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.
business of liquidation under the Fuehrer order.
DR. KOESSL: I presume that the Prosecution affirms this question.
Mr. FERENCZ: The Prosecution concurs in the statements made by the Tribunal. However, we have also charged the defendant with violations of the laws and customs of war and war crimes and if defense counsel intends to go into the question of partisan warfare to show solely that it was done as legitimate warfare we have no objection to his proceeding briefly along those lines.
THE PRESIDENT: Once the defense indicates that certain partisans were shot because of violations of the rules of war and that is not challenged by the Prosecution then that should dispose of that episode without going into so much detail. Certainly the defendant has the right to show, as he has been showing, that he was engaged in what he regards as legitimate warfare, but it seems you are going into too much unnecessary detail. BY DR. KOESSL: were executions of partisans and saboteurs carried out also during the last period of your activity in your Commando? Please give a general answer to that. active in this particular manner? Did you order that - that is what I mean - people wars to be shot only because they belonged to a certain race? seized and do not belong to a partisan movement or sabotage organization must be shot on the basis of the Fuehrer order. The Kommando and sub-Kommandos, in accordance with the Fuehrer order from the very beginning of their assignment, that is from June 1941, had worked in accordance with these rules. That is, the sub-Kommandos worked Court No. II.
Case No. IX.
independently. I would like to say the following. I was lucky enough, owing to the fact that I only joined the Einsatzkommandos in 1942, that in my own area this order had been practically carried out, that the cities, after the Kommando had been stationed there for five months, were free of Jews. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Did I understand him correctly? I merely want to be certain. Kommando leaders that if they found Jews they were to seize them and shoot them in accordance with the Fuehrer order? Is that what you said? I merely want to be correct in my notes here. DR. KOESSL:
Q Then you seized Jews who were not partisans? been seized without belonging to a sabotage or partisan organization or a Communist organization. findings? who had been arrested had not only to be proven guilty and had to be investigated in this connection but also because one had to get information from his interrogation what people, what extent, and what size this organization had of which he was a member. PRESIDENT: are telling us. In each instance where a Jew was apprehended it developed that he was a member of a partisan or sabotage organization. Is that what I understand you to tell us - that you were lucky never to have found a Jew that belonged to an organization which entitled him to be shot?
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
that in my area, when I arrived in 1942, the Fuehrer order had already practically been carried out.
Q Well, this is what I have in my notes. Let's see if I took it down correctly. "I do not remember a single case in which Jews were seized without it being proven that they were members of a sabotage organization." Now, that is what you said? your organization belonged to a sabotage organization.
Q That's right. So, every Jew which your organization seized was shot because he belonged to a partisan or sabotage organization? within the grasp of your organization were shot?
Q Were there any nationals who were not shot? Were there people of other nationalities who were seized, cases investigated, and released?
A Yes, naturally. I said so in my examination. that he belonged to one of these organizations and was therefore shot?
A Yes. He would have been shot even, your Honor, if he had not been a member of one of these organizations. shot anyway? rators but if for some reason he had merely been hiding with the group because he had to be seized in accordance with the Fuehrer Order.
Q That's right. So that whether ha belonged to an illegal organization, that is, partisan or saboteurs, or not, he was bound to be shot becauseif he wasn't shot as a saboteur, as an active partisan, Court No. II, Case No. IX.
he would be shot under the Fuehrer Order? That's correct, isn't it?
A He was shot in accordance with the Fuehrer Order - yes. I would like to add, your Honor, that of course an interrogation was carried out in this particular case to see "is he a member of an organization or is he not". tion, an illegal organization? of these illegal organizations, saboteur or partisan or a resistance movement, you would have shot him anyway because he was a Jew and fell under the Fuehrer Order, that's right, isn't it?
that he always would be shot? What was the reason for wasting all this time on a man you were going to shoot anyway? member of an organization. If such was the case he was carefully questioned concerning all liaison members, number of members of this particular organization, and their activities. That was the purpose of the interrogation. his plans? too? the same time in a few cases we got on the wrong track. I even remember that people constantly refused to state anything concerning their organization.
Q Some of them refused to talk?
Q And they were shot just the same?
Q Well, then you did shoot some Jews because they were Jews? had to be shot. Never mind whether he was a perpetrator or not.
Q How many Jews did you shoot just because they were Jews? BY DR. KOESSL: always proved to be members of a party or organization?
being members of these groups. interrogation was to establish the extent of partisan organizations and to find out about their activities? to be guilty. found guilty through statements by another member of these organizations. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Just a moment. The Tribunal asked you very specifically how many Jews were shot because they were Jews and you replied "20". Is that correct? Fuehrer order?
Q Well I don't quite comprehend Dr. Koessl's questioning.
DR. FOESSL: The contradiction in the statement of the witness is that on one hand he says that Jews were always proven to be members of an organization
PRESIDENT: They were always seized and questioned - but he said in some oases they refused to talk and then they were shot because they were Jews. That's what he said.
MR. FERENCZ: I object to defense counsel pointing out a contradiction in his client's testimony unless he intends to impeach his client.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that's a rule of law.
DR. KOESSL: I think I can clear up the inconsistencies in the statements of my client which the Tribunal refers to. I don't think it is hardly a matter of the Prosecution to prevent that.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, you are permitted to question him but you are not supposed to suggest any answer.
If you want to go into that field again, of course, you will be permitted to do so but it is not for you to contradict your own witness.
DR. KOESSL: I did not want to do so. I only heard two contradictory statements.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you want to go over the field again you may do so.
DR. KOESSL: I only want to address one question to him and that will settle the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: But don't put it in a leading form. BY DR. KOESSL: not established that he was a member of a partisan organization?
MR. FERENCZ: I object to the question. The question has been asked twice by the Tribunal and answered twice clearly by the defendant.
BY THE PRESIDENT: Witness, I will repeat what you said which the Tribunal directly called to your attention and which you confirmed. Now did you say, "I do not remember a single case in which Jews were seized without it being proven that they were members of a sabotage organization." Did you say that? said, " Yes, they were interrogated for the purposes of determining what they knew about these illegal organizations." which led to the arrest of others? ation and you were unable to arrest anybody else?
to answer at all and you said, "Yes."
Q Then you were asked whether then he wouldn't be shot because he was a Jew and as we recall it you said "Yes." organization or not was bound to be shot because if it was not established that he belonged to a saboteur or partisans organization then he fell into the category of the Fuehrer order and was shot for that reason, is that correct? under your order by your Kommando, because they were Jews and as we have it written down here 20 Jews -- is that correct?
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Were women and children shot, witness?
A Children were not shot in any case. Women were among these people here and there. I have already mentioned this Communist woman functionary with all these many weapons who came from Karatschew. That was one of these cases. mention all the other cases which have come up, and I would like to put my last question to the witness. Did you participate in the deportation of Eastern workers to the Reich?
A No, I did not participate in this. On the contrary, I contributed to having the deportation of Eastern workers to the Reich stopped. I refer to a document which has been submitted in this matter and which makes this quite evident.
Q I shall submit this part of the document later. It does not become evident from the excerpts which I have at the moment. Did you, during your assignment in Russia, meet the leaders of those Einsatzkommandos which were stationed in the surrounding territories? ferences at Einsatzgruppe B in Smolensk, I met the leaders of commandos, as far as they were members of the Einsatzgruppe B.
Q Where did you meet?
Q That is with the chief of the Einsatzgruppe? Einsatzgruppen in the vicinity? and to sort out certain categories of prisoners and execute them?
Q You had a very low party number. Do you hold the golden party badge that was given to all party members who held a number under 100 ,000?
A My membership number was 2433 which I obtained in autumn. 1922, when I joined the Party. I left the Party in '27. In September, 1931, I rejoined the Party, and I automatically got back my old membership number, 2433.
Q Did you receive the golden party badge?
THE PRESIDENT: Why did you leave the Party, Witness, in 1927?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, in the fall of 1922 I was a member of the Party, and I had become a member of the Party and an SA man. I want to explain why I left the Party. In 1923 after the Munich Putsch the Party became illegal, and it was illegal until 1925. After this tine our small local group could not re-establish itself properly any longer, and owing to personal differences concerning the leadership of this local group, a. number of comrades and myself left the Party.
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't leave it because you disagreed with its ideology?
THE WITNESS: No, the ideology as such I regarded then and ever as the right one. I only left because of the incompetence of the local leadership.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. BY DR. KOESSL: you joined the Party and the SA?
A No, that was of no significance to me. What was of major importance to me was the social question, and the concern for the existence of the Fatherland.