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.
THE WITNESS: The date of my arrival in,Bryansk is missing and the date when I took over the Kommando is missing.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we are not asking about what is missing. We are asking about what is incorrect. You can supply the omissions very easily and have already done so. Anything else incorrect in the affidavit?
THE WITNESS: Otherwise I think everything is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then let us proceed. BY DR. KOESSL: reconnaissance, that is, when you were not on the road investigation partisans? jobs. My primary assignment was, as I have already sad, the partisan reconnaissance.
THE PRESIDENT; Now, please, witness, don't give us a lot of repetition and unnecessary words. The question was what were you doing when you were not taken up with partisan reconnaissance. Now you tell us about partisan reconnaissance. What did you do aside from partisan reconnaissance? That is the question.
THE WITNESS: I organized the Russian Criminal Police as well as the regular service, and I supervised this organization. I kept the Army informed every other day about the reports which we received from the partisan areas. I participated in conferences at the G-2 Section of the Second Armored Army. Once a month when all the G-2's of the corps and divisions were present, I had to give a report about the partisan situation and about the cooperation between the Army and special Kommando. Furthermore, I had to report to the Army about the morale and administration and about all other matters in the civil affairs. Furthermore, I had an exchange of information with the Commanding General of the Rear Army Area in Bryansk. I had to continue the cooperation with the Secret Field Police, with the Economic Command, with combat Commands, as I have already described on the chart. I had to make out SD reports about all spheres, and I had to send reports to Einsatzgruppe B. Then I had to cooperate in the special mission on research about the actual life in the Soviet Union.
I had to command my staff and my subkommandos. I had to take care of my men, and I had to work on organizing the network of agents and intelligence men, I had plenty of work to do with the proof-reading of reports which the Commissars of my Kommandos handed in. BY DR. KOESSL: responsibility of your command? leadership took place in March, 1942. As I recall, those were six partisans who had been apprehended after they had mined the roads near Bryansk and had murdered the drivers of German vehicles passing on this road. At the same time in the second half of March there was an execution in Bryansk of one partisan who made an attack of an Army officers' billet in Bryansk. This was shortly before the Komnando moved to Orel, and partly I listened to the interrogation myself. the German there is Document NO-3276, which is Exhibit 66. According to this Report 194 of the 21st of April, 1942, the special Kommando 7-B in the period of 6 to 30 March 1942 was to have executed eighty-two people altogether. What is your comment on this document.
A I have the following to say about this. The document itself shows-special Kommando 7-B at the time of your responsible leadership in March, 1942, execute eighty-two people?
B during this period covered by the report more so than in any case thus far extended to the field of partisan reconnaissance. The entire paragraph about the police activity in this document is concerned with the partisan situation and with the fighting of the still active Communists. The report names a period of time during March which is not mentioned in any report, namely, from 6 until 30 March. All Kommandos of the Einsatzgruppe B had the order to make reports every 1st and 15th of the month. It is striking that this extraordinary period, namely, from 6 to March, refers to all Einsatz Kommandos of Einsatzgruppe B so that it is easy to assume that this is an arbitrary compilation of reports of a longer period of time, and that a superior agency, either Einsatzgruppe B or the RSHA had compiled reports about events of the period further back in this particular report. Favoring this assumption is the fact that since December a large number of situation reports of Einsatzgruppe B were not submitted at all and that since December not a single execution is mentioned in those reports.
DR. KOESSL: May I mention here, Your Honor, that in Document Book No. I of Ott's I shall submit appropriate excerpts of documents and I shall prove thereby that from December until this month no executions were reported.
THE PRESIDENT: From December until when?
DR. KOESSL: From December 1941 until this report in April, 1942 no execution is reported.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, how does that prove that there were no executions between 6 and 30 March? The fact that no executions occurred between December and March, how does that prove that there were no executions between the 6th and the 30th of March?
DR. KOESSL: To prove that no execution took place between the 6th and the 30th of March is not possible for us, nor do we seek to prove this, and the defendant has already named a few executions.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I am merely drying to get, Dr. Koessl, your reasoning in the matter. You show us that between 1 December and 1 March it did not rain. Therefore, it couldn't have rained between 6 March and 30 March, and I don't get the connection there. It doesn't follow.
DR. KOESSL: In connection with the other matters in the report which have already been established, and in connection with the recollection which the witness has and has already confirmed here, furthermore in connection with the other evidence which we shall present, the possibility is absolutely probable that in the previous months for which no reports are available executions took place which were arbitrarily compiled in a central agency and only reported in April. The details how we arrive at this conclusion will be mentioned by the defendant and partly it will be my job when I discuss the evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed.
THE WITNESS: In the Situation Report No. 180 in my document book on page 37 and page 39--.
DR. KOESSL: We shall submit this document, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is it Document Book I?
DR. KOESSL: Document Book I for Ott.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I have it. All right, let us have it. Let us have the reference. I have the book.
DR. KOESSL: Pages 37 and 39 contain the passage which Ott wants to bring up. I do not have the English document book, and I assume they are the same pares.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed. Proceed.
THE WITNESS: At this place reconnaissance actions of special Kommando 7-B against partisans and against NKVD network of agents is reported during the course of which an agent by the name of Seyditz in Orel was a rested. It is expressly noted here that the investigations have not yet been concluded.
DR. KOESSL: This is the last sentence on page 39, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. "The investigations are still in progress".
THE WITNESS: That is correct. In the Situation Report No. 183 of 20 March 1942-
DR. KOESSL: This Situation Report is in the same volume, page 42, but it can also be found in Book 3-A of the Prosecution. BY DR. KOESSL: tion which was detected between January and February. In this connection the names Dimitry of the NKVD, Stepano, Scwczenko and Kesanova are mentioned. The report concludes with the sentence, "The investigations are still in progress". In these two reports, too, nothing is said of an execution. If in March eighty-two people had been executed, I would, of course, have to remember them, because just during the very first few wekks of my responsibility such an event would have made so much more of an impression on me.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is it your statement now that there were no executions in March?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, we had heavy snow in March.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, please answer the question. You are telling us now from what you have read to us that there couldn't have been any executions in March and you add to it that there was a big snow. Is that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: All right now, you refer to your own document book on page 33 and read the last paragraph on that page.
THE WITNESS: Is this in Document Book 2-A or 2-B?
THE PRESIDENT: No. No, your own document book. The one that you have presented on page 33, taken from Operational Report No. 178 dated 9 March. I will read it for you. It begins at the top of the page with a description of the situation and mood of the people in Bryansk. Then it ends up. "In Kursk, too, the population has calmed down noticeably. It looks as if proceedings against rumor mongers as well as the liquidation of some of these people had contributed substantially to this."
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe this translation is not quite correct. May I read it in the original text, that is, in the German version?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: And there it reads after the previous paragraph which describes how the situation and morale of the people in Bryansk is quiet, and "In Kursk, too, the population has noticeably quieted down. It looks as if the proceedings against rumor mongers as well as the elimination of part of these people has contributed essentially to this."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, how do you eliminate people? Do you make a distinction between elimination and liquidation?
THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, so, therefore, there were some executions during that period.
THE WITNESS: But this report, Your Honor, dated 9 March, can, therefore, refer to an incident which happened several weeks before, because the report was made out in Berlin and my experience with these reports shows - and I point to the Operation Eisbaer - that the report in this case was made out seven weeks later. By this I mean to say that what Berlin reports here in its report of 9 March normally took place two weeks before.
THE PRESIDENT: Two weeks before would take it into the latter part of February.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you say that it would be prior to February 22?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I cannot give you a definite date. I can only assume so as a result of the usual handling of these reports.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you will look at that report, you will notice that there is a reference already made to a report on February 25 so that the incidents described in this report of 178 would necessarily have had to occur following February 25, wouldn't they?
THE WITNESS: Yes sir.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Proceed, Doctor.
THE WITNESS: It says here, Your Honor, that the garrisons and communications as of the report of February 25 remained unchanged. Therefore, this report was probably written a few days after the 25th and it must have been written two weeks before, but in the operation Eisbaer the report shows that it was written seven weeks later.
THE PRESIDENT: How, but this present report shows that some executions occurred in the latter part of February or the early part of March, doesn't it?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, I said so before.
THE PRESIDENT: So, therefore, it is not so extraordinary that this other report says that there were killings between the 6th of March and the 30th of March.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. On the 6th of March I was already with the Kommando and I took over the responsible leadership on the 15th of March or the l6th when Neumann was there, but without a doubt I could well remember an execution of this extent if it had taken place.
BY DR. KOESSL: period before your first absence from the Kommando, that is to say, until you left for the Reich? Up to this point you mentioned the execution in Bryansk which is mentioned in the affidavit and which was not carried out under your responsibility. You Mentioned the execution of six partisans and of one partisan. What other executions took place? period of my responsible command. These were six or seven people who belonged to a larger partisan and sabotage organization and this organization was to a large extent captured in the preceding months. The investigations had been carried out very carefully and took very long because it was a matter of trying to apprehend this organization totally, all of them. These partisans also had mines and had made attacks on Army vehicles during the night.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, when the witness explains that there was a partisan action, is it necessary to go into so much detail as to what the partisan action was?
DR. KOESSL: I would be very glad if he wouldn't have to describe all this, but I considered it necessary that he would try to give his recollection to the Tribunal about the executions and the reasons for that.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, very well. BY DR. KOESSL
Q You don't have to be so extended, witness. cerned which took place after I took over the responsible command and which was the first one that I saw when I was the responsible commanding officer that I can recall this so very well because the snow had begun to melt and we had to look for a long time to find a dry place near Orel.
arrested and five or six days later were shot in Bryansk.
Q Wasn't there an incident about arson?
A This arson case was in Orel. These were three perpetrators who set fire to a part of the Army Supply Dump which was situated right near the railroad in Orel, and these men were apprehended because they were denounced by others. during your absence in May?
A I described these to Mr. Wartenberg, too, during my interrogation. There were about twenty to twenty-five.
Q What executions do you remember from the summer months of 1942? at Karatschew delivered about fourteen to sixteen persons on a truck and that they brought these people who belonged to a sabotage organization to the commando in Orel.
Q Why do you remember this incident?
A Because I remember a woman who was very ugly and brutal. She was a fanatic Communist and she had been photographed by one of my non-coms with all her weapons end explosives in her home and I put this in my souvenir album.
Q How many people were executed of this group? seven were shot. The others were brought to prison. The transfer to Orel took place because parts of this organization were also in Orel and because the perpetrators were to be confronted with them.
THE PRESIDENT: Suppose we have our afternoon recess now.
(A recess was taken.)
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL: I ask to be permitted to go on.
THE PRESIDENT: Please. BY DR. KOESSL: executions. a few more executions took place in Orel, with the Kommando as well as with the sub-Kommandos. The events are similar to each other and, therefore, I do not exactly remember-the numbers fluctuated between approximately two or three and more executees.
Q Do you remember this or the other case more exactly perhaps? after a lot of Searching with the aid of the OD, that is the Russian Regular Service, two or three saboteurs were apprehend who had caused a supply train to be blown up between Orel and Witzensk, toward the front line. Two or three days after the attack I was in the neighborhood of this village myself and I saw the actual place where the ruins of the whole train, including the locomotive, were next to the railway tracks. Approximately shortly before or after this time a number of perpetrators were apprehended who had attacked a column of Army supply trucks and shot at a gun of the Wehrmacht.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think that the Prosecution, and if I am in error Mr. Ferencz may correct me, charges the defendant with any offense in the execution of partisans, saboteurs, and looters. He is charged with murder. The execution of partisans comes within the rules of war. To go into a great deal of detail as to what each one of these partisans did does not help the solution of the Very grave issue before the Tribunal. The defendant remembers with a great deal of particularity every little incident connected with partisans, saboteurs, and looters. We trust that he will recollect with as much particularity when you direct his attention to the question of the Court No. II, Case No. IX.