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.
1942, and which became known as the so-called final solution of the Jewish question, the final solution in this case being the elimination of the Jews?
A This Fuehrer Order I first learned about here in Nurnberg. I can assure the Tribunal that not a single member of my commando, just as little as I, myself, ever knew anything about this Fuehrer Order before.
Q Witness, of course you can't really assure us of that. for hours the Jewish question and the Fuehrer Order.
Q Do you mean at that time it was never discussed?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know whether I understood correctly. Did he say he did not hear the Fuehrer Order or of it until he arrived in Nurnberg?
DR. KOESSL: Your Honor, as for that Fuehrer Order which decreed the so-called final solution, he only heard about that here. The other Fuehrer Order, however, which has become the subject of this trial, concerning the elimination of Jews in the East, that, of course, he knew, but he did not know the Fuehrer Order concerning the extermination of the entire Jewish population in Europe. I think this latter order was decreed in April, 1942.
THE WITNESS: This is the one that I only found out about in Nurnberg. BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Did you servo in the SS during the war?
A Only within the SD, otherwise never. Of course, the SD is part of the SS.
Q Did you receive any decoration for your assignment in Russia? in Russia received after having been there for some time in Russia, especially in the winter, no matter whether he was a clerk in the office or he was a cook in the kitchen or a soldier in the field.
Q Did you receive no other decorations?
Q When were you promoted last?
Q That then was before the Russian assignment? order to hush up your activity with the Special Commando 7b and your activity in the SD?
A No, after the capitulation on the l6th of May, 1945. I voluntarily turned myself over to the English secret service in Rendsburg, and in my first short interrogation I mentioned the fact of my Russian assignment.
DR. KOESSL: This ends my direct examination, Your Honor.
My colleague, Dr. Gawlik, wanted to put a few questions to the witness, but he happens not to be here. If Your Honor agrees, I shall put the questions to the witness which my colleague Gawlik wanted to ask him.
THE PRESIDENT: We will certainly permit you to do that, and when Dr. Gawlik does actually return to the Courtroom, if you have not covered what he desires that you put to the witness, we will permit him to put those questions.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: May I say something? Your Honor, I have one request. I would like to point out two mistakes in the documents, and I would like to clarify them.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
THE WITNESS: They are only two short statements which I would make. In Document 3943-PS. page 261, it says: "In the report -- "
THE PRESIDENT: Which book? Which book, do you know?
THE WITNESS: I am not in a position to say, Your Honor.
DR. KOESSL: Which is the report concerned here?
THE WITNESS: It is the report of my recall, which is wrongly stated in there. It is in the report of events of July 1942, report of events, No. 13, of 24 July 1942.
DR. KOESSL: Which is the place which you want to point out to us?
THE PRESIDENT: Have you found the book?
DR. KOESSL: No, I haven't found the book, and I can't imagine what the witness can mean. It is the location report.
THE PRESIDENT: We ought to have the document before us so we can follow his explanation. Is it your personnel record; is that the one?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, a short while ago I copied that from the files, and I unfortunately forgot to mention the document volume in my notes.
DR. KOESSL: Which is the report of events?
THE WITNESS: No. 13 of the 24th of July, July.
DR. KOESSL: No. 13. It is possible that it is a situation and reports of events, a situation and operation report. This is the kind of report which was only issued after April and was sent to Berlin. It is on page 261.
THE PRESIDENT: But which book? That is what we are trying to determine.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
DR. KOESSL: I think I can clarify this mistake, Your Honor, myself. I don't think we need the clarification.
PRESIDENT: It couldn't be in a document book with that page number because it is doubtful that there is a document book that goes as high as page 261.
DR. KOESSL: I think it has not been submitted, Your Honor. I would like to clarify this, and I would like to correct it tomorrow morning.
THE WITNESS: It is the collective volume--the collective reports from the occupied eastern territories.
DR. KOESSL: The volumes concerned have only been submitted in the original, and the excerpts at your disposal do not contain, of course, the entire reports, and for this reason the witness seems to be thinking of a particular point which is not contained here. I shall clarify it tomorrow morning.
PRESIDENT: Very well.
WITNESS: It says here-
PRESIDENT: Witness, we will be able to follow you much better if we have the document, and perhaps by tomorrow morning we will have it, and then you can tell us about it. You may proceed with the questions for Dr. Gawlik. BY DR. KOESSL: Document Book IIB, you state that the chief of the Einsatzgruppe B, Neumann, ordered that valuables which had belonged to executed people should be turned over to the Einsatzgruppe D. Did you receive this order from Naumann himself?
A No. I have already pointed out on one occasion that my predecessor, Obersturmbannfuehrer Rausch, told me that the chief of Einsatzgruppe B had ordered that all valuables be turned over via the Einsatzgruppe B. Involuntarily I thought of the name, Naumann, because at that time when I was told this, Naumann was the chief of the Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Einsatzgruppe B. I didn't think of the fact then that Naumann had not been there from the beginning but that before him Obergruppenfuahrer Nebehad been in charge.
Q Did Naumann ever give you any order for any execution? the carrying out of an execution. make the measures of your Commando more severe and to increase your activity?
Q Did you ever receive a proof personally of Naumann's activity as chief of Einsatzgruppe B and what the general judgment was? Oh, there is Dr. Gawlik.
A Yes, in a very curious manner. In the fall 1944 Einsatzgruppe B, I think it was in Eastern Prussia, was dissolved. The personnel files which had arrived at Einsatzgruppe B during the war were sent off to the home stations of the commandos concerned or to the members of the group staff.
PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, are you aware that Dr. Koessl is putting these questions for you?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, I am aware of it.
PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: The man in charge of administration of Einsatzgruppe B in Smolensk was the administrative chief of the state police office in Saarbruecken. And my original office had been the SD Department Saarbruecken. Therefore, when these files in the fall 1944 were sent to the home stations, I, in my own office, received the personnel files of this administrative chief and my papers want to the chief of police in Saarbruecken. They thus got mixed up. Since it was an ordinary open letter, not a secret of any kind, I, of course, took the liberty to read the file, especially as I knew the man and his activity. And this file contained a correspondence between the Third Chief of Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Einsatzgruppe B and, therefore, the successor of Naumann, Boehme, and the Chief of the Security Police and SD, Kaltenbrunner. Boehme had written a lengthy report to Kaltenbrunner concerning Naumann's leadership of the Einsatzgruppe. The copy of this report was in this file because this report dealt to a large extent with this administrative chief from Saarbrucken. I remember perfectly and I told Neumann that when I saw him here that among other things, Boehme had said in his letter to Kaltenbruhner that Naumann's leadership of the Einsatzgruppe had not been severs enough, Naumann had not given his officers enough leeway and had watched them like a sergeant. A copy of this report by Boehme was the answer to an original inquiry by Kaltanbruhner, included in these files.
PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, do you want all this, or are you just taking it just because you can't get out of it?
DR. KOESSL: It only was supposed to give us a picture of Naumann's activity as seen, from his immediate vicinity and by his superior at the time. The witness could express it a little more briefly.
PRESIDENT: We do not say that it is irrelevant if it refers to the defendant Naumann. He certainly has the right to have the witness tell this episode, but perhaps it should be related under the control of either you or Dr. Gawlik because obviously the witness is telling it in a very rambling fashion and not getting directly to the point which perhaps you desire.
DR. KOESSL: Then, witness, be a little more brief and tell me how was the activity of Naumann regarded by others.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I can express this in one single sentence.
DR. KOESSL: Please do that.
THE WITNESS: In the second copy of the letter from Boehme to Kaltenbrunner it said that Naumann's leadership was not severe enough and that he did not give his officers enough freedom of action. The Court No. II, Case No. IX.
report furthermore dealt with the conditions in the Einsatzgruppe, with the personal changes requested by Boehme, and also dealt with the relationship to the Wehrmacht. BY DR. KOESSL: the Jewish question, that is, that his measures were not severe enough? report.
DR. KOESSL: I have no other questions.
PRESIDENT: Does any other defense counsel wish to cross examine the witness?
DR. BLUME: Dr. Blume representing Dr. Lummert for the defendant Blume. BY DR. BLUME: the manner of reporting of the first chief of Einsatzgruppe B, SS Brigadefuehrer Nebe? to Berlin and was about to return from Berlin to Russia, I went to Prinz Albrecht Strasse Number 9 where a certain official, Schreefelt, issued my travel orders. manner of reporting of Nebe? the first time. He asked me concerning the conditions in the commandos and in Einsatzgruppe B, and he asked me whether Einsatzgruppe B i ny opinion sent out modified reports because Nebe had written a number of so-called modified reports. He said a few more things, I don't remember what, but I think he said that he had exaggerated his figures and had overemphasized his own capability. Men and officers who had arrived from the front had told him that. That is all I have to say Court No. II, Case No. IX.
on that.
DR. BLUME: I have no further questions, Sir.
PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel wish to cross examine? If not, Mr. Ferencz may begin the cross examination for the prosecution.
BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q Ott, when did you join, the SD? collaborator for the SD Sector in Munich. At that time, however, I was still a member of the General SS. I joined the SD on a full-time basis on 1 October 1935. not? is that correct? ination that on 15 or 16 March when Naumann came to see you, you discussed with him the Fuehrer Order for the extermination of the Jews, is that correct? about the Fuehrer Order because I asked Naumann whether the manner in which it had been reported to my by my predecessor, Bausch, was correct. and had to be carried out. That is correct, is it not?
A I have made a statement to this effect before, Mr. Prosecutor. Naumann said to me - I think I remember it almost literally, although it is five years ago. He said, "This Fuehrer Order gives me misgivings, and as far as my own feeling is concerned I object to it, but we have to carry it out as soldiers, and nobody will be able to help us. on to you?
A That is completely mistaken. The order was passed on to me by my predecessor who was Obersturmbannfuehrer Rausch. Naumann merely, three weeks later, confirmed the existence and the content matter of the order to me, upon my own request.
Rausch was correct or was not, and it was correct.
Q And your conclusion is that Naumann confirmed the order?
DR. GAWLICK: I object to this question, Your Honor. The witness only has to give us the facts but cannot draw conclusions. He has made a statement concerning the facts, that is, the discussion between Naumann and the witness, and the legal validity of the conclusion to be drawn is a matter for the Tribunal and not a matter for the witness.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, I asked the witness if as a subordinate to Naumann be considered it a fact that Naumann had passed the order on to him. He said that was not quite accurate. My present question to which the objection has been raised is whether Naumann then confirmed the order which he had already received. I am just trying to clarify the witness' answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Ordinarily this question could not be objected to because it is cross examination, but the cross examination in this instance is a little bit different from the ordinary cross examination because the question does not refer only to the witness but to someone else, and someone else should not be made to suffer from a question put to the witness when he is not able to control that question or answer. In other words, Dr. Gawlick's observation, we believe, is a just one, because you were putting in the form of a leading question which tends to damage Naumann, and this witness is not in any way representing Naumann.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, I would like to point out that this witness was asked by a defense counsel representing the defendant Naumann questions concerning Naumann and that I am simply trying to clarify on cross examination questions and matters which have already been raised on the direct examination of this defendant.