THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session. BY DR. BELZER (ATTORNEY FOR MATHIAS GRAF):
Q Witness, you were chief of Office III in the RSHA? questions: Do you know that during the war emergency duties had to he carried out by the SD? object to this duty or to reject it? who did the emergency duty have to be a member of the SS or a member of the Party?
Q Who assigned the people for emergency duty in the SD? by the regional agencies themselves. person carrying out such emergency service become a member of the SD?
A No. the SD he became active on behalf of his emergency duty. Dueben or Schmiedeberg? Police and SD he came under his jurisdiction. was there a mass meeting held by Heydrich or Streckenbach? kommando advertised?
concerning the assignment for these Eastern areas apart form the Einsatzgruppen leaders and the Einsatzkommando leaders, were there subordinate leaders present also?
DR. BELZER: I have no further questions, Your Honor. BY DR. SURHOLT (ATTORNEY for the Defendant Rasch): a member of Office I?
Q Rasch came from the. Ministry of the I terior to the SD, did he not? Until then he had not joined any part of the SS. He became Untersturmfuehrer automatically when joining the SS. Did this make him a member of the Waffen SS or the General SS?
A Certainly not the Waffen SS. There was no General Waffen SS. the SD in Koenigsberg. The Prosecution has submitted a document in Volume III_C, Exhibit No. 131, German page 13, Document No. 3253. There it says -
THE PRESIDENT: You are reading too rapidly.
Q "Since the Fuehrer has appointed you Brigadier General of the Police with the document handed to you on 19 Feburary 1940. I herewith assign you as from 1 December 1940 to a position provided in the budget of Brigadiers General of the Policepay group PA allocated to the State Police Headquarters at Koenigsberg." Witness, can you tell me whether the meaning of this document is of importance; with regard to budget purposes, so that a position was assigned to him where he could be paged by the fiscus, or does it also result in his being drafted into the State Police in Koenisberg?
budget was transferred to him. This has nothing to do with the function as such.
Q Could Himmler stand contradiction? been promoted, could that be considered as normal? well as abnormal?
Q Is that a sign of disapproval?
A I couldn't say that. intervals and according to a certain schedule?
DR. SURHOLT: Thank you. BY DR. FICHT (Attorney for Defendant Biberstein): defense counsel-when discussing documents and it was mentioned whether the number of 90,000 killed were correct or not, you explained the following: "After a certain period, activity of the Einsatzgruppe in the Fast no longer to k place. In connection with this, I would like to ask you what period did you mean by this? flowed back to the area of civil administration. Rostov or surroundings, even if only temporarily? were in Rostov for a short time.
Q When was that, approximately?
Q 1941 or 1942. Can you express yourself to that effect? time. been in Rostov and then had to clear out and only in 1942 occupied Rostov again, can you then answe this question whether special atrocities had been committed there? BY DR. MAYER (for the defendant Braune): BY MR. WALTON:
May it please the court I don't quite see the materiality of this in that Dr. Mayer has been given the opportunity already to cross-examine the witness.
THE INTERPRETOR: I'm sorry, channel 3 is not working.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us first see what Dr. Mayer intends to present. He may be merely asking for the correct time. We don't know.
MR. WALTON: That's true; I only wanted him to confine himself to something that had taken place before. I am objecting to anything that has already been discussed.
THE PRESIDENT: Your objection is well taken. Let us see what he is going to ask. The sound system seems to be functioning now, Dr. Mayer.
DR. MAYER: I only wanted to address one question to complete my former question. The question itself refers to a document submitted by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that within your knowledge when you questioned the Defendant Ohlendorf before?
DR. MAYER: Yes, I knew the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Why was it you did not put this query at that time?
DR. MAYER: I simply did not address the question because I had forgotten it during the examination.
THE PRESIDENT: That seems to be the privilege of an attorney, to forget a question, so we will allow it. BY DR. MAYER: Thatk you very much.
Q It refers to Document NOKW 584, Exhibit No. 165 in the German volume III D, pages 104 and 105. This document itself deals with retaliation measures against partisans in Eupatoria and I ask the witness to inform himself of the text on which the action was based and to state his opinion on it and also what orders he gave to Braune at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: What was that document again, Dr. Mayer?
DR. MAYER: Exhibit 165, in the German Document Book III D, pages 104 and 105.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the document number itself?
DR. MAYER: The document is NOKW 584.
A I exactly remember this occurrence. The ICAO of the Army and Major Riesen came to me on behalf of the truz in order to obtain an order that my Einsatz Commando carried out a retaliation measure in Eupadoria. It was a retaliation measure for occurrences which have been descried previously by me when the Russians had cut the throats of wounded soldiers. I rejected the carrying out of this retaliation measure because I did not consider it to be my task to carry out retaliation measures of this kind for the Army. Major Riesen asked me for persons who could be put at his disposal in Eupadoria. I said I was prepared to do this because the retaliation measure itself as described to me by Major Riesen I did not approve of. The Commander in Chief had ordered that the entire population capable of war service in Eupatoria be shot. Owing to our stay in Eupatoria it was known that among this population there was a great number of persons who were not suspected of being partisans or who could be considered to endanger our security. For that reason I sent Braune along in order to select from the male population those persons who could not he considered dangerous but could assist Major Riesen with advice.
Braune returned from Eupatoria disgusted. The Army had not prepared the execution properly and therefore very unpleasant occurences had taken place and Braune had to take a hand in order to re-establish order to avoid even greater unpleasantness.
Q I have another little question. What connection did Braune have with Riesen? held a kind of a superior position.
Q Did Dr. Braune also approach him about the views of the Commandant Mueller. because rightly he considered him a white collar officer rather than an officer who would fight at the front and he received him with the words that for this action he did not require an order from the Commander in Chief. This statement may he explained by the fact that already at the beginning of the war through Keitel orders had been given to Army sections which in this case gave the officers the opportunity ever without the orders from the Supreme Commander to carry out such actions. BY DR. ASCHENAUER: difficulties in the record. May I put them prior to the cross examination?
Q In the Prosecution's evidence on page 330, which is the memorandum of 30 September, it says: Krimschacken are people of Jewish descent, who were living in this area for several hundred years, however, the Einsatzgruppe considered them undesirable. In this connection may I address two Questions. Did the Einsatzgruppe classify the Krimschacken - May I assist your memory with an excerpt of a document which Was not submitted here, Exhibit 325 presumably from the SS trials and may I ask what the decision obtained from Berlin?
A. The Prosecution themselve did explain that the classification of the Krimschacken was not necessary because the prosecution themselves described them as of Jewish origin. Therefore, the Fuehrer order concerned them. Thus, the Einsatzgruppe was not content with this result because at the Crimea, apart from the Crimean Karaims problem the question of the Karaims also existed. It consisted of the following: The Krimschacken are of Jewish origin but have given up their Jewish creed and spoke Turkish. The Karaimen, mostly, are not of Jewish origin but had the Jewish confession. The Einsatzgruppe twice to keep both groups out of the liquidations. The order of the 5th of December 1941 shows this. The following facts were written down here. The Karaims, according to their own statement, have nothing in common with the Jews except their confession. They are supposed to originate iron the moguls who formerly lived in the area of the Black Sea. During the czaristic days, in contrast to the Jews, they had all Civil rights and they are still proud of this, even now. The Krimschacken according to statements by the Jews are supposed to be Jews who left Italy about 400 years ago and came to the Crimea and spoke the Tatarian language. The Krimschacken themselves maintain to be a branch of the Tatarian people. One may presume that both sides are right and that there are immigrants from Italy Who, in the course of the centuries mixed with the Tatars, accepted their language and their customs but retained then confession. When the Einsatzgruppe enquired from Berlin it was decided that the Krimschacken are to as treated as Jews
Q. This finishes the direct examination as far as I am concerned.
COURT IIA CASE IX available to the Prosecution for cross-examination on the entire defendant's case.
MR. HEALTH: May I state my name for the record. James E. Heath for the Prosecution.
INTERPRETOR: I'm sorry, your Honor, the German channel is out again.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed Mr. heath, I think it is all right now. BY MR. HEALTH: Thank you Sir.
Q. Mr. Ohlendorf, We can begin for this moment exactly where you left off. You spoke of the Krimschacken decision in Berlin, the decision that because those people were of the same blood--------
INTERPRETOR: I'm sorry, the German channel is off again. BY MR. HEALTH
Q. Mr. Ohlendorf, you spoke of two classes of people, the Krimschacken and the Karaimen------
MR. HEALTH: I think it is kaputt again your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Heath, it seems that a few minutes will elapse before channel 3 may be reactivitated so we will take advantage of the noon recess and then you can begin afresh immediately after the noon recess. The court will be in recess until 130.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR HEATH: May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Mr. Heath. BY MR. HEATH:
Q Mr. Ohlendorf, to speed this examination I'd like to attempt to agree with you upon one or two points. First, we shall not quarrel about numbers, You have indicated that Einsatzgruppe D under your command slaughtered something less than 90,000 human beings. I understood you to suggest to the Court that this figure is exaggerated although it appears in an affidavit which you have given. I ask you now to give the Court the best estimate you possibly can of the minimum number of human beings who were killed under your command by Einsatzgruppe D. give any definite figure, and that even the testimony in my affidavit shows that in reality I could not name any figure. Therefore, I have named a figure which has been reported "approximately". The knowledge which I have gained by this day through the documents and which I have gained through conversations with my men, make me reserve the right to name any figure and strengthen this reservation. Therefore, I am not in a position to give you a minimum figure, either. In my direct examination I have said that the numbers which appear in the documents are at least exaggerated by one half, but I must repeat that I never knew any definite figure and therefore cannot give you any such figure.
Q You can not give us a minimum figure? my reasons why I cannot give any figure.
Q Well, let me ask you -- perhaps I can help you ... In any event, I can indicate to the Court one reason why you might have doubt about the numbers.
In 1943 the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler addressed the SS Major Generals at Posen. You are aware of that speech, are you not?
Q Perhaps you recall his complaint, and I will read it to you: "I come now to a fourth virtue, which is very rare in Germany - to truthfulness. One of the greatest evils which has spread during the war is the lack of truthfulness in messages, reports, and statements, which subordinate departments in civil life in the State, the Party and the Services sent in to the departments over them," Of course, that was in 1943.
Did you exaggerate the reports which you sent to the RSHA? were reported to me, and I know that double countings could not be avoided, and I also knew that wrong numbers were reported to mo, I have avoided to pass on such double countings or wrong statements because the neighboring units did not know their figures and, nevertheless the reporting of wrong figures was not prevented - and especially the reporting of strange figures - figures of other units were not prevented. The the report from Chernovitz is certainly the reporting of such strange figures, namely, the reporting of such actions which were done by the Roumanians in Chernovitz. system was maintained in Einsatzgruppe D to keep track of the people slaughtered? were sent from the Commandos to the Einsatzgruppe, and these reports were gone over and the figures contained in them were sent to the RSHA.
Q Well, it is quite obvious that that is what happened. But tell us now who reported for Einsatzkommando 12, say, during the first six months of its operations the killings by Einsatzkommando 12, to you?
Q And who was the man who reported to you? in this case by the then Sturmbannfuehrer Nosske. numbers killed by his unit? for example, was 200 or 250 kilometers away from me.
Q Witness, I don't mean to cut you off, but I think if I ask you now to attempt to make your answers as responsive as possible, I shall attempt to make my questions as explicit as possible - and I believe we both shall benefit. So - I ask you again - now why you did not check up on Nosske, but simply the question ... Did you rely on Nosske for truthful reports of the slaughters committed by Einsatzkommando 12?
A I didn't understand the last part of the question. Only the last part of the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Please repeat the question, Mr. Heath, BY MR. HEATH: of persons slaughtered by Einsatzkommando 12 while it was under his command?
A I was of the opinion that these reports were truthful. In the case of Nosske however, in one case it was brought to my attention that the report was not truthful. But that was relatively at an early stage in Nikolajev.
case which were not killed by his kommando but by a strange unit. exaggerating the number killed by his unit? unit under you?
Q Yes, do you recall an exaggeration in the case of 10-A?
Q Any other Einsatzkommando do you recall exaggerating figures? yourself in today, it should be possible for you to give us a minimum figure based on the reports of the man who were under you, should it not? one half years that to the best of my knowledge, about ninety-thousand people were reported by M 4 Einsatzkommandos. How many of those were actually killed I do not know and I can not really say.
Q Very well, we will leave this after one more question. This figure ninety thousand is the best estimate you can give at this moment. I take it we must continue to read that with the qualification that you gave in direct testimony, that you think there is a great deal of exaggeration in it?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Heath, I do not understand the witness to say that he regarded the figure ninety-thousand to be an exaggeration. He states, and he stated not only here but before the International Military Tribunal, that his estimate of the number killed by the Einsatzgruppe D during the time he was in charge was ninety-thousand, and he comes to that conclusion from the reports and that is what I understand he says today.
MR. HEATH: I agree with Your Honor: I had understood him to say that in the transcript his testimony was - - go ahead?
THE WITNESS: I am not quite in agreement with this answer, Your Honor. Insofar as I said that the number ninety-thousand was reported as having been killed, but I cannot really say whether that number had been actually killed, I would not want to say from the last that they were killed by the Einsatzgruppen, because from exaggeration I also knew definitely that the Einsatzkommando reports of the killings were made which were carried out by other units. Therefore, I could only repeat that ninety-thousand were reported.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you may agree to what I have stated, but you will have to agree to what you stated yourself on January 3, 1946, you were asked: "Do you know how many persons were liquidated by the Einsatzgruppen D under your direction." And you answered: "In the year between June 1941 and June 1942 the Einsatzkommandos reported ninetythousand people liquidated,"
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Question: "That included men, women and children? Answer: Yes, Question: On what do you base these figures? Answer: On reports sent by the Einsatzkommando to the Einsatzgruppen. Question: Were those reports submitted to you? Answer: Yes."
MR. HEATH: Your Honor, please, if I may interrupt, the defendant, I think I can clear up the difficulty. I have the advantage of having the transcript of his testimony before me.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. HEATH: I don't know that Your Honor has had the opportunity to sec it.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I have not.
MR. HEATH: He did make this statement with respect to the affidavit which you just read.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not the affidavit. This is testimony put to him in court.
MR. HEATH: He followed by that to this extent in the case of the direct examination. BY MR. HEATH:
Q Witness, this is from your testimony of last week. He said, if of course, the figure of ninety-thousand was named by me, I always added that in this fifteen to twenty percent are double countings, that is, on the basis of my own experience. I do not know any longer how I could have remembered the number of just ninety-thousand, because I did not keep a register of these figures. The "approximately" must have meant that I was not certain. It is evident that I mentioned this number of ninety-thousand by adding a number of other figures. I do not mention this in order to excuse myself, as I am perfectly convinced that it does not matter from the actual fact whether it was forty-thousand or ninetythousand. I mention this for the reason that in the situation in which we are today, politically speaking, figures are being dealt with in irresponsive manner. That is the qualification that I had referred to.
THE PRESIDENT: But that still does not in any way take away from what he said on January 3, 1946.
MR. HEATH: I agree, sir, with you.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the testimony of that day, and it still stands now as he gives this explanation and the Tribunal sees no difference between what he said then and what he said today, namely, that this estimate of ninety-thousand is based upon the report which he personally saw.
MR. HEATH: Alright, sir.
THE WITNESS: With what was just read by the President of my affidavit of 3 January 1946 I agree completely.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Anything else which I have said on direct examination is merely a commentary to the testimony of 3 January 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. HEATH: Very wall, sir; BY MR. HEATH:
Q As we adjourned for lunch, Mr. Ohlendorf, I had begun to ask you about the Karaimians and the Krimschacks, I think you called them.
Q I beg your pardon?
Q Karaimians. I understood that you were confronted in the south of Russia with the question further to slaughter Krimschacks. Krimschacks I understood were human beings who had come by way of Italy to Russia, and they carried with them and they had Jewish blood. The direction which you got from Berlin was to kill the Krimschacks, is that correct? another sect whom you encountered in the south of Russia, and this sect had no Jewish blood, but it did share the religious confessions of the Jews. Is that right? should be killed, and I understood you to say that the order you got from Berlin was you shall not kill them for they have nothing in common with the Jews except the confession?
had no idea, and that you have no cause today to think that there was any plan to exterminate the Jewish race in existence, nor that you had any information of putting it into effect. Is that right? between the Karaimians and the Krimschecks, except Jewish blood?
A I understand your question completely. In reference to the Eastern Jews, in the case of the Jews who were found in the Eastern Campaign it was the order that these Jews are to be killed for the reason that they were considered carriers of Bolshevism, and, therefore, considered as endangering the security of the German Reich, This concerned the Jews who were found in Russia, and it was not known to me that the Jews in all of Europe were being killed, but on the contrary I knew that down to my dismissal these Jews ware not killed, but it was attempted by all means to get them to emigrate. The fact that the KarKaraimians were not killed showed that the charge of the Prosecution that persons were persecuted for their religion is not correct, for the Karaimians had that Jewish religion, but they could not be killed because they did not belong to the Jews in Russia, and because they did not belong to the Jewish Race. the last sentence, "They did not belong to the Jewish Race," is that right?
Q They were found in Russia?
Q But they participated in the Jewish Confession in Russia? blood in them?
Q So they came absolutely under the Fuehrer Decree; or the Streckenbach Order to kill all Jews?
Q Except for blood?
A Because they were of Jewish origin. For you must understand the Nazi Ideology as you call it. It was the opinion of the Fuehrer that in Russia and in Bolshevism, the representatives of this blood showed themselves especially suitable for this idea, therefore, the carriers of this blood became especially suitable representatives of the Bolshevism. That is not on account of their faith, or their religion, but because of their human make-up and character.
Q And because of their blood, right? their nature and their characteristics. Their blood, of course, has something to di with it.
Q Let's see, if I can understand it; we got a lot of time, I hope. What was the distinction except blood?
A Between whom?
Q Between the Karaimians and the Krimschecks?
Q Only the difference in blood, is that so? was blood? has not been doubted during the entire trial, that in this Fuehrer Order the Jews were designated as the ones who belonged to that circle in Russia and who were to be killed.
Q Very well, witness, let's not quibble. Let's come back again. What you followed was the Fuehrer order, Now I leave you out of it for a moment, your own idea of what should be killed and what should not be killed.
THE PRESIDENT: I disagree with you, Mr. Heath, that the witness has quibbled. I think he has stated very clearly that his orders were to kill all Jews, that was the criterion which he followed. If he was a Jew he was killed, if he was not a Jew then they might figure some other reason to kill him but he wouldn't be killed because he was a Jew.
MR HEATH: Yes, Your Honor, I am attempting to get him to say the word blood and not the word Jews. That is the reason I was saying he is quibbling, but I am perfectly happy to leave it where it is.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he has been rather forthright.
MR. HEATH: Very well. BY MR HEATH:
Q Let's see, Mr. Ohlendorf, let's go for a moment to this order which you got at Pretsch in the Spring of 1941. Did you have any knowledge whatever of the purposes of the Einsatzgruppen before you went to Pretsch?
Q But you did not know what they were to do? missions in which people of the Security Police and the SD were working that is, of course, true. Security Police would be to slaughter Jews and Gypsies?
A I could no longer say today that I had such an idea, but I don't believe so. In my opinion the order about the killing of the Jews was known to me for the first time in Pretsch, that is, for the Russian campaign. Einsatzgruppen to kill all Jews and Gypsies and certain other categories, you would remember it today -- would you not, Mr. Ohlendorf?
not?
Q And. twice you refused?
Q The order in the first instance came from Heydrich? came from Heydrich?
Q You refused both the first and the second order?
Q Why?
A For two reasons. For one thing, because I had not been a soldier and did not have any interest in the military, secondly, because I was not a policemen, and had no interest for police work, and police work was against my nature, and third, because I had a genuine job to do in Berlin which I knew would not be replaced once I left it, and I wanted to do a job in which I could do the best I had. circumstances, excuse me, Ohlendorf was your military superior, was he not?
THE PRESIDENT: Ohlendorf you say? BY MR HEATH:
Q I mean, Heydrich? order must be obeyed without a question? people you have told us because you were ordered to do it, not because you wished to do it?