THE PRESIDENT: If in the examination put by the attorney for Naumann the witness stated something to which you take exception, you may cross examine on that.
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, Your Honor. As I understood it, the defense counsel was trying to elicit from this witness the statement that Naumann did not order any executions to be carried out as a result of the Fuehrer Order. I am questioning him directly on that point to try to refute that point inasmuch as on his direct examination he stated that he discussed the question with Naumann on 15 and 16 March and at that time Naumann told him it had to be carried out.
THE PRESIDENT: Try to put the question, Mr. Ferencz, perhaps a little more objectively so that in it you do not have a conclusion. BY MR. FERENCZ: him tell you that the Fuehrer Order had to be carried out?
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Dixon makes the observation that it would appear that Naumann had reiterated the order from what the witness stated, and if that be true, then you don't need to go into whether it was confirmed or not because when you say "confirm" it implies so many other things.
MR. FERENCZ: I asked the witness first whether Naumann had passed on the order.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. FERENCZ: He said that was not quite accurate. Perhaps the word "confirmed" is also a bit vague.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. FERENCZ: And I thank the Tribunal for the correction.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q I will use the wording of the Tribunal. Did Naumann reiterate the Fuehrer Order to you?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I should like to say the same as I have said on 21 February in my interrogation at a time when my comrades and I generally believed that Naumann was dead. I was here for three months last year as a witness, and everybody said, beginning with the former Higher-SS and Police Leader Dr. Martin, that Naumann had taken poison after the capitulation. Therefore, there was no reason for me, if I was of the firm belief that Naumann was dead, to withhold anything about about him and that is how it was; and as I have stated now, after my arrival on 17 or 18 February in Bryansk, Rausch told me about the Fuehrer Order. I believed him because all the leaders of the Kommandos confirmed to me that they had been working according to this order for seven or eight months, and when Naumann on 15 or 16 March came to see me in Orel in order to turn over the Kommando to me, I told him Rausch announced this order to me in this and that form; is that correct? And he said, "Yes, that is correct", and that is how it was, and that is how I stated it in my interrogation. He said, "I have serious misgivings about this order, but we are soldiers; we have to carry it out, and no God will help us." He furthermore said, "Please work in a correct manner; be a good leader to your men. I do not chase after high execution figures."
Q Do you remember the interrogation by Mr. Wartenberg when he asked you about the collection of the valuables of the victims of executions? these valuables in so many words? "What happened to the valuables of those people?" I was surprised because the term "valuables" was a little exaggerated considering Russian conditions. The old junk that they had could hardly be called valuables. I told him that Rausch had informed me that by order of the Einsatzgruppe B these objects had to be turned over via the ordinary channel of command.
he asked you about the collection of valuables? Did he say, "Were these collected upon the order of Naumann?" received at the time from Rausch in which Rausch talked about this chief of the Einsatzgruppe B, and because at that time it happened to be Brigadefuehrer Naumann, I involuntarily thought at the time that this could be correct. collection of valuables was "yes", isn't that correct? had ever had a predecessor in Russia. you repeated the statement that Naumann had ordered the collection of valuables, and in which you stated that eighty to one hundred executions took place under your command, do you recall the circumstances under which that affidavit was taken? signed it? opportunity to read it and study it before you signed it?
A Mr. Wartenberg, whose name at the time I did not know, handed to the affidavit, I think including five copies, across the table. He gave to a fountain pen and he also gave me a cigaret, and he said, "Sign it". Of course, I read it first and what seemed to me the most obvious was that he added - and which was taken out of thin air concerning the operation Eisbaer, - that men were shot and that Partisan suspects had been shot.
That was the most striking point for me.
Q what was it that he had added specifically? bands and people suspected of belonging to bands had been shot. If you look at the original, you can confirm that I crossed out this sentence and that I put my own initials in front of this.
Q Now would you please answer my first question? Were you given an opportunity to read and study the affidavit before you were asked to sign it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Ferencz, it appears that there were two affidavits, one which was submitted and the witness corrected, is that right?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, on the 21st of February I was interrogated and on the 24th of April an excerpt of my interrogation in the shape of an affidavit was shown to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Otherwise there was nothing.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right. Now this affidavit which was given to you in April, is that the affidavit which we have before us here?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is the one. The interrogation was in February, and the affidavit was made in April.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, With the elimination or the cancellation which you referred to not actually reproduced in this document which we have before us; that was omitted bodily.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
THE WITNESS: It is only contained in the original.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right.
Mr. Ferencz, would you want to suspend until tomorrow morning, or de you have a question or two which you would prefer to put right now?
MR. FERENCZ; Well, I just have one or two questions in a few minutes and then I will be through with the question of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q. Will you please answer the question then? Did you have time to read and study the affidavit which is now before the Court before you signed it?
A. Mr. Wartenberg gave me the fountain pen and gave me a cigaret, a he thought I would sign blindly. I said I would like to read it, and immediately this distortion struck me about thus Eisbaer (polar bear) operation. I said I would. not sign it. You've invented this; I have already described the operation Eisbaer to you for about a quarter of an hour with all details. I think I made a remark to the effect that this was too clumsy a remark and I asked him to cross it out. He made no further objection and laughed.
Q. Would you please answer my questions, and I would appreciate it if you would answer them briefly. Did you have time to read it and did you : fact read the affidavit before you signed it, "yes" or "no"?
A. Yes, sir, I reread it.
Q. And you have just told us you made certain corrections, is that correct?
A. Yes, It was quite an extensive job because I took great care to cross it out in the copies. There were about five or six copies. The whole desk was full of papers.
Q. And you initialled each of those corrections on all five or six copies, isn't that so?
A. Yes.
Q. And Were you reminded before signing this paper, this affidavit, that you were under oath?
A. This I had been told during the interrogation two months previously, and it said so, I think, at either the beginning or the end of the affidavit, I believe so.
Q. You recall having been reminded by Mr. Wartenberg that you were still under oath before he gave you this affidavit?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And there is another oath at the end of the affidavit, isn't that correct?
A. Yes, that is what I said.
Q. And there was no throat or force used in any way or any promise of immunity, isn't that correct?
A. No. I already mentioned, Mr. Prosecutor, that no pressure or duress was used against me. On the contrary, he was very nice to me. He offered me a cigaret repeatedly, but I was still under the suspicion all th time that he was trying to cheat me. After all, I had to be very careful, but I did not suspect that he would cheat me two months after the interrogation, in that he put in there.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, witness, he handed you the document with his fountain pen and a cigaret. You read over the document. You made there eliminations on all the five copies. You signed with his fountain pen. You lit the cigaret. You gave him back the fountain pen, and that ended the transaction. Is that the way it was?
THE WITNESS: That is the way.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. thirty.
(Tribunal No II adjourned until 0930 hours, 11 December 1947.)
of America; against Otto Ohlendorf, et al;
defendants, sitting' at Nuernberg, Germany,
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II. Tribunal.
DR. GAWLIK: Gawlik for Seibert, Your Honor, please permit me to have the defendant, Seibert, excused this afternoon and tomorrow afternoon, because I want to prepare the Document Books with him.
PRESIDENT: The defendant, Seibert, will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon. And also for tomorrow all day?
DR. GAWLIK: In the afternoon.
PRESIDENT: He will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon and tomorrow afternoon.
DR. KOESSL: Koessl for the defendant, Schubert. I would like the defendant, Schubert, to be excused tomorrow the whole day in order to be able to prepare his defense with him.
PRESIDENT: The defendant, Schubert, will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow in accordance with the request of his counsel. You may proceed, Mr. Ferencz.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. FERENCZ: defendant, Blume?
A Is that right -- do I understand Blume? No.
Q Did you ever meet the defendant, Steimler?
Q Did you ever meet the defendant Six?
Q Did you ever meet the defendant, Klingelhoefer?
Q Under what'circumstances did you meet the defendant, Klingelhoefer? B, for the first time, I think in June or the beginning of July 1942, and we had on this occasion a discussion - a service discussion. After that I met him a second time when on the occasion of the supply trip on the second or third of June I returned and I spent the night in Smolensk. when you spoke to him in Smolensk? was sitting at the same table with all the other leaders who were present for the Conference. If I am not mistaken, he was at the far corner of the table with the administrative officers. When I was in Smolensk again the second time, that was on a morning Klingelhoefer was sitting in a room and took excerpts from a Russian book. Klingelhoefer? first time, I did not discuss any official matters with him, but I do know that when I met him again for the second time upon my return from my trip, I sat with him for quite a long time, in the evening and on that occasion we discussed matters explicitly for about two hours, particularly the problems of the Russian territory.
It was only on that occasion that I learned that Klingelheefer had been born in Moscow and had been living in Russia for some time. Fuehrer Order?
A No. I did not discuss it with him.
Q Did you discuss with him the executions of partisans?
A I don't think so because the subject of discussion was mainly the political, economical, and cultural structure of the Soviet Union. time?
A Neumann's deputy? No, certainly not. 15th of February 1942 you reported to Naumann at Smolensk, is that correct? commando leader of Commando 7B, is that correct? and 19th of February? to that time, Rausch, remained with you to acquaint you with the tasks until the 15th or the 16th of March, is that correct? the 16th of March, who was actually in command -- were you in command, but he remained to familiarize you with the tasks or did he still retain the title of Commander of Commando 7B? to be in charge of the commando.
The decisions concerning this were up to him. He conducted discussions with the Wehrmacht authorities. He signed the reports. On the 15th or the 16th of March the then Oberfuehrer and police chief, Naumann, arrived at Bryansk which at that time was the H.Q. of the commando; he had a social evening with us and the next morning, I think it was a Sunday, before lined-up the men, he dismissed Rausch and turned the commando over to me. the 15th of February, does that mean that there were two commanders between February and March?
A No, not two commanders. I had been detailed from Berlin, and Naumann had orders that Rausch should familiarize me with my tasks for about three weeks, because this was my first independent and responsible assignment in a commando and because it was my first work in a police assignment, Rausch in any way?
A No. I could not do so. what the commando should do, whose order controlled, yours or Rausch's, during 15th of February and the 19th of March 16th of March? fact. did you ever oppose the fuehrerorder by word or by deed?
A How am I to understand this, what you mean "object", "oppose"?
Fuehrer Order should not be enforced?
A No. The members of my commando were, since the beginning of the Russian campaign, that is since June 1941, acted according to the fuehrer order, as it had been made known to them in Pretzsch or Dueben. Even the subcommandos worked in accordance with this order and quite independently at that.
Q Did you ever do anything to oppose the order?
A Yes, and I said in my interrogation to Mr. Wartenberg in February on one occasion, it was I think in June, I gave the orders to my three subcommando leaders in writing that they, on their own responsibility and independence must no longer work as they had worked up to then, I made it the duty of the subcommando leaders to submit all the documents pertaining to investigations, my commando in Orol for review. or to hinder the carrying out of the fuehrerorder? because when in 1942 I arrived in Russia, the fuehrerorder had already been carried out for five months in my territory, and it was, therefore, no longer topical. unable to, and did not do anything to oppose the fuehrerorder, is that correct?
A I cannot deduce that. Not having had a possibility, I had other tasks to deal with. because of the circumstances, do anything to oppose the fuehrerorder? upon my arrival did not necessitate the execution of the fuehrerorder any longer.
PRESIDENT; I think, Mr. Ferencz, he answered the question right at the very beginning. Now, if he wants to amplify on that or if you want some further specification, that is another matter, but that question, it seems to me, was spoken in this language, "Did you ever oppose the fuehrerorder by word or deed." It seems to me that is the way you put the question, and I heard the defendant reply in the German "Nein", then translated, "NO".
MR. FERENCZ: Is that correct, Witness?
THE WITNESS: I said that I saw no point any longer in doing anything because the fuehrerorder was no longer topical in my territory. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q Then you answered that question with "No", is that correct? thereupon I said that I gave my subcommandos the order that they could not independently carry out executions any longer but the document pertaining to these masters should be sent to the commando for investigation. That is what I said. question the Tribunal just put. I asked you -- the first question was "Did you ever oppose the fuehrerorder by word or deed", did you answer "Nein", Yes or No?
A Thank you. To the best of my knowledge, as a commando leader, you would say, wouldn't you, that all the commandos regularly carried out the executions?
DR. KOESSL: I object to this question, Your Honor, because the defendant cannot possibly state what other commandos did.
This is different in time and locality. This is a question which cannot be answered for one particular period, and certainly not for all the commandos.
PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Koessl, in the first place, this defendant was the company commander, he was the leader of the commando and, therefore, chargeable with all activities of the commando. In the second place, Mr. Ferencz included in his question, "to the best of my knowledge and belief", did his subcommandos conduct executions. There can certainly be no objection to a question put in that form. It seems entirely fair and reasonable. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q Would you answer the question, please?
A I think we do not meet on this point. The prosecutor did not ask me concerning subcommandos, but he asked me about the activity of the commandos, that is how it was, wasn't it?
PRESIDENT: Well, then answer it with regard to the commandos.
THE WITNESS: This question I am unable to answer clearly and explicitly. From March '42 until January 1943, I saw the leaders of other commandos only twice during official discussions in Smolensk and as a result of those meetings I have no clear impressions about the activities of the other commandos. After all, one must consider especially concerning the bad conditions of roads and transport in Russia, that my neighboring commando, 7A, was for instance about 500 kilometers distant.
PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, apparently I made a mistake. Did you ask whether he know that other commandos had carried out the executions?
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, my question was, "To the best of your knowledge as a commando leader, you would say, wouldn't you, that all the commandos regularly carried out such executions ?"
PRESIDENT: Well, I misunderstood that. I thought you were asking him to express whether his commando carried out the executions; but I see now what it is, and you may proceed along that line, and I can understand more thoroughly now, Dr. Koessl's objection that certainly he wouldn't be charged with knowledge as to what other commando leaders did; however, if he does know, then certainly he can answer it, if he doesn't know, then he doesn't know, then that answers that.
THE WITNESS: I believe, Your Honor, I have answered this question by saying that I only saw the other commando leaders on two occasions and that did not give me a clear picture of the situation. BY MR. FERENCZ: for the executions carried out by Sonderkommando 7B while under you commando? and coldly but one sat down for hours for the examination of the interrogation records. One thought it over and one asked the criminal commissars and the departmental chiefs, experts for explanation and for details. If the cases were particularly serious, one interviewed personally with one's interpreter, sometimes one even attended those interrogations and I can assure you honestly, Mr. Prosecutor, that often I sat in my office for whole nights with my staff examining the documents.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
carefully. My question is, however, that now as you look back upon what occurred in Sonderkommando 7-B under your command, do you have any feeling of regret or remorse? Do you feel that something wrong was done? wrong happened. I have pity for those people who during the course of the war have lost their lives, somewhere and I was convinced that our opponents in Russia had also their own ideology as well as I had my own ideology, and if in accordance with the Fuehrer Order and in accordance with the necessity for the security of the troops we had to shoot people here and there, than it was certainly not an easy task for us. These executions were not only very serious for those people concerned, but without the slightest doubt also for those who had to carry them out.
MR. FERENCZ: We have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect examination, Dr. Koessl?
DR. GAWLIK: Gawlick for the defendant Naumann. the cross examination, concerning the relationship with the defendant Naumann.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. BY DR. GAWLICK: yesterday whether the defendant Naumann confirmed the Fuehrer Order. In accordance with this I have the following question: Can you make statements as to whether the defendant Naumann attached particular attention to the Kommandos under his leadership developing a special activity in the carrying out of the Fuehrer Order? following: I do remember that Herr Naumann told me on 15 or 16 March Court No. II, Case No. IX.
when I asked him to confirm to me the accuracy of the Fuehrer Order as it was handed to me by Rausch, "I am not a hunter for high figures." That is what he said, and that is what I remember, and Herr Naumann knew then very well that in the area of the Second Panzer Army, which was also my field of activity, there were a number of sectors which we had not dealt with because they were practically impossible to deal with.
Q That is sufficient, witness. Is it correct that the reproach was made by the superior of the defendant Naumann that in the carrying out of the Fuehrer Order he showed too little activity and that he mainly tried to develop activities concerning another field, which has nothing to do with this. Do you remember that? in your absence, Dr. Gawlick, my defense counsel, Dr. Koessl, asked me concerning these particular points.
Q Perhaps you can answer the question "yes" or "no". Is it correct that the superiors of the defendant Naumann reproached him that in the carrying out of the Fuehrer Order he did not develop enough activity?
A I can neither answer the question "yes" or "no". This reproach was not raised by Kaltenbrunner, who was his superior, but Naumann's successor, Boehme, and that is what I said yesterday, I think. fendant Naumann was active in another field. It wasn't quite clearly expressed, witness, yesterday. Please, therefore, repeat it, will you? personal file -
Q What was it that became evident from this file, witness?
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
A Well, please let me tell you the story. There were two copies of letters from Naumann's successor filed and in this the reproach was made that Naumann had not sufficient power of command over his Einsatzgruppe and his officers, He was not strict enough with his officers, and, therefore, he should contact the officers of the Rear Army Territory concerning partisan activity and partisan combat.
DR. GAWLICK: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR. KOESSL: Yesterday, Your Honor, the witness wanted to make a statement concerning an alleged mistake in a document. I now have obtained the document from the office of Mr. Niebergall, and perhaps it would be the best thing if the witness would point out the place that he wanted to object to.
THE PRESIDENT: Let him have the document.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, before the witness points out any objection to the document, I would like to ask whether the document has been offered in evidence here either by the Prosecution or the Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, is the document in evidence?
DR. KOESSL: It has not been submitted yet, Your Honor, In my Document Book 2 there are excerpts from it, but I am not quite certain whether the defendant wanted to refer to one of these excerpts. I had no occasion to speak to him last night because he was being cross examined. I, therefore, would like to show him the document, and it will immediately become evident.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, if the document has not been offered in evidence and the defendant does not propose to offer it at this time,I object to any comment being made on the document and ask that the correction be made at the time it is offered.
THE PRESIDENT: We can't very well, Dr. Koessl, go into a discussion of a document which is not before the Tribunal. It would only be in the nature of a private conversation.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
DR. KOESSL: I don't deem it necessary for this document to be discussed. What seemed necessary to me I shall submit, and I only wanted to comply with the order of the President in ascertaining the document concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: If you desire, we will gladly give you whatever time you desire, right now. It is only a question of,two or three minutes, five minutes, to take that to the witness and, off the record, discuss the matter with him, and then if because of what you learned from him you wish to introduce a document, then you may introduce it and then he can make whatever statement he desires about that document, but your discussion with him cannot be a part of the record because there is no document before us for discussion.
DR. KOESSL: I thank you very much for your kindness, Your Honor. I think I can do this in two minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Please do not talk into the micro
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE WITNESS: May I say something else, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, after you have conferred with your counsel, you may.
DR. KOESSL: Your Honor, what the witness wanted to say appears in my Document Book 4 Ott, and will be submitted later. His statements deal very briefly only with one particular point in connection with the probative value of the documents themselves, and therefore I would like him to make a brief statement.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the probative value of any document is a matter for the Tribunal, and I repeat my objection to any discussion of a document which has not been offered in evidence.
DR. KOESSL: Your Honor, in that case I shall not hear the witness make this statement, but I can assure the Prosecution that it would have been to their advantage if the witness had made the statement.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
BY DR. KCESSL: voluntary?
( Did you have a special war assignment during the war?
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
the SD. have left the SD if you had wanted to? his unit. ritory which you also reported about?
A You mean in Russia?
A Yes. Repeatedly the executions carried out by other units were also reported about, but certainly with a remark saying that these were other units or other detachments which had carried than out. I dealt briefly yesterday with the existence of the self-administrative detachment Lokot. That was an administrative district which was under a Russian leader and which also upheld quite an extensive militia. This particular militia unit carried out operations independently and also executions,
DR. KOESSL: Thank you, Your Honor. I have no further questions. BY THE PRESIDENT: on page 58. Yesterday you stated that under your orders and instructions your Kommando executed twenty Jews because they were Jews. In the report which appears on pages 57 and 58 you will find on page 58 the phrase, "specially treated by Sonderkommando 7-B", and then the enumeration of the people who were killed. The last item is "twentyseven Jews", Now you said yesterday that you only killed twenty because they were Jews. This report indicates that there were twentyseven Jews killed because they were Jews. How do you account for the difference in numbers?