare in which on both sides thousands of men confronted each other.
Q In what way did you take part yourself in partisan warfare? and when, in time, I received a perfect knowledge, not only of the manner of fighting of the partisans but also of the organization and of the territory, I participated in the assignments of the Wehrmacht with my own commando within the whole task of partisan warfare. I was in charge of the intellegence of armed and unarmed units with the aid of my agents and with my Russian police. Wehrmacht took extensive actions and more than one company participated? in command, I took part in seven large scale partisan operations of the Wehrmacht.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you mentioned Russian police?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: They augmented your number to what extent so that what was the final total strength of your commando?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, the Russian police, the so-called O.D. or regular service, was not an integral part of my commando, but it was Russian police which was merely being set up by us and it was trained by us.
THE PRESIDENT: Your commando always remained the same size?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it was equally strong at any time.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the maximum number of men that you commanded?
THE WITNESS: Of my own commando only those one hundred men that I mentioned, and the Russian O.D. they had about four hundred and fifty men.
THE PRESIDENT: But you did not immediately command the O.D., did you?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. We were in charge of this particular O.D. service. They were in a building which was attached to ours, and one of my officials, or at least I think two together with two interpreters were constantly in the central office of this Russian police.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you in effect had five hundred men under you?
THE WITNESS: Not quite this, because the Russian police had been assigned to other tasks by the Wehrmacht, tasks of the kind which in Germany are being handled by the constabulary, but I was authorized to detail men for the partisan reconnaissance of those O.D. I was authorized to employ them.
THE PRESIDENT: All I am trying to find out is whether these Russian police were under your command or not. If they were under your command, they necessarily increased the strength of your organization. If they were not under your command, they did not, How, the question is a very simple one. Did you have command over these Russian police so that they in effect became part of your organization, or did you not have such command over them?
THE WITNESS: No, this power of command was not mine, but exclusively the local commander or the city commander of the Wehrmacht had this power.
THE PRESIDENT: So that -
THE WITNESS: I only was in charge of the actual work to be done by order of the Wehrmacht.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, so that your command strength always remained about one hundred?
THE WITNESS: Yes. The fluctuation was only a very slight one. Sometimes there were only eight-nine men, or even more, but approximately one hundred men.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q (By Dr. Koessl) will you describe to us any extensive operations that you took part in?
A You mean partisan operations? part in?
A You mean partisan operations? part in? Shurinitschi, S_h_u_ It is at the east of Bryansk, and in the second part--.
DR. KOESSL: It is on the map. It is on the railroad running north east. It is on the other righthand corner. It is about 30 kilometers from Bryansk.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q (By Dr. Koessl) When did this take place? sent me to the Reich for getting further supplies between the 20th and 24th of April.
Q Were any partisans killed during such action?
A The G.F.B. in the actual fight in the towns only suffered two or three wounded, and two or three - two partisans were shot.
Q And what was the second undertaking? At thebeginning of June, 1942, together with two Wehrmacht companies, a colonel was in charge of this operation. It was in the territory of Trosna-Ploskoje.
That is to the south and southwest of Orel. southwest of Orel. I remember the event very clearly because the officer had this shooting carried out without interrogating these partisans.
Q And what was the third operation? by the counterintelligence group Witter, assisted hy twenty officers and men of my own commando and two companies of indigenous counterintelligence members who were Russian volunteers who were working under German leadership, and they were fighting against the partisans.
Q And what was the result? Werchopolie. That is in the vicinity of Bryansk. One officer....
DR. KOESSL: Your Honor, it is marked on the map at the east of Bryansk, about 30 kilometers to the east of Bryansk, on the map.
A (Continuing) One officer was killed and three men, or at least non-commissioned officers they were had stopped on mines in the partisan forest. The second operation in July - I don't remember whether it was in the middle or towards the end of July, 1943. That was an operation in collaboration with the fighting unit Fuchs and two squadrons of Russian cavalry who were also fighting on the German side in the sector Trojanowo-Michailowka. That was an operation which took about two or three days. There was not any result, success, which could be mentioned, I think two men were killed during this whole operation.
in the forests near the railroad line, Bryansk-Karatschew, and in this operation, the fortifications of the bonds were destroyed. A number of mines were unearthed, hut it was not possible to catch a single partisan. November shortly after my second return to Russia. That was in the sector of Bolchoff. That is immediately behind the front line. In this operation two battalions of the Wehrmacht had been combined from various units, fortified by another company, in order to comb out a territory infested by partisans, it was a thick forest. On our part seven or eight men were killed. There were about fifteen wounded, and the partisans suffered losses of about twenty-five killed and wounded, or at least the numbers I do not know because they did not fall in our hands, but on the evening of the third day we had to withdraw because the partisan bands had succeeded to cut us off in the back and therefore there was the danger that we would be encircled in the night. Polar Bear No. 1, 2, and 3. I was asked concerning this during my interrogation by Mr. Wartenberg, and I could give him minute details about this because I myself took part in this operation, which took place in January 1943, at 35 degrees below freezing point and it lasted ten days, Later on, after I had received the indictment, I could see from the documents that the Operation Eisbaer is contained in the reports in March '43 concerning the reports of the Eastern Occupied Territory. May I just finish this? The Operation Eisbaer was under the leadership of the Wehrmacht. Colonel Ruebsam was in charge of the operation. Among the German participants there were about 2500 men from various units of the Wehrmacht. The partisan bands who were chased into the forests and swamp territories there were about 3000 men, and here I may mention something which seems to me most characteristic, which is the fact, that this operation which took ten clays and in which 2200 German officers and men took part, did not bring into our hands one prisoner, one man or one dead member of this partisan group.
This becomes evident from the document which has been submitted to the Tribunal.
Q How many smaller operations did Commando 7-B carry out?
THE PRESIDENT: I understood you to say that the Eisbaer Operation endured three days. Few you tell us of one phase of it lasting ten days.
THE WITNESS: No, that must have been a mix-up, The Operation Eisbaer had three phases, Eisbaer 1, Eisbaer 2, and Eisbaer 3. In each phase there was a new territory. It lasted from 15 January until the 24th or 25th of January. That is ten days.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: It is mentioned in the documents that I took part in it. I was in charge of the reconnaissance with 25 men of my commando. BY DR. KOESSL: How many lesser operations, reconnaissance operations, did the Sonderkommando 7b carry out during your time? because the partisan reconnaissance was almost a daily task, and it had currently to be dealt with. The partisans always changed their locations, and they sent out their sabotage and terror groups, which sometimes only consisted of three or four men, into the cities and everywhere. German 57, you have just mentioned the Operation Eisbaer. Why did you just mention this particular event and not the other operations?
tion by Mr. Wartenberg on the 21st of February of this year a list was shown to me, or at least it was read to me, which contained names for those various partisan operations. Mr. Wartenberg asked me to tell him about those operations in which I had taken part myself. When he read these names to me I said that the only operations in which I took part was 1, 2, 3 Eisbaer and that I had actually taken part in them.
Q Mr. Wartenberg said when he was heard on the witness stand on the 7th of October, it is in a German book on page 389. but I don't know the English page, he said that you stated that the Operation Eisbaer had taken place at various points, that it had taken from the middle of February to the middle of May, and that you then went on recreation leave, and after that you had spoken about executions. How, what did you tell Mr. Wartenberg at the time?
A In these explanations which Mr. Wartenberg made when he was in the witness stand, these statements contain a number of incorrectnesses. It was correct, however, that mention was made of the Operation Eisbaer which took place at various points, as Mr. Wartenberg quite rightly said. Although it wasn't my way of expressing it, but of course it must have taken place at various points, because if thousands of soldiers fight thousands of partisans these partisans do not stand still. That the operation, according to Mr. Wartenberg, according apparently to my statements, took from middle of February to May, of course, I did not say. I think I gave the exact dates; I gave the exact time which was from the 15th of January to the 24th of January, 1943, and a few days after that I was finally recalled.
Q Did you say that you went on recreation leave at that time?
A Then? No, I didnot say that I went on leave then. That is not correct. I told, him that I ceased to be in command immediately after that, that is at the end of January, and that Obersturmbannfuehrer Raabe had been appointed my successor and had already arrived at Orel in the meantime.
Q During this interrogation by Mr. Wartenberg, after you had made your statement concerning this operation Eisbaer, did you speak about the executions which were carried out afterwards?
A No. Again, unfortunately, this is incorrect. After I had made these statements concerning Eisbaer I did not speak about any executions of any kind, but what happened was this. At the beginning of my interrogation on the 21st of February of this year Mr. Wartenberg asked me "How many thousand Jews did you shoot?" I told him that this was not at all the case because in 1942 there were no antiJewish actions in my territory. Herr Wartenberg therefore asked me to give him a detailed description concerning my first execution which I had seen in Russia, and I told himiin detail, or at least as well as I remembered it, an execution which had taken place in Ordshonikidsegrad which is near Bryansk during the tine of my initial training. At that tine four to five partisans or members of sabotage groups
Q Just a moment, Witness, did this execution take place in Bryansk?
Q It was, therefore, not in Ordshonikidsegrad? turned over by the local commander of Ordshonikidsegrad to Bryansk. Ordshonikidsegrad and Bryansk are almost one town. It is about like Nurnberg and Furth.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, would you want to interrupt now for the noon recess?
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 10 December 1947.)
MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. STUEBINGER: Dr. Stuebinger for Braune. Your Honor, I ask that the defendant Braune be excused from tomorrow's session in order to prepare the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant,Braune, will be excused from tomorrow's session so that he may help in the preparation of the document book.
DR. STUEBINGER: Thank you.
DR. KRAUSE: Krause, as representative for Dr. Riediger, for the defendant Haensch. Your Honor, I have the same request for the defendant Haensch. I ask that he be excused from tomorrow's session, both morning and afternoon, and to direct that he be brought to Room 57 to discuss his defense.
PRESIDENT: For both the morning and afternoon?
DR. KRAUSE: Yes, Sir.
PRESIDENT: The defendant Haensch will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow and will be conducted to Room 57 where he nay confer with his counsel.
DR. STUBENHOLT: Stubenholt for Ohlendorf. Your Honor, I ask that the defendant Ohlendorf be excused from the session on Thursday and Friday, both days, in order to prepare further document books.
PRESIDENT: The defendant Ohlendorf will be excused from attendance in court on Thursday and Friday of this week in order to work on his document book.
DR. STUBENHOLT: Thank you.
DR. KOESSL: May I please continue?
PRESIDENT: Please do.
DR. KOESSL: The defendant Ohlendorf called my attention to the fact, Your Honor, that I did not use an expression quite correctly.
The official designation of the Einsatzgroups did not say "Einsatzgroups of the Security Police and SD" but the Einsatzgroups were named "Einsatzgroup A", Einsatzgroup B", "Einsatzgroup C", and "Einsatzgroup D" without the addition "Security Police and SD."
PRESIDENT: Very well.
DIRECT EXAMINATION ( Continued) BY DR. KOESSL: Mr. Wartenberg. Whad did you tell Mr. Wartenberg about the events during your presence at the Einsatzkommando 7B?
A The question Mr. Wartenberg asked was, "How many thousand of Jews did you have shot? " I told him that in 1942 when I took over the commando no Jewish actions took place any more but that, of course, here and there a Jew was shot if he was involved in partisan or sabotage acts. He told me then, "please describe to me the first execution which you saw while you were in Russia," thereupon, I described the execution which took place in Bryansk, and of February or beginning of March, during the time I became acquainted with the work in 1942. These were five or six saboteurs whom the army had captured near Ordshonikidsograd. These were saboteurs who had intended to smuggle poison into an army mess in order to poison a whole army unit. This execution took place during severely cold weather and there was snow, and this is what I described to him. At this occasion I was asked by Mr. Wartenberg whether the Einsatzkommando had taken valuables from the victims, and I explained to him that these valuables had been transferred to Einsatzgroup B or via Einsatzgroup B to an agency of the Reich, and that they had to be delivered to that agency.
Q How many executions did you list to Mr. Wartenberg as a total figure?
A I told Mr. Wartenberg that in the six months during which I actually commanded the commando and during which I was responsible for it, altogether 80 to a hundred executions took place.
Q What did you mean by so to a hundred executions? How many persons were involved each tine?
Q This figure is then the total number of persons? partisan units and of sabotage groups. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q How many people were killed at each execution?
A That varied. Altogether there were 80 to100 persons who were executed during the six months.
Q Well, you said already that it varied. How many usually were killed in one execution -- one action?
A This varied. I recall that sometimes it was 1 or 2 and I recall one execution where there were 11 people. refer to it collectively as one execution, don't you? of executions but of people who were shot.
Q Well, if 11 people were shot at one time, you wouldn't say, "11 executions", would you? person.
Q If 11 people are shot, at one tine, you wouldn't say "11 executions", would you?
Q Well, then why would you use the phrase "80 to a hundred executions", if you meant "80 to a hundred people" when in only one execution, there night be 11 people killed?
A Well, because the word "execution" as well as the word "shooting" can refer to one parson as well as to several. past and you have in mind various executions, you would mean each collective act of shooting of individuals and each collective act would be one execution, isn't that the way you would do it ordinarily? can mean the collective killing of 50 or a hundred people, Yes.
Q Well, when you say "80 to a hundred executions", you mean 80 to 100 collective killings?
A No, Your Honor. During my interrogation I expressly said, and the stenotyped record will show this, that I spoke of 80 to a hundred people who were shot.
Q Don't you think that when you signed this affidavit that if you meant only 80 to 100 people killed that you should have made a correction there? Didn't it occur to you that it would be subject to misinterpretation?
A No, because the word "execution" can mean one individual case. spoken of 80 to a hundred executions, you say in the next sentence, "I remember one execution which took place in the vicinity of Bryasnk", then you say, "the people to be executed were handed over to my unit by the local commandant. The corpses were temporarily buried In the snow, and later buried by the army". Now let me call your attention to this.
In one paragraph you describe an individual execution which involved several or many people. Then in that same paragraph you refer to 80 or 100 executions. Wouldn't it be logical for someone to assume that when in the description of one execution you talk of "many" people, that when you talk of "from 80 to a hundred executions", you also mean 80 or 100 times a certain number of people more than one?
A Yes. One could interpret it that way. During my interrogation it was not a question of how many executions were carried out but the question was concerned only with how many people were shot altogether.
Q Well, why didn't you make that correction in the affidavit? submitted to me two months afterwards. Before I was to sign it, I read it and first I noticed an important distortion concerning the operation Eisbaer which had been put into the affidavit. I immediately corrected this matter, and I shall come to talk about it later. But I did overlook the correction of minor matters and matters which seemed less important to me, especially since I have already said that 80 to a hundred executions were to me equivalent to 80 or a hundred people shot.
Q Well, you said you had said that, hut you don't say it in the affidavit?
A I didn't notice it when I read it through two months afterwards, but I nay emphasize once more that during the interrogations it was a matter of establishing the total number of people shot; of the number of executions, nothing was said. casual reading of this affidavit could only convoy the impression that by "executions" you meant collective slayings, because not only in the paragraph do you have this reference to the executions at Bryansk, but then later on you say, "This was ordered by command of Naumann, the head of Einsatzgruppe B. And the same was true for other executions." Then still again in paragraph 3 you say, "It is known to me that aside from my unit, other units carried out executions". How, certainly, in paragraph 3 the word "executions" cannot be substituted for the killing of one person. And then still again in that sane paragraph you have once more the phrase, "frequent executions".
A Your Honor, in my opinion this is a matter of the words "80 to a hundred executions" not coming from my lips, but that I actually spoke of "80 to a hundred people shot". The word "executions" was put in by Mr. Wartenberg, and the stenographed record will show this, but two months later I overlooked this when I read through it because for me "executions" and "shootings" are the sane. I ask that the stenographic record be submitted by the prosecution and this will confirm my words. careless in reading this affidavit not to note that the word "executions" four or five times refers to collective shootings and only in this one instance to individual shootings.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, one moment please. I think you were just about to explain this, why you were so careless and in this connection you spoke about the operation Eisbaer. What did you notice about the statements in the affidavit about this matter, and what struck you in this respect? two months later, because I heard nothing about it and was not interrogated again in these two months, and when it was submitted to me, I saw to my surprise the following sentence; may I quote, "I participated among other things in the Operation Eisbaer which was carried out under the leadership of Colonel Ruebsam (from the army) . This operation had the mission to fight partisans in the vicinity of Bryansk. During this many partisans and partisan suspects were shot." of partisan groups were shot, and did you speak at all about people suspected of being partisans? the operation Eisbaer to Mr. Wartenberg in all details, and I told him that during this operation, even though it lasted 10 days, no contact with enemy took place so that there were neither prisoners nor was any one shot. This is confirmed by the document which is available, and about whose presence I did not know anything in February. The word "suspected" of being partisans was not even mentioned either by myself or by Mr. Wartenberg.
Q Were you told that"this affidavit will be used as evidence against you"?
A No. Before I signed the affidavit I said to Mr. Wartenberg in the course of the conversation whether he would permit me to ask him a private question. I asked him then, "Please tell me, do I have to consider myself as a witness or as a future defendant", and he said, "Oh, well, if you were a defendant, you would long before have received on indictment", therefore, I considered myself as a witness.
Q But when you were interrogated by Mr. Wartenberg, were you put under any duress because you did not immediately remove the irregularities in the affidavit, especially the unclarity about the period of time when you took over the commando and about the word "execution"? February which was stated in the affidavit is correct as such, but it says only, I then became commanding officer of the special commando 7B.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he is not answering the question you put to him, you asked him if he was under any duress.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let him answer that question. BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Please answer that question, were you under any duress. You can give the explanations afterwards.
A I don't know how far one should apply the concept of "duress". If one has been interned for years and comes here from an internment camp and is then interrogated a few days later, one is, of course, under a certain compulsion, but during the interrogation Mr. Wartenberg was very polite and very friendly, and he offered me cigarettes repeatedly, but I always had the feeling that a trap would be set for me, and that 1 would be caught somehow.
THE PRESIDENT: You have not yet answered the question. Were you under duress? If you do not know the meaning of the word "duress" it will be defined to you. Were you under duress when you were being interrogated by Mr. Wartneberg and when you signed this affidavit which is now in evidence?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Now if he had told you that you were to be a defendant, would your answers be any different from those which you gave when you thought you were to be a witness, only a witness?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, my answers would have been the same which I then gave to Mr. Wartenberg, hut two months later when the affidavit was submitted to me, I would have been much more careful, and if I had to count on the fact that those statements would he used against me. I would have, of course, seen to it that both incriminating and exonerating matters would have been put in, and I would have also seen to it that not only the complete invention about the operation Eisbaer would have been crossed out, but that all other questions would have been put in, and I would have also seen to it that not only the complete invention about the operation Eisbaer would have been crossed out, but that all other questions would have been put in unequivocally and unambig uously.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now you have mode the explanation about the 80 to 100 executions. You tell us that you only meant 80 to 100 people executed. Now that is one correction. What other corrections so you want to make in this affidavit? Did you take part in the action Eisbaer?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well it is not incorrect then to say that you took part in that action, is it?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, the fact of my participation I did not mention.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is it incorrect that you took part in the action Eisbaer?
THE WITNESS: Noo that is correct. I did participate,
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. All right now, what else is ther in the affidavit that you take exception to?
THE WITNESS: In addition to my testimony, Mr, Wartenberg added that many partisan members and those suspected of being parties were shot.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, where is that in the affidavit?
THE WITNESS: That was not put in, Tour Honor, but the original affidavit which was what Mr. Wartenberg had when he was on the witness stand shows that before signing this affidavit I crossed out that sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: But this is the affidavit which is in evidence, Document NO-2993: Exhibit 67. What is there in this affidavit which does not conform to the truth?
THE WITNESS. Your Honor, this additional sentence invented by Mr. Wartenberg was put into the original affidavit and was crossed out by me.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, witness, we don't have that affidavit before us. This is the only one you have to answer to. What is wrong with this affidavit ?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I want to emphasize by this what methods Mr. Wartenberg used in order to set a trap for me,
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but we are not trying Mr. Wartenberg, and this is the only thing which is before us. Suppose somebody fooled you fifteen years ago somewhere else. It wouldn't interest us any. This is the only thing you are being charged with insofar as Mr. Wartenberg is concerned. This is the affidavit which is before us. Whether he fooled you or didn't fool you doesn't concern us insofar as this paper is concerned, because this is the one you signed, and this is the one which you now say is correct.
BY DR. KOESSL: ful with your statements about the beginning of your activity in special Kommando 7-B. What did you state at the time, and to what do you object in this respect in the affidavit? What did you want to say exactly, and what did you tell Mr. Wartenberg?
THE PRESIDENT: Now listen, Dr. Koessl, we are not interested in what he told Mr. Wartenberg. He is charged with certain crimes. He is here on the witness stand. He can answer to those charges and certain evidence has been introduced against him. One piece of evidence is this affidavit. If this affidavit is not correct, let him point out wherein it is incorrect. Any passage at arms that he had with Mr. Wartenberg is of no consequence unless it can be shown that there is something in this affidavit which is incorrect.
DR. KOESSL: Your Honor, the witness was to clarify what is not complete in the affidavit, and, therefore-
THE PRESIDENT: Well, listen, first let him point out wherein the affidavit is incorrect. After he has done that, then let him tell his story as to what he did and did not do insofar as it is relevant to the charges in the Indictment. BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness: repeat the point which you objected to in the affidavit.
A First of all, on page 2 of the original. I want to correct the following. It says here, "The valuables which were collected from these people were sent to Einsatzgruppe B." This was the order of Einsatzgruppe Chief Naumann of Einsatzgruppe B. and it was always handled this way in other executions.
Q What is wrong with this? to my statements, but it was not Naumann who was the chief of Einsatzgruppe B who gave this order to my predecessor, but it was Nebe who commanded Einsatzgruppe B before Naumann did.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now we have made a note of that that the witness states that there was an error in the affidavit. Instead of the name "Naumann" it should have been "Nebe". Now proceed to the next incorrection. BY DR. KOESSL:
Q What other point do you have to complete or clarify? says, "80 to 100 executions". want to clarify? out of context and only lists excerpts from my interrogation. and you have already wanted to make a statement about the beginning when you took over the Kommando. Now tell us about that.
A Well, I think I have already described it. It says here in the affidavit that "On the 15th of February, 1943, I was ordered to report to special Kommando 7-B of Einsatzgruppe B. I became the commanding officer of this Kommando."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this is not incorrect, is it? You were ordered to Sonderkommando 7-b on 15 February, weren't you?
THE WITNESS: On 15 February I had arrived in Smolensk.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Well, is this incorrect that you were ordered to take-
THE WITNESS: No, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, don't tell us about the correct statements. Tell us about this affidavit insofar as it is incorrect. Now what else is wrong about the affidavit, and let us move along.