He has told us all that.
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, I only wanted to make sure that it was taken in the record, that is the answer. But I withdraw the question.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is adequately in the record, you need not worry about that.
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is not in the record, we will get after these court reporters. BY DR. MAYER:
Q In your two affidavits, which were made by you before Mr. Wartenberg, you mentioned these executions in Tatarsk, but you didn't say that three women were also shot, as the document showed. Can you explain to the Tribunal why you didn't speak of these happenings? memory somewhat, when I gave the first and second affidavits. It was only when I looked at the documents submitted by the Prosecution that I suddenly remembered about the three women. These three women whom I has shot in Tatarsk, I had forgotten, because of my own personal attitude which was against the shooting of innocent people, and, of course, especially against the shooting of women and children. I constantly had in my mind the two-hundred women who were re-installed in the Ghetto in Tatarsk.
Q What was the guilt that was proven against these three women? Jewish Council, and they were found guilty of having established connection with the Partisans, and having taken active part in the mutiny.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you say that when you made up this affidavit, or when you signed it, after you had read it, that you forgot that you had killed three women. Now as difficult as it is to believe that one who had sent to their death three women could forget so horrible an episode in his life, it seems even a little more difficult to understand how you could make reference to women in your statement, and then not mention that you had killed three women, because your statement contains, "Although I had orders to shoot women and children too I did not comply with this part of the order."
It is not a matter of forgetting, it is a matter of distinct negation. Explain that? was so nervous and excited that I had no proper perspective of what had happened at the time, and even later, I can not explain, but I am now stating it quite openly and honestly and frankly that I had not remembered these three women. It was only when I saw this document, it immediately struck me that there were also three women among those people executed at Tatarsk, and , that at the moment I suddenly remembered the further details of the whole affair. evidence of the fact that you saw three women mentioned, that then you suddenly realized that you had shot three women, was that the reason?
Q The interrogator, Mr. Wartenberg, must have asked you, did you shoot any women and children? Did he ask you that question?
A He asked me whether I had shot any women and children; thereupon, I told him at the time that on principle my attitude was against the shooting of women and children; in this connection I said that I led them back into the Ghetto, because I remembered, as I said, this picture of the two-hundred women and children. these ten men out in the woods, ready to go to their Creator, with their graves dug close by; did you remember that picture?
A I didn't take part in the execution, Your Honor. them at ten places, to blindfold them; don't take away their clothing, Do you remember that picture?
A No, I didn't remember it at the time. I didn't remember any of these details.
Q Now this happened in 1942, didn't it? shooting of the three women. Now many years had to go by before your brain finally revolved and came to the point where it could recollect this picture of three women about to be shot. How long did it take you to recall that?
A I can not state that, I don't know.
Q When did you first remember that you shot the three women? me this document to the effect that in Tatarsk, apart from those thirty men were also three women who were shot; at the moment I remembered these three women. Before that it had all disappeared from my memory, I didn't remember it. I cannot explain it.
Q Six Years later you remembered it? you said, " By Joe", that is right, they killed three women? you had killed three women , and how did you acquaint him with the fact that now you remembered that you killed three women. What was your reaction?
Q You were shocked that they had made the report?
to tell the truth, had omitted to tell that originally, that I had forgotten these three women, and, therefore, I was suspected of having made a false affidavit and embezzled these three women, as it were, that was the shock that I had.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that the right word,"embezzled"?
THE WITNESS: That was I didn't name these three women. That this can be regarded as my bad intention, that is what I meant, that was my reaction when these three women cropped up. false statement to Mr. Wartenberg?
AAn incomplete statement. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you. Shall we recess, Dr.Mayer, or is there something you want to say?
DR. MAYER: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 12 December '47) Court No. II, Case No. IX.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
DR. SCHWARZ: (Attorney for the defendant stein) I would like the defendant Sandberger be excused from attendance in court this afternoon. I ask this for Defense Counsel Stein, who is not here. He wants to prepare his document books.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Sandberger will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
DR. KRAUSE: Deputizing for Ridieger for the Defendant Haensch. Your Honor, I have the same request concerning the Defendant Haensch. He needs him also in order to prepare document books and ask him to be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Haensch will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
DR. MAYER: For Klingelhoefer.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you mind awaiting just a moment or two, Dr. Mayer, until a member of the prosecution arrives?
DR. MAYER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
You may proceed, Dr. Mayer. BY DR. MAYER (Attorney for the defendant Klingelhoefer): page 41 of the English, page 39 of the German, Document NO-3403, Exhibit No. 63. It is the Report of Events No. 125 of 26 October 1941 and on Court No. II, Case No. IX.
page 4 of the original for Staff and VKM, a figure of shootings of 2457 is mentioned, an increase of 428 shootings, as compared with the Report of Events No, 108, discussed before. What can you tell us about this. Staff and the VKM I have to say the same as I have said before. At that time I was not a member of the VKM any more but belonged to the Group Staff. In the Group Staff I belonged to Department SD where I had nothing to do wit other tasks, except the three missions which I have already mentioned in detail which I carried out on orders from Nebe or from Naumann because of this special situation and the special circumstances. The figures of shootings I can merely explain this way: That I assume that the persons executed in Tatarsk, these 30 Jewish men and the 3 Jewish women are contained in this total report. participated or which you witnessed? other executions, nor did I have them carried out, nor did I witness them. Naumann was questioned on the witness stand. You know that the Defendant Naumann, after he arrived here in prison, gave you a sheet of paper. What did you do with this note? Mr. Wartenberg, without reading it and enclosed it in an envelope, with a letter.
Q What way was the accompanying letter worded? the following, approximately: "Enclosed, I forward to you a note given to me on 3 July, after the evening walk, handed to me by Erich Naumann." I refuse to do such things. I did not open it and did not know its contents.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Q Why did you act in that manner?
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the witness has been purporting to give us the contents of a note he sent to Mr. Wartenberg. He said he has given it to us to the best of his memory. I have the original of that note here and request that the witness, if he intends to give the contents, he give the complete contents and not that part of it he recalls and that is a very small part, be admitted into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Ferencz, you will have the opportunity to cross-examine him on that very statement, on that letter. Proceed, Dr. Mayer.
Q (By Dr. Mayer) What was your motive in acting that way? I tried to say the pure truth and describe everything as it actually happened. It is my opinion that when Naumann gave me such a note this was in order to induce me to make certain statements which did not conform with the truth. I could not answer for such action which are in conflict with my conscience. BY THE PRESIDENT: jure yourself without seeing the note? has sent you a note that he was going to try to induce you to say something which was not the truth. Why should you come to that conclusion without reading the note?
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, may I interrupt here. I think there was a mistake in the translation. Perhaps the reply could be repeated and retranslated.
Q (By the President) Yes, Witness, you started that when you received this note from Naumann , you refused to read it because you Court No. II, Case No. IX.
assumed that Naumann wanted you to tell an untruth. How could you determine that Naumann was endeavoring to persuade you to perjure yourself without seeing the note? note is given to me secretly, I must assume that somebody is trying to induce me to do something.
Q Well, had Naumann ever lied to you before? to lie in this note.
A Well, because of the general situation, I thought so. I had never met Naumann in such a situation. any sign or any indication that he was going to transmit a message to you? which I had to read.
Q And what more did he say?
A He said nothing else. He merely said he had written a note for me and I absolutely had to read it.
Q Did he tell you what he was going to put in the note? Did he indicate the subject matter of the note?
A No, he did not tell me that. There was no possibility to talk during that time. and you received a note from someone, who had never been unfriendly to you, you concluded that he was going to ask you to do something wrong? order to induce me to make false statements. That was my personal assumption.
Q Is that the only reason a note is written?
A I thought so, Your Honors. In the state I was in at the moment -I was very nervous at the time --, of course, I reacted to this in that manner, that I objected to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Dr. Mayer. BY DR. MAYER: were ordered back from Russia on 20 December, 1943. When did you start to work in Office VI? after my leave from the Russian assignment had expired.
Q What did you do Office VI?
A In Office VI, I was assigned to Group VIC. This Group Detachment dealt with the subject of Eastern Europe; the so-called "Operation Zeppelin" was part of it, which included Department VI-C, 1 to 3. I worked in the Department VI-2. In this department we worked on evaluation of the information material, namely, concerning Russia. After starting to work there for the "Operation Zeppelin" at first, I remained there in Berlin for a few days for general information and after that, as far as information work was concerned, I was ordered to Special Department VI-C2, in a special camp. This special camp had to cope with the first systematic work on the incoming Russian material which was received at Berlin, sent to the camp and then it returned to Berlin where work was continued. This utilization work was done by Russian specialists of all departments who were under the charge of a German expert who spoke Russian. These Russian specialists mostly were formerly POW's who on account of the "Operation Zepplin" had been selected from POW camps. Recruiting of Russian POW's was done on a voluntary basis. The Russians thus selected were released by the Army for the Operation Zeppelin and were released from captivity as POW's. There were not considered POW's any more in working for the "Operation Zeppelin" but they were considered foreign co-workers of the RSHA. They were paid according to a special day order. They had free housing, free clothing, and free food. They were allowed to move about freely and apart from the neutral uniform for work, they received civilian clothes for their spare time and they could move about freely without supervision. Roll calls or any measures of a military nature were not held, as there was nothing similar to a military manner at all, because that work was purely scientific so that these Russian xco-workers would not feel they were forced to work. of this special department, being instructed that questions of war economics and armament were going to be dealt with by this special de partment and that it was to be extended to all other domestic spheres in Russia.
That means from then onwards cultural, inner political and other problems of public life in Russia were to be dealt with. At that time the department was called Sonderlager L, Special Camp L. This "L" here stands for "Lebensgebiet," which is domestic sphere. camp was to be transferred from Breslau to Upper Austria in a camp of the Labor Service near Gross-Hollenstein, where I continued to work until it was dissolved in April 1945.
Q What happened to the Russian experts when the camp was dissolved? the Labor Office in Linz, or, at their own request, they were given an opportunity to volunteer for the Zlasow Army. a question. In a document the locality Zadrudub is mentioned. This is Document NO-316, Exhibit 65 in Document II-B, English page 54, German page.48, page 1 of the original. This locality Zadrudub is not mentioned on any map. You yourself know the Russian language; could you tell me from what this name originates?
A The word, "Zadrudub" appears to me to be a remnant of a word, because the word makes no sense. "Dub" in Russian means "oak", but a word on the basis of "Zadru" does not exist in the Russian language, but I know that the word "Starudub" or "Starudubsk" exists as a Russian town name. The meaning of thiw work in both cases would mean "Old Oak". "Zadrudub" I consider a corruption of "Starudub" or "Starudubsk."
Q "Starudub" actually is between Gomel and Orel; Would you know which kommando operated in this territory? Special Kommando 7B was the only one operating there.
DR. MAYER: Your honor, this concludes my direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer, in connection with your last question, do we understand that the witness says that in his opinion there is no such town called Zadrudub, and that in his opinion the town referred to is "Starudub?"
Is that what his explanation was?
DR. LAYER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Any other defense counsel desiring to cross-examine please advance to the podium. BY THE DR. KINNERT (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT NAUMAN):
Q Witness, where did you get to know the Defendant Nauman first?
Q When was this? this particularly? an accident and therefore I had to remain in Smolensk for six days for medical treatment. Therefore, I remember this time so exactly.
Q During that time, was Naumann's predecessor, Nebe, still in Smolensk?
Q Did you see Nebe yourself during those days?
Q Do you know when Nebe left Smolensk?
A I don't know exactly, because those six days which I stayed in Smolensk I had to stay in bed and did not know anything of events happening outside my room. I therefore must assume he left during those six days.
Q Do you have any further recollection confirming this period? Nauman to Gshatsk, that is, Nauman only went as far as Jasma and the following day he followed me to Gshatsk.
Q And when did Naumann visit you in Gshatsk?
Q When and why did you see Naumann again? leave, and went to the Group-staff in Smolensk.
Q When did you start your leave?
A I started this leave immediately after Naumann's visit in Gshatsk, on 2nd of December 1941.
Q The read from Gshatsk goes right by Smolensk, doesn't it? When going on leave while passing through Smolensk, did you visit Naumann's office?
Q Did you meet Naumann on that occasion?
Q And why not? told that Naumann was on a journey visiting commanders.
Q What day was this?
Q One further question. Did you ever receive any execution orders from Naumann?
Dr. KINNERT: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any defense counsel desires to cross examine? If not, Mr. Ferencz may conduct the cross examination for the Prosecution.
CROSS_EXAMINATION BY MR. FERENCZ: a typewritten sheet, is that correct?
Q Who wrote the answers for you?
Q And did you type out the copy you now have in front of you?
A No, I didn't type it. I didn't have a typewriter.
Q Who typed them out for you? you brought them into the courtroom?
A The answers? Well, of course, he showed the questions to me, of course, and, I answered as I would answer naturally, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that he understand the question, Mr. Ferencz.
MR. FERENCZ: I am having a little difficulty in getting the switch on. BY MR. FERENCZ: Naumann before you read them to the Tribunal? I wrote down the questions -- no, the answers as far as I could remember them, and then had then had them copied.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think he still got your question correctly. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q I am not referring now to those questions which Naumann's counsel directed to you, but to all the questions which were put to you by your counsel on direct examination, Did you show him all of the questions, and all the answers that you were going to make in court?
THE PRESIDENT: Did you sow whom, ought you to say in order to make that clear. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q Did you show the defendant Naumann?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, I Object to those questions because I myself discussed the questions with the defendant, and, therefore, had an opportunity to discuss that examination with any other defendant.
The only question that can be put, is whether they have been discussed before.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Prosecution counsel certainly has the right to inquire as to whether the witness discussed his answers with the defendant Naumann. There is nothing wrong about that question, especially in view of the fact that this witness has already testified at some length about the note he had received from Naumann. The objection is overruled. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q I repeat my question. Did you discuss with the defendant Naumann the answers which you read in this court before you came into the court to testify?
A I didn't really discuss them with him. Probably I just told him what I would answer to his questions. put by Naumann's defense counsel, or are you trying to say that Naumann gave you all the questions and all the answers?
A I don't understand the questions, Mr.Prosecutor. your counsel of direct examination were read by you from a type_ written sheet, which you have before you. I am sking you if you discussed all these questions and answers with the defendant Naumann before you took the stand? went into the witness stand. additions to your answers?
DR. MAYER: I beg your pardon, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. MAYER: It is like this. The defendant Klingelhoefer does not understand the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but just a moment, please, the witness must answer this. It is not for counsel to indicate what he did. You will have an opportunity in redirect examination if there is something which must be cleared up because of the cross examination, but Mr. Ferencz, now, is conducting the cross examination on a certain feature of the case, which is certainly amenable to cross examination. It is not necessary for you, Dr. Mayer, at this point to make any statement. The Witness can do that. You, of course, will have the right when Mr. Ferencz finishes to clear up anything which you believe needs to be cleared up.
DR. MAYER: Yes, I merely want to point out that the defendant does not understand the questions as they are put.
THE PRESIDENT: I see, all right, now, Mr. Ferencz, in putting the questions don't use any pronouns; repeat the names of the individuals involved, and perhaps that will make it very precise and incapable of any ambiguity. BY MR. FERENCZ: you read them to the court?
A The replies to Naumann you are referring to? direct examination?
Q You stated that you were a member of Sondercommando VII_B from June to 10 July 1941, is that correct? when the Commando was set up, approximately, until 10th or 11th of July, yes.
Q Didn't you say in your affidavit that you were a member of the VII_B until August 1941?
Q I call your attention to Document Book III_B, page 57 of the English, page 105 of the German. You will notice there in your first paragraph you state that is Document NO_4235, page 105, of the German copy, Document Book III_B.
A I don't find it here.
Q Well, never mind. I shall withdraw my question if you are having difficulties. That is page 112 of the German? on page 57 of the English copy, where you are describing your duties, and, your say that "Dr, Six was recalled to Berlin in August, and you were then transferred from VII_B to the Vorkommando_Moscow, which Six had just left."?
A No. that is not right, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q What did you mean by your statement in your affidavit?
A It says here, "After this unit had reached the city of Minsk," that is 7B and the sentence before that: " Nebe transferred me to the Vorcommando_Moscow, Advance Commando Moscow." The commander of the unit at the time, Professor Dr. A Six, was recalled to Berlin in August 1941, and already in Minsck, I was transferred to Advance Commando Moscow. transferred to Vorcommando_Moscow?
A I belonged to the Vorcommando_Moscow, and I prepared myself for work in Moscow, and afterwards when we had rested at Smolensk and were stationed in Smolensk for sometime, as I have already explained, I made search in the NKWD offices, and Soviet houses to evaluate material, as Six had ordered me to do. with him in Vorcommando_Moscow, is that correct?
Q Returning now to your activity in Sondercommando VII_B, you stated in your direct examination that Rausch, the commanding officer addresses the Commando before you went into Russia, and told you that the rules of war will be disregarded, is that correct?
Law, didn't recognize the Hague Rules of Land Warfare and the Geneva Convection, and, therefore, we wanted to conduct our war in a ruthless manner, and would have to expect the Soviets to conduct it in a ruthless manner. He also said that the Military Law and Material Law as used by the High Command of the Army were not going to be applied. disregard the rules of war, isn't that correct?
A That was not ordered, no. It was merely said that the Soviet Union didn't keep to the rules of war of the Geneva Convention and the Hauge Rules of Land War are, and, therefore, would not recognize them, and would not apply them.
Q At that time, you were not really at war with Russia, were you?
A Well, at the time when this was announced, I don't exactly remember that date, but it must have been on the evening before the war started. you would have to conduct your war ruthlessly, because Russia was not following the rules of warfare, is that correct?
A. I don't know whether this was on the eve before the war started. I don't remember the exact date when this happened. That might have been one or two days earlier, or later. We left, I believe, the day after the German troops had crossed the border. On the 21st we left Dueben, and later in the evening before this was announced to the Commando that we were going to declare war on Russia, just as the units at the border had also had this drawn to their attention, that we were going to wage war against Russia.
Q. So that all the troops had had announced to them before the war, that the rules of war would be disregarded?
A. Yes, this was announced to us. We were not told that we would not have to keep the rules of war, but that we were told the Soviet Union would not keep the rules of war, because they didn't recognize these three agreements.
Q. You told us yesterday that Rausch told you that the Army courts martial were to be disregarded, and that the rules of war were to be disregarded. Do you now change your testimony?
A. No, I merely said that the war would be conducted severely and ruthlessly.
Q. Let me read your answer to you inasmuch as you have apparently forgotten it. Your counsel said to you, following the question by the President of the Tribunal: "Q Please continue slowly" and you answered, quote: "Therefore, we had to fight them just as ruthlessly. Therefore, the war laws and courts martials were not to be applied concerning the enemy. These laws had been given by the High Command, and they were to be disregarded as far as the enemy were concerned." End of quote. Now do you intend to change your testimony on that point at this time?
A. No.
Q. You deny that you said that?
A. Yes.
Q. You, therefore, deny that you said it?
A. I didn't say that. I didn't say it like that.
Q. Yes certainly intend to change that statement at this time then?
A. No, not at all. What I said, once more, was not that martial law was not going to be adhered to, as far as I remember, I said that the enemy, that is, the Soviet Union did not recognize the argeements, and, therefore, we had to expect a ruthless manner of warfare, and that, therefore, the Germans would have to conduct their war accordingly, very ruthlessly.
Q. Now I have just read to you where you said specifically, the rules of war were to be disregarded, and you have stated that the transcript is wrong in that respect, that you didn't say that. Therefore, isn't it true, that you intend to change your testimony, and say the rules of law were to be followed?
A. No, I do not want to change my testimony at all, but I never said we would not keep to the regulations of war. I merely said that we would fight severely and ruthlessly if we were to conquer our enemy.
Q. And he didn't tell you to disregard the rules of law?
A. No, that was not said.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, may I interrupt just a moment and thus let's clear this up whether he did or didn't say what you have read to him. I have in my notes an answer as follows: "Now witness please listen to this, and tell us whether you said this or not: "we had to fight them just as ruthlessly; therefore, the war laws and the courts martial were not to be applied concerning the enemy. These laws had been given by the High Command, and were to be disregarded so far as the enemy was concerned." Now all we want is an answer as to whether or not you did or didn't say that yesterday?
THE WITNESS: I said words to that effect, your Honor, that is what I meant. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q. I read the said question just a few moments ago, and you said specifically, "no, I didn't say that."