Jews now living in Tatarsk did not practically come under the Fuehrer order as it was formulated at that time where it says that only old Jews who could not work any longer were to be shot. Therefore, I would have had the possibility in case of their established innocence to reinstall them in the Ghetto.
Q How many old Jews did you shoot?
A You mean among those 30?
Q No No. How many old Jews did you shoot because the order said you should, shoot only old Jews, according to what you now tell us, how many old Jews did you shoot? enough to flee into the woods, Did the older Jews also go into the woods?
A No, there weren't old Jews, as far as I can remember no Jew was more than 55 years old.
Q Were they any old Jews in Tatarsk at all?
A Not at that time any more. They had been shot by Noack before.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for 15 minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer, I am sorry I interrupted you in your examination of your client. You may take it up, of course. There is just one question I would like to ask. You say that the ablebodied Jews were not to be shot immediately, and the natural implica tion is that they were being saved for working purposes. What work were they doing?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, as I had nothing to do with the Jewish question I cannot say anything from my personal experiences. I only know that able-bodied Jews were assigned for labor generally, in what way and in what capacity I do not know.
THE PRESIDENT: Here you are in this town carrying on a very extensive investigation. Certainly in that investigation it must have come to your attention and knowledge what work they were doing.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it wasn't really a city. It was only a larger village, and during the time of my presence in this place I did not actually see the Jews work. I never asked the mayor what labor they were allocated to. That had nothing to do with my original assignment. I merely knew that Jews were used for labor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may continue Dr. Mayor, please.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. MAYER: I have to put one question. which is. whether you were a commando chief?
Q What authority, therefore, was missing in your case? Order as I had no executive power, without having received the express order by my superior.
Q Did you ever receive his order?
you arrived in Tatarsk you saw Jews who were just about to vanish in the woods, and you had the woods surrounded and combed through. Did this combine operation have any result whatsoever?
A Yes, in this wood five or six Jews were caught. They were Jews trying to escape when they saw my column approach Tatarsk.
THE PRESIDENT: How many men were in this column?
THE WITNESS: Dive or six men, Your Honor. BY DR. MAYER: shot? that he would he handed. Who uttered this threat? who had remained in Tatarsk and now were guarding the place.
Q I see. Yes, now proceed with the direct examination, Witness.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry, I didn't catch that statement, that the threat was expressed by the Jews and they were now guarding the place. There must be something wrong there.
THE WITNESS: These Jews had threatened the mayor, and, of course, they remained there.
THE PRESIDENT: The phrase, "guarding the place", who was guarding?
THE WITNESS: The Jews who had remained in Tatarsk were supposed to guard the mayor so that he would not vanish, or watch him. BY DR. MAYER: The next question, Witness, is: was this operation an undertaking of the Advance Kommando Moscow? was again independent and was stationed in Spass-Demensk. That was not in Smolensk.
contradiction of your attitude toward the Fuehrer Order as you had stated before? matter to be discussed, and because I had no order to this effect it was here merely a matter of an acute danger which threatened the security of the rear Army territory. The severity of the order as passed on to me by Nebe was conditioned by the very dangerous activity on the part of the partisans , and it was here not a matter of an anti-Jewish action in accordance with the Fuehrer Order but solely and merely a necessary military measure in order to maintain security of the Army for whom the Einsatzgruppe B was responsible to the Wehrmacht.
Q. I now come to the documents. Witness, the Prosecution has submitted an affidavit of 2 July 1947 which you have signed. It is in Document Book III-B. It is on English page 57, German page 112. It is No. NO-4235 Exhibit 124. I would like you to look at this. Have you anything to add to this? whole statement which I made on the 1st of June, 1947. When, before I signed, I complained about some distorting remarks which I had made, the interrogator, Mr. Wartenberg, informed me that this did not mean very much and that any rectifications and corrections I could make at a later point. Upon this statement I took the opportunity to make out a new affidavit, on the 17th of September, 1947, using the necessary supplements, additions and corrections which I then submitted to the Prosecution, which was accepted by Mr. Wartenberg and signed. This affidavit of the 17th of September, 1947, contained the exact statements concerning events and developments, as well as my own position within the Advance Kommando Moscow, or at least the staff of the Einsatzgruppe B. But the Prosecution did not submit it to the Tribunal.
My counsel, however, will submit it in his document book.
THE PRESIDENT: When did you receive a copy of the indictment?
THE WITNESS: I received a copy of the indictment, Your Honor, at the beginning of August. I don't remember the exact date.
THE PRESIDENT: This affidavit was made out -
THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. I now remember it was during the last day s of July.
THE PRESIDENT: So that this affidavit of which you speak was written about two months after you received a copy of the indictment?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, Dr. Mayer.
THE WITNESS: Because I had no opportunity to do so before.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. MAYER: Moscow, and at no period whatsoever I held any executive power within the formation. After Dr. Six was released in August, 1941, the Chief of Einsatzgruppe B, Nebe, upon directives from Berlin, took over personally the leadership of the Advance Kommando Moscow as this group consisted of special experts.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer, is your document book ready. I don't have a copy of it.
DR. MAYER: It is not ready yet. It is just being translated, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have this affidavit ready?
DR. MAYER: Only in German, Your Honor. May I, therefore, suggest perhaps. Your Honor, that the witness should deal with the essential point which the Tribunal wants to know, the points out of the affidavit of the 17th of September.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we thought for your own benefit it might be well if you could get that affidavit before us while the witness is still on the stand.
DR. MAYER: I don't think there will be time enough as far as translation is concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: You asked him about the differences. Now, by all means you can proceed just as if you do have that affidavit before you, which you do have in the German.
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. FERENCZ: If Your Honors please, the Prosecution has had the affidavit translated and mimeographed, and I am sure I can have it for the defense by tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. You nay proceed to have the witness make any explanations that he believes are in order with regard to what is contained in the affidavits which are actually before the tribunal, whether you have another one or not.
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor. BY DR. MAYER: was put to you. absence. This case, however, never happened as early as the middle of September, 1941, the new chief of the Advance Kommando Moscow appointed in Berlin, Obersturmbannfuehrer Koerting, arrived in Smolensk and took over the command of the VKM. At the end of October 1941, the small advance commando group staff which was leaving in the direction of Moscow was a completely new unit which had nothing to do with the actual Advance Kommando Moscow.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
The advance commando Moscow was at that time under Koerting in Spass Demensk, a locality, about 100 kilometers to the east of Smolensk. in Mstislawl and Tatarsk mentioned in the prosecution documents against you?
Q Can you say in what document it is mentioned?
A Yes. It is mentioned in the document which I have just received, No. 4809. It is Exhibit No. 125; English page 116-I am sorry, 161; it is in Document Book IIIB.
Q Yes, but I don:t mean the affidavit itself, but the documents which have been submitted concerning Russia, that is, the Reports of Events. is contained. second affidavit? operation in your first report independently, without the prosecution material to the effect having been shown to you, and used against you? mutiny in Tatarsk contained in the Reports of Events?
A Yes. The Tatarsk mutiny is mentioned in the document. your assignment given by Nebe to carry out investigations in Tatarsk? affidavit before the indictment was served you described this action-
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
this operation in Tatarsk? as it actually happened?
Q I now come to the next question; the prosecution charges you, that is in Document Book IIB, English page 22; German page 22, document No. 2344; Exhibit 61; Report of Events Number 73 of the 4th of September 1941, in order to prove two things, first, your participation as a member of the Special Commando 7B and, secondly, your participation in the Advance Commando Moscow. As far as Special Commando 7B is concerned, the total figure of executions until the 20th of August 1941 are on page 7 of the original document is 886. I now ask you, did you participate in these executions carried out by Special Commando 7B? Commando 7B, that is, from the 22nd of June until the 10th of July 141, that is, during the first three weeks of its existence, Special Commando 7B as it was a constantly advancing, according to my knowledge, never carried out any executions, as there was no possibility to do so. Executions that resulted in these figures can only have been carried out in my opinion after the Special Commando 7B had left Minsk. Since Minsk, I was not in Special Commando 7B, and I can, therefore, not say anything about its further activity. the same document, it is stated that Advance Commando Moscow had to load 46 people to executions, and on page 17 of the document it says that the total figure of people executed of this staff and the Advance Commando Moscow until the 20th of August 141 is 144. Can you comment on this? and the VKM. During my activity in the Advance Commando Moscow from the 10th or 11th July 1941 until Six left, neither of the Group Staff nor of Court No. II, Case No. IX.
the Advance Commando Moscow, did I know about any executions, nor did I participate in any form whatsoever in such executions. on page 47, and German page 42, Document No. 3143, Exhibit Number 64. That is Report of Events Number 92 of the 23rd of December 1941. On page 6 of the original, the total figure of executions of the staff and Advance Commando Moscow, according to the statistics of 13th of September, 141, the number 312 is mentioned, in contrast to the former figure of the 20th of August, it is 168 more. Can you explain this increase?
PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer, you gave us the page of the original, but it doesn't coincide with -
DR. MAYER: English on page 47.
PRESIDENT: Then you said page 6 of the original, but page 6 of the original doesn't appear. It begins with page 14, page 15, page 24, page 32.
DR. MAYER: It is 6 within the document book; it is page 53 of the English Document Book.
PRESIDENT: Oh, I see, thank you. Proceed. BY DR. MAYER:
Q Witness, can you explain this 168 increase? it was raised. The Advance Commando Moscow was at that time together with the Group Staff, under the chief of the staff of the Einsatzgruppe B, Nebe, who, therefore, combined the execution figures of these two groups. Since Smolensk, I know that the Group Staff of the Einsatzgruppe B carried out their own operations and executions, which, in detail, I am equally unaware of, as well as the operation and measures Carried out by the individual departmental experts of the Verkommando Moscow, who ware assigned by Nebe for their special functions and received their directives and orders from him, and reported to Nebe independently. I can merely assume that the figures which I directly learned of execution in Mstislawl and Tatarsk, which I was informed Court No. II, Case No. IX.
about by Hauptsturmfuehrer Noack, are contained in these.
Q The next document will be in Document Book IIB. Please take that out. Page 16 in the English, page 15 of the German, No. 3156; it is Exhibit 60, Report of Events 108 of 9 October 1941. On page 7 of the document it states in contrast to the preceding figure, 312, and it contains 2029. That is an increase again of 1717. Did you participate in these further executions?
A. These increased figures of executions refer, as is proven by th date it bears and regarding the preceding reports, to the period of time from 13 September 1941 until 28 September 1941. As I have already mentioned, the Advance Kommando Moscow was taken over by Koerting in the middle of September 1941. I personally was transferred from the VKM to the group staff in the SD department where in the period of reporting I was only dealing in intelligence matters. Since during my activity in the Advance Kommando Moscow, as far as it comes under this period of reporting, I neither had any executive power in this formation nor had I actively taken part in executions or anti-Jewish operations in any shape or form, it is not possible for me to comment upon these execution figures or to find myself responsible for any of these figures.
Q. On page 3 of the same document it says furthermore that the VKM Advance Kommando Moscow, liquidated 114 Jews in Choslawitschi. Can you comme on that?
A. As a member of the Advance Kommando Moscow, of course, it was known to me as it was generally known that since the taking over of the Advance Kommando Moscow by Nebe until his release and the transfer of Koertin anti-Jewish operations were carried out. The individual places and times and the numbers of people executed were not known to me. According to directives by Nebe the figures were only given to him in the shape of reports. From the circumstances as described, it was not made known to me that an anti-Jewish operation took place in this mentioned locality Choslawitschi. I, however, left the Advance Kommando Moscow in the middle of September, 1941. and I do not know if, and if so, what, actions were carried out under Koerting. It is qui possible that the operation Choslawitschi was carried out by Koerting.
Q. Now will you please look at Document Book 2-B, page 54 in the English and 48 in the German. It is Document 3160, and it is Exhibit No. 65 It is a Report of Events #24 of 25 September 1941. On page 1 of the original an operation of the group staff and Advance Kommando Moscow is mentioned agai the Jews in Tatarsk. Does this refer to the operation which you have just mentioned to the Court in the preceding session?
A. Yes. I described the happening.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer, this report says all male Jews and three women were shot. Now he has specified thirty. Does that constitute the entire Jewish population of Tatarsk?
DR. MAYER: Will you answer the question, witness?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, those were the only thirty male people left in Tatarsk. The others had all joined the partisans, and those were the men who had remained in Tatarsk as I had explained. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. So that you shot all the Jews that there were in Tatarsk?
A. All remaining Jews in Tatarsk -- those were the thirty male members who had been left.
Q. You explain -- and Judge Speight reminds us of this -- that after you made the investigation that some were acquitted of any complicity in the partisan action and were returned to the ghetto. Now you tell us that you shot all the Jews. How do you reconcile those two statements?
A. Your Honor, I do not remember having said that I found some of them innocent and led them back into the ghetto. I only said that of the thirty male Jews which I apprehended in Tatarsk, I found them all guilty and convicted them because they were guilty, -- those were the thirty men whom I had shot. I never spoke of innocent men remaining in Tatrsk. Only woman and children who could be proven innocent, those I led back into the ghetto.
Q. Well, then you did not find any of the men innocent?
A. The entire male population, as I have already said, in some way or other were active participants.
Q. So, therefore, you did not find any of the men innocent?
A. No.
Q. Did you find some of the women and children innocent?
A. From the investigation carried out together with the Jewish Council I established that in the whole mutiny and the taking up of contact with the partisans the women could not have taken part except, of course, t three who had been employed as direct agents with the partisans.
Q. Well, why couldn't they have taken part? Why couldn't the othe women just like the three who were shot have taken part in this?
A. Because I established this fact through the investigations which I carried on. Conditions were such that in fact the women could not ha taken part in this mutiny in any active capacity.
Q. Now, you keep calling this a mutiny. What is a mutiny? A mutiny is a rebellion, is it not?
A. Mutiny is a riot against a directive or an order which has been proclaimed.
Q. Yes. Well, now were these Jews rioting in the streets, tearing down buildings? Was there turmoil and tumult in this little village when you arrived?
A. The Jews using force, had loft the ghetto and had threatened th mayor that they would hang him with the aid of the partisans, hang him and hi police force: that is what they threatened; and I established that all men took active part in it added to the contact they had taken up with the partis
Q. Of course, when you say "taking up contact with the partisans" the Tribunal understands that it was only a mental contact, so that your repeating the contact with the partisans does not add anything to what you said before, namely, that they did not physically soc the partisans or in an way communicate with them directly.
A. I did not understand the question, Your Honor.
Q. Well, I was coming to the question. You keep repeating that those thirty had had contact with the partisans, and we remind you that you said that you found these thirty in their homes, that they had in no way actually spoken with the partisans, that the only contact they had with the partisans was through the three women and that the only contact they had was a mental contact. That is correct, isn't it?
A. No, that is not quite correct, Your Honor. By contact through these two women -- or at least these three women were active partisans and agents -- through the fact that these men spoke to these three women, there was direct contact, not only mental contact, and that had been established,
Q. Very well. We understand what you mean. Now in this report to which you have called our attention, indicate to us one reference to partisans.
A. Your Honor, I was just about to explain that.
Q. Well, explain it now.
A. I don't know it, as Nebe made out this report personally and changed it as he did all other reports. I reported to him verbally on the evening of my return immediately. The explicit report with all documents and records was submitted only two days after that as all the records and under lying documents which were in the Russian language had to be translated first.
Q. Why did Nebe falsify the report which you gave him?
A. I was just about to go on, Your Honor.
Q. All right, go on.
A. I can only assume that in the meantime Nebe in accordance with my original first short report had already made out his own report which he sent to Berlin.
Q. Well, did you make out two conflicting reports? Did your first report differ from your second report?
A. No, Your Honor, but I made a very brief report the first time: it was an oral report, and,.
Q. And what did you say in the brief report?
A. In this brief report I reported that I conducted the investigatio that I confirmed that all Jews had left the Ghettos, that they had taken up contact with the partisans, and that for that reason I had had thirty men and three women shot.
Q. Well, show us that in the report which you have before us.
A. Well, no, Your Honor, it doesn't say anything about it.
Q. Well, then please explain why N ebe made up a report which is absolutely a fabrication insofar as the report which you made to him is concerned? Why did he falsify what you told him?
A. I can't give you any information about this, Your Honor, because I do not know it. I made a verbal report and, based it on this oral report which I made to him, he probably made out some report to Berlin -- probably.
In Berlin this was edited. It was probable that some lines were left out, It was chan ged, and that is how it might have come about. The fact is that I gave a verbalreport first and two days later I made out a very extensive report giving all the necessary underlying documents, and I do not know why he did not make use of my second report. It is probable that he presumed the this first report was probably sufficient for him and that it would not be necessary to -
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, witness, your first report does not coincide with this; if Nebe had filed your first report, he could not have written this, because in your first report, your oral brief report, you told about the investigation, and you told about contact with the Partisans?
Q Yes, and that is not in this report; why would Nebe ignore what you told him in the first report, and in the second report not only ignore it but absolutely construct something out of the whole-cloth entirely different from what you told him. Why would Nebe do that?
A Well, I can not find another reason. I can not find another construction. I only find what it says here that they have left the Ghetto and had gone to the woods, that is what I reported to him.
Q What does it say about the Partisans?
A I don't know why he omitted the Partisans. Perhaps he had mentioned them and perhaps in Berlin, as the conditions in the East were not so well known there, and in order to make it a little briefer, it was just omitted. I don't know that. I neither made out the report myself in Smolensk, nor did I have any influence on happenings in Berlin. I only made my oral report, and based on this short oral report, this report went through three or four hands to Berlin, and these people on these three or four stages had formulated it in a different manner, and therefore, that formulation is quite different than what I made myself.
Q Why did they omit the business about threatening the Mayor?
A I don't know.
Q That certainly would be a very important item. Here were Jews in the Ghetto who rebelled, mutiny with violence, break out, threatened the Mayor, and, yet, not a word of it in the report. Explain that? found his own terminology, and found his own wording, which did not contain this essential thing because these less important matters had already been known before, because of the message of the Mayor, which had arrived, and which said that the Jews had threatened him, and that they wanted to hang him, and, therefore, he had asked for the protection of the Einsatzgruppe Staff.
He had known about these circumstances before.
Q It is not a question of what Nebe knew. It is what Nebe reported; in the making of the report of this very vital operation, why does he omit all these facts which you tell us with such drama, the breaking out of the Ghetto, running into the woods, three women running back and forth, conspiring, threat to kill the Mayor, and not one single word in the report. Why was it all omitted? reported, and what was crossed out in Berlin. I can't know what Nebe reported.
Q Why would they omit it in Berlin? Certainly it would be of great interest to those in Berlin who were conducting the campaign to know just how the population was reacting, and mutiny and rebellion threatening a constituted authority was a menace; and to hang a Mayor is certainly a matter of importance, Why would they omit that in a report?
A I could not tell you, Your Honor. Probably it was just the fault of the office machinery in Berlin. I know conditions there. Perhaps, also, they were overworked, and somebody had to deal with the matter, somebody very much overworked, who didn't know much about the conditions. copy what came in, rather than to change it. Here they changed it?
Q Let me read it: "As punishment for not following the orders of the German Security Police, all male Jews and three women who were in Tatarsk at the time were shot." If these clerks were overburdened, and they wanted to cut down their work, it would be simpler to copy what game in there rather than to pick up something fictitious and put it into the report, wouldn't it.
Explain that? reporting, and therefore, I can give no explanation why this very important and necessary formulation was left out.
Q Not only left out but changed. Keep that in mind, there was a change, an alteration in that report. Can you explain why they would alter it?
Q I'll read for you again, and please listen to it attentively. You told us that the reason that you executed these thirty Jews was that they were in contact with the Partisans; that they had threatened to kill the Mayor; that they had become a menace. Now let me read to you what the report says: "As punishment for not following the orders of the German Security Police, all male Jews and three women who were in Tatarsk at the time were shot." Now, that is different, isn't it? Nebe sent this in the way you told him? for the reason that the Jews had broken out from the Ghetto; as long as I was in Tatarsk -
Q Just a moment, we are talking about the report now. We have gone into the business of how you were notified. I am only asking you why, if Nebe sent in the report correctly, as you gave it to him, why it was changed in Berlin. If you can not explain so, say you don't know. Do you know why they changed that?
A I am unable to explain. I don't know whether it was changed, or whether it was Nebe who made it as it is now.
punishable by death, on whatever it was, I don't know. I don't know according to what principles Nebe made out this report. and Nebe because he wanted to falsify or because he was careless, or because he wanted to convey a different story, did not transmit what you told him, that is one possibility? Berlin for some reason which you can not fathom they falsified the report, is that correct?
Q They changed it, they changed it for reasons you can not tell us?
Q They changed the report, that is your explanation?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed Dr. Mayer. BY DR MAYER: complete, and that the word "Partisans" was missing in this paragraph. It said in that report that Jews were in the woods, What does it mean, that Jews escaped to the woods? were afraid of being arrested.
Q Where were the Partisans, then, generally staying?
THE PRESIDENT: I'll have to give you credit for trying hard there, but let the witness testify.
DR. MAYER: I have no more questions, Your Honor, as to this subject matter. I'll proceed with the witness. BY DR. MAYER:
this action was that the Jews independently, and on their own, started to leave the Ghettos, and went into the surrounding woods, You partly answered this question when asked by the President. But, I would like to take this up again in its proper context? tions was the contact with the Partisans which constitut ed a special danger. your own report?
A That I don't know, as Nebe personally modified or changed the report, as he did with all the other reports. I reported to Nebe immediately after my return in the evening when I gave him a brief oral report. The detailed report in writing was submitted by me giving all the underlying details and documents as the underlying documents, and records, which were in Russian, had to be translated. I can, therefore, only assume that Nebe in accordance with my original oral report had already made his own report, which he sent to Berlin, and, in Berlin these reports were even more abbreviated and expurgated. It is a possibility that in the report of events on the 24th this inconceivable formulation has been brought about. that you didn't have Jews so treated because they were Jews, but because they had made contact with the Partisans, and been guilty of mutiny, and, therefore, had evaded the regulations imposed upon them?
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor Mayer has not he been telling us that now for about thirty-five minutes. Why is it necessary to repeat it. He has said over and over again that the Jews mutinied; they escaped into the woods; they were contacting the Partisans; they were going to kill the Mayor.