AAs long as I held a position no one got into a concentration camp who was not previously carefully interrogated. Excesses did not take place under my leadership.
QI did not mean in your office. I just asked about your general knowledge.
AI started from the principle that the same measures which were valid for me would also be valid for others. I cannot imagine that according to the directives which were issued by the RSHA without any reason anyone would be put into a concentration camp, for the decision about bringing anyone into a concentration camp lay with the RSHA itself. Therefore, reasons had to be given for such measures.
QBut you knew that there were very numerous cases of this type, don't you?
AYes, I knew that.
QIn the light of this experience, how do you interpret Heydrich's remark at the meeting, this meeting which we have just discussed, that the most severe measures against Jews would have to be taken during the campaign against Russia?
AI do not believe that Heydrich said the most severe measures would have to be taken. Heydrich expressed himself as follows, as I said in my direct examination: "Also against Jewry one would have to take more severe measures. The experiences in Poland taught us that."
QAll right. Will you tell the Tribunal how you interpreted these words of Heydrich?
AIt was my idea that now arrests were to be made, large scale arrests, that is, send people to concentration camps or Ghettos, or other such possibilities. I did not think about these things in detail.
QYou went to Einsatzkommando in Russia. You must have had some idea what you were going to do there.
AMy assignment was the security of the Army rear area, and according to that I adjusted myself to this type of assignment.
QYou did not know then that Heydrich made these remarks about the Jews in connection with the task of the Einsatzgruppen?
AMay I have this question repeated, please?
QThen Heydrich made this remark about the measures against Jews, were you of the opinion that this would not be a part of the task of the Einsatzgruppen?
ACertainly I assumed that, but I never assumed that large scale executions had been ordered.
QAll right, but will you tell the Tribunal what you did expect to do? You said what you did not expect. I want you to say what you did expect.
AMr. Prosecutor, I had to leave that up to the situation. I did not go to Russia with a predisposition about what was to be done and with clear orders, but first I had to see with what events should be confronted. If someone assigns me a job, I cannot say, I cannot judge the situation until I have seen how it develops.
QBut is it not a fact that Heydrich explained the situation to you and the other persons present during this meeting?
AHe made the explanation to the extent as I have described it.
QAnd you didn't think at all about what eventually would be done to these measures against the Jews?
AI had counted on the fact that elimination of some kind of danger could be accomplished by arrests, for previously, although I had already been eight years with the Security Police, I had never received an order to shoot Jews, and never did I hear up to that time that such an order had been given.
QDo I understand you correctly, that you said that you were of the opinion that all Jews were to be arrested?
ANo, not all Jews, only those who were considered dangerous.
QBut didn't you know of severe measures that had been taken in Germany from 1933 on?
AI was of the opinion that arrests would be made on a larger scale. That this was my opinion I can emphasize by the fact that after I reported back to Berlin, To Streckenbach, I expressed very clearly that there should be another solution to eliminating danger than shooting.
QYou met Streckenbach at this conference on the 28th or 29th of July, is that right? This conference you just spoke about, that was on the 28th or 29th of July?
ANo, on the 28th or 29th of August.
QOh, I am sorry. You told Streckenbach in detail about the order Obergruppenfuehrer Jeckeln had issued. This order was handed down to you by Dr. Rasch, and then in particular women and children were not to be saved.
AYes.
QDid you read the order to him verbatim, didn't you?
AI did not have this order in written font, and therefore I could not read it, but the way I remember it I presented it orally.
QAnd Streckenbach said that such an order would mean plain murder, is that correct?
AWhen I told Streckenbach the wording of this order in the way it had been given, namely to include women and children, I just don't remember what type of wording was used. Dr. Rasch had given a limitation, but I can't remember the exact wording. I presented this to Streckenbach with the explanation that women and children were to be shot so that there would be no avengers.
QYou both referred, according to your testimony, only to Einsatzgruppe C in this conference, is that correct?
AI could only refer to this Einsatzgruppe C, Mr. Prosecutor, because I did not know the other Einsatzgruppen.
QIn the answer of Streckenbach he also referred only to Einsatzgruppe C.
AFirst of all, as far as this order is concerned, yes, but afterwards I had a more detailed, more personal conversation with Streckenbach in which he told me his own opinion about these war measures in the East. This, his personal opinion, was not being debated in the order given by Jeckeln.
QI am just asking you about this one sentence, where he said that the activities of the Einsatzgruppen are plain murder?
AThis expression he uttered in connection with the order given by Jeckeln and handed over by Dr. Rasch in Zhitomir.
QWould you like to look in your own affidavit -- your Honors, I am referring to Document Book III-C, page 61 of the English. This is NO-3841, Prosecution's Exhibit 130, page 101 of the German. It is the last thing in paragraph 6 of the affidavit. There it reads, "Streckenbach himself described the activity of the Einsatzgruppen in the East to me as murder."
AYes, this is the testimony which I gave in December 1945 in Oberursel when I was interrogated.
QIs it not true that the word "Einsatzgruppen" is used here, in plural, which means in itself that more than one Einsatzgruppe was meant, does it not? As the sentence is worded here it means that all Einsatzgruppen in the East were meant, is that correct?
AAccording to this wording yes, Mr. Prosecutor, but at the time my defense counsel Mr. Durchholz, asked that this thing be corrected, and the Tribunal has informed Mr. Durchholz that this correction can be made. I also ask that you take from the text here that all this conference only referred to Einsatzgruppe C, since the name of Dr. Rasch was mentioned before. I also would like to say that in the year 1945 I still did not have the knowledge about the extent of the activities of the Einsatzgruppen which I have today. It maybe that I overlooked this at the time, and I think that is understandable, for I did not know at that time what a tremendous difference this one letter might have. Otherwise I would have looked even more carefully at what I had testified to.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q.- Witness, do I understand you to say that now in 1947 you know more of what happened in 1941 than you did in 1945 when necessarily you were closer chronologically to the former date?
A.- Yes, Your Honor.
Q.- How do you explain that?
A.- I did not have the knowledge about the extent of the activities.
Q.- Well, what school did you go to after 1945 that you learned about the activities of the Einsatzgruppen?
A.- After 1945 it became known to us in Obernrsel what is to be discussed, or what was discussed before the great court about the Einsatzgruppen. I can still remember very exactly that I was extremely surprised at the time to hear the number of 90,000 executions from the lips of Herr Ohlendorf.
Q.- Witness, but what I am speaking of is this. In 1945 you had a certain personal knowledge, first-hand cognizance of what was done by the Einsatzgruppen, that is correct, isn't it?
A.- Yes, Your Honor.
Q.- Now, so far as your own personal observation is concerned, that could not have increased with the passage of time, and especially when you were in prison?
A.- Whether I was surprised -
Q.- So, therefore, whatever you knew in 1945 you knew, and you could not increase your personal knowledge of what had happened previously by the passage of time, that is to say up until 1947?
A.- I don't know how you mean this question, your Honor.
Q.- Yes. Let me make an illustration. Let's suppose that in 1940 I made a trip to Australia.
A.- Yes.
Q.- In 1941 I would remember what happened in 1940.
A.- Yes? Your Honor.
Q.- In 1945, I couldn't remember more than I remembered in 1941, could I?
A.- Doubtlessly not, Your Honor.
Q.- Very well. That is the reason I don't understand why you say to us that in 1947 you know more about what the Einsatzgruppen did than you did in 1945.
A.- From my own experience I did not know this, Your Honor, but it is obvious that during these years in the camps, as well as otherwise we talked about what happened and what the events were.
Q.- What you mean is that you learned more about the activities of other people since 1945?
A.- Yes, that is what I wanted to explain, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. BY MR. HORLICH-HOCHWALD:
Q.- You made here a differentiation between the Hitler order as testified to by the Defendants Ohlendorf and Naumann, and the order of Jeckeln which was handed down to you by Rasch?
A.- That is right.
Q.- You explained this difference twice. Unfortunately, I am still not aware where the main difference lies. Will you tell the Tribunal where you see this colossal difference between these two orders.
A.- Mr. Prosecutor, I think you have misunderstood me. There were two orders for me. The first order was made known to me in Lemberg, I think, in connection with the reprisals which had been ordered there.
Q.- May I just interrupt you a moment. You do speak about this order?
A.- Yes.
Q.-You do speak about the Hitler order which, according to your testimony, was not known to you as you had not been in Pretsch when it was handed down by Heydrich?
A.- Yes.
Q.- But I understood your testimony to the effect that there was a difference between the Hitler order and the order that was handed down by Jeckeln. I personally fail to see the difference, and I would like you to explain to the Tribunal where you see the difference.
A.- Mr. Prosecutor, you might admit that there is a tremendous difference where an order of the Chief of Staff is passed on, and as expressed with that clarity by Herr Ohlendorf, and this measure has to looked upon as a war-emergency measure. This is an order which the Chief of Staff is free to five, and this order has to be accepted; but in Whitomir where there was no talk of the Chief of Staff but where it was said the Reichsfuehrer who had handed down such an order and did not give the reason of absolute war emergency for this measure but merely said that no avengers should arise, then there must be a great difference in this. At least that was the way I saw it, and this reason and the fact that we were not told at the time that the Fuehrer had or dered it had developed great doubts within me and great uncertainty.
Q.- All right, that I can understand, but what I cannot understand is one thing. When you came to Streckenbach on the 28th or 29th of August, Streckenhbach knew about the fact that this order was given by the head of the State. He knew why it was given and he knew how it was given. What I personally cannot understand is the fact that he answered you when you gave him all these facts, "This is plain murder." Will you explain that to the Tribunal?
A.- Well, I can remember, Mr. Prosecutor, that Streckehbach was also very excited about this way of issuing orders, for I expressed my conviction about it to him.
Q.- And he agreed with you?
A.- And I also told him, how am I going to explain this? I told him how this strange order was interpreted by the other Einsatzkommando lea ders who were present at the conference.
Q.- But will you tell the Tribunal why didn't Streckenbach tell you, which would have been the only natural reaction, "The way Rasch told the thing to you is wrong, but the order in itself is right. It is a war emergency. It is ordered by the Fuehrer." That is the thing which I absolutely am unable to understand from your testimony, and you possibly can inform the Tribunal how that happened.
A.- Mr. Prosecutor, I cannot remember the wording of this order, and please try to imagine yourself in my situation for when I came to Streckehbach I still did not know that this order had been given already announced at Pretsch. That this Fuehrer order actually existed, he did not keep from me.
Q.- May I interrupt you a minute? You testified here in direct that he promise I you to contact Heydrich, and several days later, as Heydrich was agsent at that time in Prague, he came back and told you about the Hitler order. This is the thing about which I want to have information. The order of Rasch was an order, which said, that all suspected Jews and their families were to be killed so that no avengers could survive. The Defendant Ohlendorf and the Defendant Naumann have testified here that a Fuehrer order was in existence that all Jews, suspected or not, were to be killed, men, women and children, in order as the Defendant Ohlendorf said, to safeguard the momentary and future security of the Reich. The "safeguarding of the future security" and the phrase "no avengers should survive" to me has absolutely the same meaning, no difference. What I do see only is that the order of Rasch was not as far reaching as the Hitler order. The Hitler order said, "all." Rasch's order said only "the suspected." I still fail to see that when you told your story to a man who undoubtedly knows about the Hitler order that this man goes on and says, "This is plain murder,"
AMr. Prosecutor, I did not discuss this with Herr Streckenbach with so much precision, for the simple reason that my recall had already been made known. If this dismissal had not been granted I would have discussed this with Streckenbach in ever greater detail, but, as I took it from the conversations which I had with him and in which I described to him the tremendous spiritual distress of the men and I described it to him very passionately, in this case I can point out to you that my description at that time and my decision at that time to see Streckenbach and to tell him about these things was just as difficult as it is to discuss these things before you today.
QDo I take from your answer, Herr Sehulz, that you have no explanation of this reaction of Streckenbach?
AMr. Prosecutor, I don't remember the exact course of the conversation. I just know the one fact, that Streckenbach was very much exited about the way of issuing orders and this can be traced back to the fact that I myself was so aroused, and this is the reason why I designated Dr. Rasch was ruthless, that without consideration of the feelings of men, he merely gave this bare fact, without even giving us an explanation in order to quiet down our agitation. Thus the conversation developed and thus I told Streckenbach that this is impossible. "How can such a measure be carried out? How can it be ordered with these bare two words?" And in this situation, Streckenbach had agreed that this was unheard of, this manner of making an order known.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT :
QWitness, did Streckenbach criticize the Fuehrer Order? Did he say anything which could logically be interpreted as a condemnation of the original Fuehrer Order itself?
AYes, Your Honor, I can say that he did. Streckenbach was as much aroused by the war measures in the East as anyone else.
QThen he criticized the original order and not the way Dr. Rasch interpreted it?
AIn the first conversations, I cameback from Russia and told him what had happened with Rasch and what had happened to me as a result of the manner of issuing orders.
QNo, let us adhere to my original question. Did Streckenbach criticize, condemn, or disparage the original Fuehrer Order, which has been so clearly described by the first two defendants, Ohlendorf and Naumann?
AStreckenbach expressed very clearly to me that he considered the Fuehrer Code as very cruel, if I may express it that way.
QStreckenbach was the man who originally imparted this order, wasn't he, to the Einsatzgruppen leaders?
AI don't know this from my own experience.
QWell, he was the one who gave the order to Ohlendorf, you know that, at least, since 1945, since you have been studying this?
AYes, Your Honor.
QThen you would take from this that he had a change of heart from the time that he originally gave the order?
THE INTERPRETER:Your Honor, would you please repeat the question; it did not come through.
QThen Streckenbach, according to what you tell us, must have had a change of heart between the time that he originally gave the order to Ohlendorf and the time that you spoke with him as to the manner in which Rasch was executing the order?
AYour Honor, I think I can say that Streckenbach announced an order because he was obliged to do so. It is possible that a man is obligated to announce an order without approving it himself. Even a soldier will criticize orders -
QVery well, I understand that. I did not know that when Streckenbach gave the order originally that he had any reservations about it, but from what you tell me now, I am to believe that Streckenbach at no time approved of the order, but merely passed it on, because it was his duty as an officer to do so.
AYour Honor, I cannot describe the feelings of Streckenbach. I merely know them from the situation as it developed in this conversation which I had with him.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION -- Resumed BY DR. HORLICK-Hochwald:
QHerr Schulz, I want to ask you in this connection one question and I would like you to answer this question first with "yes" or "no" and then you can explain it to us. Did Streckenbach on the 28th or 29th, when you told him your story about Rasch, tell you that a Fuehrer Order existed or not?
AYes, he told me about the fact that the Fuehrer order existed.
QSo you change your testimony. In Direct, you said he told you that he would refer to Heydrich and that a few days later he came back from Heydrich and told you then that there was a Fuehrer Order existing.
AMr. Prosecutor, in reference to the fact of the existing Fuehrer Order I did not want to cinfine myself to a date, but merely wanted to mention the fact that Streckenbach did make known to me the existence of this Fuehrer Order.
QSo he told you immediately before he spoke to Heydrich that a Fuehrer Order existed, is that right?
AI cannot say definitely, I don't know.
QSo you cannot say whether he promised you to make an intervention with Heydrich about these happenings in the East or whether he told you immediately that nothing can be done in this respect, as an order of Hitler was just given him?
AThis possibility existed, Mr. Prosecutor. May I only point out that I really cannot remember the conversation exactly. I can only remember the fact that Streckenbach was aroused by the way in which this order was issued and that he also promised me he would speak with Heydrich to clarify these matters. The possibility exists that he also told me at that time that it cannot be changed, but whether this was before the conversation with Heydrich or after the conversation with Heydrich I cannot remember, even though I have a pretty good memory.
QAll right. You testified here that you had a very close official relationship with Streckenbach, is that correct?
AYes.
QHow were your personal relations?
AThe personal relationship with Streckenbach was very friendly.
QDid Streckenbach know that you were too soft for such a job with an Einsatzkommando?
AYes, I think so, Mr. Prosecutor. This reproach of being soft pursued me for a long time, but it was unjust, for in order to clarify these mixed feelings I tried to describe these concepts of brutality, of harshness, of goodness and softness of leader and superior to my students in the training course.
Streckenbach knew that I was absolutely an opponent of any brutality measures and this fact, Mr. Prosecutor, can be proven for the entire time of my 25 years in Police work.
QAll right, you spoke to Streckenbach three times. He was the man who handed down to you the order that you would have to take the command of an Einsatzkommando. You were on excellent official and personal terms with him and he never told you what kind of tasks you would be confronted with. Do you want to comment on that?
ANo, Mr. Prosecutor. The message that I should take over an Einsatzkommando reached me in the same way as it reached all others. I received a teletype message just as everybody else. Streckenbach did not tell me in any way that this assignment included the execution of human beings.
QHe never told you?
ANever.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
QWhen did you learn that it included the execution of human beings?
AI heard about that when the order of Dr. Rasch was made known in Lemberg. Here the Commissar Order was announced and explained in the building in Lemberg, according to which all Communists and Functionaries, and all others, whom I mentioned in the direct examination -- This order was made known at Lemberg and then it was explained what a tremendous danger the functionaries represented in Russia.
QVery well. Very well. How much time elapsed between the receipt of the teletype which merely informed you you were to take command of an Einsatzkommando and when you learned the exact nature of the duties you were to execute?
AThe teletype message, that is, the order to take over an Einsatzkommando, reached me in May 1941, and the announcement of the order in Lemberg took place in the beginning of July.
QWhen?
AThe beginning of July.
QSo that at least 30 days or one month expired when you were entirely ignorant of what was expected of you as the leader of a very important expedition?
AI had no idea that executions were to be carried out, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
CROSS-EXAMINATION -- RESUMED BY DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD:
QDid your other superiors, Heydrich, for instance, and Himmler, also know that you were too soft as you expressed it?
AI just don't knew, Mr. Prosecutor.
QYou said it was generally known.
AThis reproach was made to me frequently.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Horlick-Hochwald, I don't know whether I misunderstood the witness, but my recollection is that he said that he was reputed as being too soft and then he added, "But this observation was unjust," Did I understand you to say that, Witness?
THE WITNESS:Yes, insofar as I didn't get a chance yesterday to develop this subject further -
THE PRESIDENT:No, just about 15 minutes ago you said that "Everybody said I was too soft, but it was unjust to say that."
THE WITNESS:I consider this reproach of softness toward me as wrong, because, if I may express it this way, I see a difference between goodness arid softness. Softness is something bad. Goodheartedness is not.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well, I merely wanted to call Mr. HorlichHochwald's attention and not to say that the witness was soft, with the assumption that he admitted softness. He absolutely denies softness.
MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: So I withdraw my question.
Q (By Mr. Horlich-Hochwald) I now would like to turn to the events in Lemberg. You have stated in your testimony that according to the information you received from the Defendant Rasch and according to your own information, a great number of citizens of Lemberg, Ukrainians and Poles, had been killed in the Lemberg prison, is that correct?
AYes, that's right.
QMoreover, there were many groups of German soldiers, and especially officers, Which had been found mutilated.
AThat is right.
QThe killing allegedly had been carried out by the Jewish population of Lemberg under the leadership of officials of the Jewish faith. Is that correct?
AYes, Jewish Commissars. I would like to emphasize here that these are not my own findings, but it was the description which Dr. Rasch gave us, and it was evident that there was great tension between the Jewish population and the rest. These are merely facts which I can state here.
QIn connection with this incident, about which Rasch told you, I would like to quote your testimony: "The militia had received an order to arrest the Jewish popjlation of Lemberg and also those who were suspected of having participated in these killings." Does that mean all Jews in Lemberg were arrested?
AWell, at any rate, a very great part: on the field in Lemberg, as I have described it, I saw that there were about 2,000 to 3,000 male Jews among whom there were also some Non-Jews. I cannot give you the ratio, but these people had been arrested.
QYou said that the Jews were arrested whether they were suspected or not, just for the simple reason that they were Jews, is that right?
AYes, I must say that this possibility exists, for in this large number it is out of the question that an arrest was carried out only after thorough investigation.
QYou said that the Hitler order was issued which ordered reprisals as to the killings of the Ukrainians and Poles. Did I understand you correctly?
AThat's right, Mr. Prosecutor. The way Dr. Rasch described it to us, a special Fuehrer Order arrived from Berlin but the way it was told to us it was meant only as a reprisal measure for Lemberg.
QIt was a special order then for this one incident? Do I understand you correctly?
AYes, a special order for the special case of Lemberg.
QWhen was this order issued?
AI cannot give you the exact date, but it must have been in the first days of July. As far as I remember, I arrived in Lemberg about the 2d of July and it must have been around the 3d or 4th of July, but I really do not know the exact day.
QIt was immediately after you came to Lemberg?
AYes, at least very soon afterwards, but certainly not on the same day.
QCan you tell the Tribunal how many Poles and Ukrainians were killed, approximately?
AAccording to what Dr. Rasch said, it was supposed to have been about 5,000 people.
QAnd how many Germans?
AI cannot give you the number. I don't know.
QApproximately.
AI cannot even give you an approximate number, because I don't know.
QCan you inform the Tribunal for which act the reprisals were ordered and carried out, for the killing of the Poles and the Ukrainians or for the mutilation or eventual killing of the members of the German forces?
AWhether this order was specific I cannot say, for I merely know about the fact of the order. I don't know its contents.
QIn other words, you don't know which. These are two completely different actions. You as an old police officer will certainly understand that: On the one hand, killing of civilian population before the German Wehrmacht came to Lemberg. On the other hand, killing of members of the armed forces, is it not? So you do not know for which of these two acts the reprisals were ordered.
AIf I remember correctly, it was a reprisal measure ordered for the entire killings in Lemberg.
QThat means for the killing of the Ukrainians and Poles and for the German, soldiers?
AYes, I think so.
QDid Rasch tell you anything when he submitted to you this special reprisal order that beside this special reprisal order there was a general order of Hitler that all Jews, Gypsies, and Communists should be killed?
AThat order was not issued in Lemberg at the time, for, on the contrary, only the order was announced, which I mentioned here, namely, the so-called Commissar Order, excerpts from the Barbarossa Order, and I can remember exactly that when these orders were announced, one of them lay before him in a printed form and that it was top secret.
QWho of the defendants was present in Lemberg when Rasch communicated this order?
AOf the defendants I do not believe anyone was there. I cannot say definitely. Kommando 4b had arrived there first, but had continued very soon afterwards. Then Kommando 6 was there, and how many other Kommandos were there while passing through, I cannot say. Furthermore a large Einsatz Staff from the General Government was there.
QYou don't remember any of the defendants being present?
AI cannot say definitely.
QYou stated here in direct examination that you limited this unlimited order of reprisals and the Commissar Order by requesting the proof of the guilt of the people who were to be executed, is that correct?
AYes, that is right.
QWhat exactly, Herr Schulz, do you mean by that?
AWith this I want to express that the order, as it was given and as far as it concerned the functionaries, did not have any restriction. If one did not limit this concept of functionary, it could be interpreted wilfully. In order to avoid this wilfullness in interpretation, I demanded that in every case guilt would have to be determined. This, of course, was not necessary with the others, such as saboteurs and looters, for a saboteru has already committed a punitive action, otherwise one could not designate him as a saboteur.
QThat is in connection with the Commissar Order, as I understood it, is that right?
AYes, that' right.
QI am also interested in how you limited the reprisal order. Will you tell that to the Tribunal?
AA limitation for the reprisal measure was impossible on my part, for I had no competence nor opportunity to limit or correct this order in any way, for the execution of this order was exclusively in the hands of Dr. Rasch, personally.
QDo you know whether these people were afforded any kind of a trial before they were executed?
AI can only stae the fact as I saw it, that witnin this building in which we were billeted, and withe the participation of the Lemberg population, probably some officials of member of the police, interrogations took place continuously from morning to night.
QI think you did not understand my question.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Hochwald, I think it is very clear to the Tribunal that there was no trial in the accepted understanding of that word. And he has indicated what they did. They interrogated th suspects, and then made their decisions.
DR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Yes, sir. I withdraw my question, then. Well, did not-
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Hochwald. I am informed that in about two minutes the film will have consumed itself. So let us take our recess now.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
DR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: May I proceed, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Proceed.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If I am not mistaken, Herr Schulz, you answered the question of the Tribunal as to how long a time was at the disposal of the investigating authorities in Lemberg, - at the utmost 48 hours. Is that correct?
AYour Honor, I said that I did not know the exact time. As far as I recollect I followed my statement, I arrived on the second of July, and if I remember it correctly on the following day the arrests were made, and according to my memory, and also according to the statement I made, on the 6th or 7th day after I had arrived in Lemberg, I went on. As the day of our march was the day after the execution had taken place, the interval between that day of our arrival and the day of our march must have been the day of the interrogations.