That was my impression. It was my impression that physically and physiologically he was in a bad condition. Where as Thomas used the word, "the film had torn" that would mean that he was somewhat mentally deranged, but in my own observation was not that of a mentally deranged man.
QSo that you, in other words, when he told you the story about these killed Jews, had no reason whatsoever to doubt the correctness of his statement?
ANo.
QSo that he was aware of the consequences of this statement he made to you?
THE PRESIDENT:Well, Dr. Hochwald, he has stated very clearly now what Blobel said to him, what his observations were that the man was physcially exhausted, somewhat psychologically exhausted, but not mentally affected. That seems to cover it.
MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: That is what I wanted to cover. Your Honor, personally.
Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) I want to ask you Witness, a few questions about your affidavit to which you swore and signed on the 9th of October, 1947.
MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Your Honors, this is Document No_5384, for which Exhibit No. 180 was reserved and I would like at this time to offer it in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT:Exhibit 180 by the prosecution?
MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: 180, Prosecution Exhibit 180-
THE PRESIDENT:Prosecution Exhibit 180 -
MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Yes.
THEPRESIDENT: *-* will not be accepted as part of the record.
Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) Is it true, what you stated in this affidavit, that you had opportunities to make changes and corrections in the affidavit?
AYes, and I did correct various typographical errors.
QDid you make this statement voluntarily?
AI made this statement voluntarily, that is, without any duress within my interrogation.
QWere you promised any rewards?
ANo.
QAnd were you subjected to duress or threat of any kind?
ANo, one here in Nurnberg.
QI asked you only in connection with the affidavit, Witness. You came to the East at the end of 1941 or beginning of 1943, Is that correct?
AAt the end of 1941 I was detailed there and arrived at the beginning of 1942.
QWhen the Defendant Biberstein came to Einsatzgruppe C, you were already present at this unit, is that correct?
ABefore Biberstein ever arrived in the last, I was in the last, but at the time when he arrived I happened not to be present in Kiev.
QDo you know when he came there?
AI can't say exactly. I can only state that he arrived a short while after I arrived but when exactly that was I don't know, whether it was in summer or fail of 1941.
QAren't you mistaken: Wasn't it 1942?
AI mean 1942, of course. I only arrived in January 1942.
QYou told the Tribunal this morning that Biberstein received a deputy in his command in the person of a Sturmbannfuehrer Nehring, is that correct?
AYes, Nehring had been with Obersturmbannfuehrer Erling in Kiev and this Nehring then came to Rostov.
QCan you tell the Tribunal when that was?
AThat might have been at the earliest, according to my memory, at the end of 1942, in any case in the second half of 1942. It could not have been the first half of 1943.
QYou are not able to give the date a little bit more explicitly? What do you call the second part of 1942?
ANo, I mean at the earliest, but it might have been later, 1943, for instance, but I can't give an exact date because I can't do it.
QCould it have been before the end of October 1943?
AI don't know, but I think it very unlikely.
QYou have further told the Tribunal that you never heard about an order that all Jews were to be killed, that means that you never heard about this order officially, but that you know that such an order must have existed, as it was clear from everything that happened in the East, is that correct?
AYes, I have never seen the order and I never heard officially of it, but from all the conditions I had to conclude that such an order was in existence.
QWhen did you learn first about this fact? How long were you in the East before you learned that?
AEven before I arrived in the East I had found cut about it because I had always taken notice of the Eastern reports.
QSo you came there and knew already about it?
AYes.
QWould you have learned about it if you would have come to the East without having any knowledge of such an order?
AIn that case I would also have learned of it in the East.
QImmediately after your arrival?
AI learned soon after my arrival when this was talked about, not immediately, during the first few days, but very soon after that.
QWould it be correct to say that all commanders and officers of Einsatzgruppen, Sonderkommandos, and Einsatzkommandos must have known as a matter of course of the existence of such an order?
AI have never been a commander, therefore it is difficult for me to answer your question in detail. I can only say what I was told when I arrived in the last and that is that Mueller told me at the time "You are to go to the last," or he said, "You have to go to the last, because you must gain the necessary toughness because actually you should have been called 'Weichel' and not 'Hatrel'. That means "soft" and you have to learn in Russia that a sort of exaggerated comradeship is not a good thing and you will not get on with it in life." Furthermore Mueller told me "In order to get this toughness, you are to take part in the shootings."
QBut you certainly had many discussions with other officers and commanders. Was it known as a matter of course among these people that there was a very high order, an order from very high up. to kill all the Jews?
AI cannot imagine that a commander on his own authority would have carried out these measures without having received orders from the highest authority.
QBut what I was asking you, Witness, was whether you had the impression or whether you knew that all these commanders and officers knew as a matter of course of this order.
AI assume that as for the sphere of a local commander that at the time when the kommando leader is actually in charge of the kommando, if Jews were actually living in the territory that in that case he would just be told about this order by his chief, that is the chief of the Einsatzgruppe.
QCan you tell the Tribunal who was in general responsible for such executions?
AFor the executions, the commander or his superiors, the chief of the Einsatzgruppe was competent, the chief, in fact, who was partly in agreement with the Wehrmacht agencies, partly in agreement with the Higher SS and Police leaders who carried out these actions. There were various channels of command. The commander of the Security Police and the SD was on the one side subordinated to the SS and Police Leaders, that is the local leaders. On the other hand however, he came under the command of the Security Police. At the same time he also had contacts with the Wehrmacht, that is, the Army and he had to inform the Wehrmacht about these happenings so that there were various channels of command in relation to each other had not just a one sided subordination to the Einsatzgruppe Chief. It depended entirely on the personality in each case. In some cases the Wehrmacht bothered a lot, in some cases very little and sometimes the Higher SS and Police Leader was not interested at all, and sometimes he was interested in dealing with the matters himself in order to gain some merits, thus there were different channels of command -
QI only want to ask you would it be correct to say that in general the Einsatzgruppen, the Sonderkommandos, and the Einsatzkommandos took responsibility for such executions. Can you answer that with yes or no.
AThe commander could not take the responsibility on his own authority, but he was tied down to the order and to the other authorities. However, he, of course, had a very important voice in this, of course, he had the power of decision, but there were other authorities who also had to decide and to be in agreement. That is, one couldn't say that it was the commander himself on his own authority who was responsible, but there were other authorities responsible too.
THE PRESIDENT:Shall we recess, Mr. Hochwald fifteen minutes?
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is agin in session.
DR.MAYER: (for the defendant Klingelhoefer): Your Honor, I would like the defendant Klingelhoefer to be excused tomorrow and the day after tomorrow because I want to prepare his defense with him.
THE PRESIDENT:For tomorrow, did you say?
DR. MAYER:Tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT:The defendant Klingelhoefer will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow, Tuesday and Wednesday.
DR. MAYER:Thank you, your Honor.
DR.RATZ (for the defendant von Radetzky): Your Honor, I also would like the defendant von Radetzky to be excused from attendance in court tomorrow and the day after tomorrow in order to prepare his defense with him.
THE PRESIDENT:The defendant von Radetzky will also be excused from attendance in court tomorrow, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
QWitness, in answering questions, please try to brief, answer the question directly, and do not amplify your answer unless you are called to do so.
CROSS-EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. HORLIK-HOCHWALD:
QWitness, you have told us before the recess that it was the responsibility of the different commanders to order executions, and that they were dependent on certain other orders and certain other chain of commando. Is that correct?
AYes.
QWould you further say that the order for the actual carrying out of the executions was given by those commanders?
AYou mean that the order for the actual execution would be given by the commanders? As far as I am informed, yes, under the given channels of command which I have already mentioned.
QThis morning you told the Tribunal that there were three different groups of commanders, according to your experience, commanders who carried out their orders faithfully and correctly; commanders who were unable to carry them out as they were too soft for such jobs, and a third type who, when he received these orders, tried to get himself transferred or to circumvent these orders, you have stated that the defendant Biberstein belonged to the third type, is that correct?
AYes.
QDo you know a fourth type of commanders of Einsatzcommandos and Sonderkommandos who never received such execution orders?
AA fourth type, who never got such orders for the execution of people... do you mean the execution of saboteurs, and the like, or do you mean order for the shooting of Jews? Orders for the shooting of Jews, according to my opinion. only such commanders received them in whose area jews were still existing at the time. On the other hand, orders for the executions of saboteurs according to prescribed procedure, and so on, in my opinion all commanders received them, because that was in their field of activities and there was also the possibility for all commanders to have such men in their area.
QIf I am not mistaken you stated that you know the defendant Haensch from 1936 on?
AYes.
QCan you tell the Tribunal when Haensch actually came to Einsatzgruppe C?
AShortly after I had arrived in the East, that is, during the first days of January 1942, when I arrived in Kiev, he was not there yet but he must have arrived shortly afterwards. I don't know how many weeks afterwards. And according to my memory he wasn't there for a very long time. In any case when I arrived he wasn't there.
QTo what type of commanders would you count Haensch ... was he type one, type two, or type three, as you have explained to the Tribunal?
AAny dividing into types, of course, also means that there are types in between but as I know Haensch one can say that he is a very conscientious lawyer, and that in the SD Main Office he with tremendous conscientiousness dealt with disciplinary matters -- in fact, such conscientiousness that some people called it bureaucracy, but I believe that simultaneously he was a very humane and sometimes even soft man, so that I would put him in the second or third category.
QIs it not true that in an interrogation you made a statement that Haensch would certainly be a person who would carry out an order to the last letters? Is that correct?
AIn my affidavit to the lawyer I said that Haensch was very conscientious and correct, and as an excerpt dealing with disciplinary matters, as I have stated already in my affidavit, he could be called a fussy person, conscientious to the last degree, and very correct, and in this manner he carried out his order.
QI did not refer to want you told the defense counsel .. I am referring to the interrogation which was carried out by the Prosecution on the 16th of July 1947. Did you not, in this interrogation say that Haensch would have been a person who would have carried out every order he received to the last latter? Will you answer this question please with yes or no?
AIn this decisive form I cannot remember. I only made the statement that he was very correct in the office procedure, and according to my foiling, and according to my memory, that is all that I said to the lawyers at the time, that he carried out the orders he received very correctly and conscientiously. I know that this statement, of course can be interpreted to the detriment of Haensch, but --
QThat is sifficient, witness, I think. Isn't it true that in Einsatzgruppe C, when Thomas was in command, it was possible for a commander of an Einsatzgruppe who did not want to carry out an execution, to refuse orders?
AThomas at the time passed on an order that all those people who could not reconsile with their conscience to carry out such orders, that is, people who were to soft, as he said, to carry out these orders, should be sent back to Germany or should be assigned to other tasks.
Thus, at the time a numner of people, also commanders, just because they were too soft to carry out orders, were sent back by Thomas to the Reich. But I want to emphasize that this was only so under Thomas. How it was in other Einsatzgruppen I do not know, but I can imagine that other commanders, or at least other chiefs of Einsatzgruppen, who had a stronger and more severe discipline, required an unconditional obedience to orders, but in Kiev it was so that people who were too soft were sent back.
Also, people - especially SD experts could stay away from executions -
QI am sorry to interrupt you, but I do not think you have answered the question I put to you. Can you tell the Tribunal how long Thomas was in command of Einsatzgruppen C?
AHe had this position as long as I was in Kiev, and that was in June, 1943, when I left Kiev after having been in the hospital for a very long time, together with Biberstein. He was still the commander of the Einsatzgruppe, and when I arrived in Kiev in January, 1942, he had by then taken over the job, but I think it was then, he then held the rank Chief of the Einsatzgruppe. That is what he was called at the time, and later on he was called Commander of the Security police and SD.
QCommanders, who refused to carry out errors were sent home, is that correct?
AObersturmbannfuehrer Ratzesberger who said that he could not do it was immediately sent back. He was released and came to Vienna.
QCan I deduct then from what you have said that if a commander stayed in his position he must have approved and ordered executions?
AThe second possibility which I have mentioned is, of course, that somebody kept quiet about these matters and tried not to deal with these tasks without expressly refusing it.
QIf Thomas would have known, he would have sent a commander home, is that correct?
AHe would have sent him home saying that he was too soft. In a number of cases this happened, that Thomas actually sent these people back to Germany.
QWill you tell me a last question, isn't it a fact that all German personnel of Einsatzgruppen Einsatzkommandos. Sonderkommandos knew that Jews, Communists and other undesirables were being killed without trial?
AHow it was until the time, until I came to Russia, I don't know; later on when I myself stayed in Russia, that is from the beginning of 1942, I myself learned personally that just before a number of Jewish executions on a large scale had taken place, and I presume that a number of other people learned it from conversations.
MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: No further questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
QI have only two very brief questions. You said that you found out about the shootings in the East. Is there a difference to be made, a distinction to be made between the first part of 1942 and the second part of 1942, or is the statement valid for the whole year, 1942?
AThat in the East there were no large scale shootings?
QNo, that people did not find out about these shootings.
AI did not say that it was so. I only said in my opinion a number of people will have found out about these shootings. I personally found out about them. How the later development, when these matters became less and less important and then only partisans were fought, how at that time it was, I can't testify to now, but at the time in the second half of 1942, the partisan warfare was the so-called point of any discussion, and I believe that on occasions, of course, such an important matter must have been touched on in a discussion, but whether everybody must have learned about these matters, I couldn't say now.
DR. BERGOLD:Thank you.
DR. RIEDIGER:Dr. Riediger for Haenach.
EXAMINATION BY DR. RIEDIGER:
QWitness, you said when asked whether each of the commanders of the Einsatzgruppen knew the Fuehrer extermination order, you said then that this knowledge was existant as long as such eliminations and shootings actually took place. When do you think that in Einsatzgruppe C these executions were terminated?
AWhen I arrived in southern Russia in the spring of 1942 I did not see any more Jews there.
QSo that, if for instance,-- the Special Kommando SK-4b belonged to Einsatz Gruppe C -- in the middle of March a commander had received the command over such a unit, would there have been any Jewish round ups of any kind, and did any shootings, therefore, take place at that time?
AIn Gerlowka I never was, but Stalino was in this area, Makaye too, that is in the more distant vicinity, and in February, 1942, I never saw any Jews.
QDo you believe, therefore, that if, for instance, Einsatzgruppe C, SK-4b, that is in the middle of March was taken over by a new commander, would he ever have found out about it?
MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, I do think that the question as put by Dr. Riediger is inadmissible, he has asked one hypothetical question. The witness has answered this hypothetical question in the negative by saying directly that he never was in Gerlowka, which is exactly in the place where Defendant Haensch was, with his H.Q. I do think that a number of further hypothetical questions to the same effect would not give any information, any correct information to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT:If the witness was not there, how would he know what conditions were?
DR. RIEDIGER:The witness was with Einsatzgruppe C. Part of this Einsatzgruppe C were Special Kommandos 4a and 4b. Both these kommandos were subordinate to Einsatzgruppe C whose commander was Thomas. But since the Prosecutor objects to this question, I can put it in another way, and I will ask the witness-
Q (By Dr. Riediger) Do you believe that as from the middle of March 1942 in the the area of the Einsatzgruppe SK-4b or 4a, whether at the time any shootings of Jews took place?
THE PRESIDENT:Your Objection?
MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the objection is the same as to the first question. The witness has stated that in Stalino there were no executions of such kind, that he himself was not in Gerlowka, so he cannot say anything about Gerlowka obviously. I do think he has answered this question. From the part of Dr. Riediger there is no further question Dr. Riediger can ask him. He expressly stated, "I was in Stalino.
There were no such executions. I was not in Gerlowka."
DR. RIEDIGER:I may take the liberty to point out the following. Part of Einsatzgruppe SK-4b in the area of this Einsatzgruppe, it was not only Gerlowka and Stalino but it was a much larger district, and there were a number of other localities, and the question to the witness is to the effect whether in the whole area any executions took place.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, in the whole area of what?
DR. RIEDIGER:In the area of SK-4b, and I take the liberty to point out-
THE PRESIDENT:Well, first we must find out if the witness knows what area was covered by SK-4b during the period that you have in mind. First establish that.
Q (By Dr. Riediger) Witness, do you know the area of SK-4b, I mean geographically speaking?
AGeographically speaking I only know that it is in the vicinity of the industrial area, but I can't give any details, and I can't say what localities were part of this particular area.
QDo you know that apart from Gerlowka, Bauenko and Artemovsk were also within this area?
AI don't know, but I know that it is within the general area of the Southern Russian industrial area of the Don territory.
QIn this area which you know, were there any Jews left in the spring of that year?
AI have already answered this question. In those towns which I passed, for instance, Stalino, Makayev, I met no Jews, and I saw none, and I never heard of any executions of Jews.
QThen they must have stopped in 1942 because executions were so extensive previously that all Jews were eliminated more or less.
MR.HORLICK-HOCKWALD: If your Honors please, the Witness has given everything what the witness knows, but the defense counsel requests answers, yes and no, for an opinion which the witness cannot give if the witness was not there before 1942, and it obviously is a leading question.
to put answers in the mouth of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT:The leading question matter does not enter here because it is cross-examination, but it isn't clear to the Tribunal that the witness knows the specific area controlled by SK-4b. We would only go so far as to say that it was in the vicinity of the industrial area. That is rather vague.
DR. RIEDIGER:The witness ought to know whether in the areas which came into the field of activities of the Einsatzgruppe, that is Einsatz SK-4a and SK-4b, in the spring of 1942 any executions took place.
THE PRESIDENT:You say he ought to knew. It isn't a question whether he ought to know. It is whether he did know.
Witness, what area was covered by SK-4b; do you know? Do you know of your own knowledge what area was covered by Kommando SK-4b, please?
THE WITNESS:No, not in detail.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, then how can you ask him what conditions were in that area when he says he doesn't know the area?
DR. RIEDIGER:Your Honor, I went on the assumption that SK-4a came under Einsatzgruppe C, that the witness knew this area because SK-4b was part of the Einsatzgruppe C.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, but Einsatzgruppe C covers a much larger area than the mere kommando. You are inquiring about the kommando area, are you not, about SK-4b, that is what you are asking about?
DR. RIEDIGER:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes. Well, then you have to find out if he knows what territory was covered by Kommando SK-4b and if he says he doesn't know, how can he answer your question?
THE WITNESS:I did know the general territory, but I don't know the concrete borders. I know that it was in a general district of the southern Russian industrial area, but I can not say that this particular locality was part of it.
DR. RIEDIGER:This answer is sufficient for me for since it is without the slightest doubt that SK IV-B came under Einsatzgruppe-C, it is of no importance whether the localities are mentioned, but that mainly whether there were any executions which took place at the time in the whole area. I have only one more question for the witness. BY DR. RIEDIGER:
QThe witness just mentioned Stalino. Witness, do you know that Stalino was not in the area of SK IV-B; that Stalino was supposed to belong to SK VI?
AI already stated that I don't remember the exact borders, or the exact names of these commandos, but I know that Moor, Sturmbannfuehrer Moor was the commander in Stalino, because I talked to him. Whether this Commando was called SK-VI, or what it was called, I can not say under oath, but I know that the commando was called Moor.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Hochwald.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HOCHWALD:
QWitness, have you ever been in Gorlowka?
ANo, I already stated that I was not there.
QYou therefore do not know anything about eventual executions in Gorlawka? Is that correct?
AI have already stated that I only knew the general area of southern Russia industrial area, and not especially this locality of Gorlowka.
THE PRESIDENT:The witness will be excused, and the defendant Biberstein will be returned to the witness stand immediately.
You may proceed, Mr. Hochwald.
ERNST BIBERSTEIN - recalled.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HOCHWALD:May it please the Tribunal.
QHerr Biberstein, you have executed two affidavits, one in Eselheide on 25 June 1947, which is your Exhibit No. 3, and another here in Nurnberg, on 2 July 1947, which is prosecution's Exhibit No. 29. Is it correct that the affidavits which you made in Eselheide contained essentially the same facts as the affidavit which was submitted by the Prosecution?
AI didn't quite get the question, whether the contents -
Q (Question repeated to the witness.)
AThe two affidavits are not alike.
QI know that, but the facts related, in these two affidavits are essentially the same, is that correct?
ANo, it is shown by the fact that in the affidavit made out in Nurnberg, it is omitted that executions took place according to a certain procedure.
QAll right, but certain points are similar in both affidavits, is that correct? You have pointed in which incidents the affidavits do not or are not alike?
AYes.
QBut certain points there are essentially the same, are they not?
AYes, it is always the same subject.
QWere you promised any reward for signing the affidavit in Nurnburg.
AReward? No, never.
QWere you threatened in any way in order to get you to sign this affidavit?
ANo, no threat, no.
QDid any one use any torture of any kind on you to get you to sign the affidavit?
ANo torture was applied.
QDid you have an opportunity to make corrections in your own handwrting before you signed the affidavit in Eselheide?
AIn Eselheide as I said when signing the affidavit I didn't have my glasses with me, and I did not read the entire affidavit, but I told the interrogator to please read it to me, as "I have confidence in you," and I signed it.
QBut he read it to you aloud, did he not?
AYes.
QSo you were familiar with the contents of the affidavit when you signed it, and you would have had the possibility to make changes if you would have wanted to do so, is that correct?
AYes.
QHow long a time elapsed betwee your signing this affidavit in Eselheide and your first interrogation in Nurnberg?
AAt Nurnberg I was interrogated, if I am not mistaken on Sunday, on the proceeding Monday I think I was interrogated in Eselheide.
QSo approximately a week, is that right?
AYes, that is right.
QWho made your first interrogation in Nurnberg?
AI was only interrogated once. The second time I merely was given the prepared affidavit for my signature, and that was by Mr. Wartenberg, as I have learned here. At the time I didn't know his name.
QHave you since your arrival in Nurnberg been promised a reward of any kind for any statement which you made in the interrogation or in the affidavit?
ANo.
QHave you been subjected to any physical torture of any kind in an interrogation here in Nurnberg?
ANo.
QHas a hand ever been laid upon you for the purpose of forcing any statements from you while you were here in Nurnberg?
ANo.
QYour counsel made in direct examination a statement that you were interrogated very long hours. How long at any one time have you ever been questioned by an interrogator here in Nurnberg?
AThat was on Sunday morning. I don't know the exact time.
QWas it more than two hours?
AWell, here I am to estimate again my thoughts were so occupied with the interrogation that I didn't look at the watch, and I am very bad at estimations.
QWas it more than three hours?
ANo, it could not be because then I would have to be away during my time for the meal.
QWould you consider an interrogation of two or three hours a very excessive time?
AWell, I don't know how long an interrogation had to take. I never had an interrogation before.
QWere you exhausted? During this interrogation?
AAt any rate when being interrogated this is an experience which does not always proceed without leaving any trace of it.
QBut you were not interrogated through your regular scheduled meal hours, were you?
ANo, no.
QWere you allowed to sit, or were you forced to stand while being interrogated?
ANo, I was able to sit in Nurnberg.
QWere you interrogated in Nurnberg during your normal sleeping hours?
ANo, no.
QWere you promised immunity from the Prosecution if you would confess to your activity in Einsatzcommando VI?
ANo.
QWhen you signed the affidavit on 2 July 1947, were you in possession of your mental faculties?
AAt any rate I was fresher than I am now at the moment.
QWere you suffering from delusions or hallucinations?
ANo.
QSo you were in possession of your mental faculties, then?
AYes.
QYou were present in court, were you not, when your counsel cross examined Mr. Wartenberg concerning the circumstances of the taking of your affidavit, is that correct?
AYes. That was the assistant, yes.
QI wanted to know if you were present, Mr. Biberstein?
AYes, I was present.
QWere Mr. Wartenberg's statements in accord with the events that took place during your interrogation by him?
AI can not remember any details what Mr. Wartenberg said, but I think I seem to remember that something that he said was not correct? If I am not mistaken, but I can not say exactly, that it was concerned with a correction, or with changes, which I would have liked to have made, and, where he said to me at the time during the interrogation that I would later have an opportunity to make these additions. I think Mr. Wartenberg didn't confirm this here, if I am not mistaken.
QIf I am not mistaken, Mr. Wartenberg said that's entirely possible that a thing he answered you in that way, but can you remember whether it was during the first or during the second interrogation, the second interrogation when the affidavit was presented to you?
AYes, it was at that occasion, yes.
Q.If I understood your direct testimony correctly, you stated that you were compelled to tell the whole truth by the nature of the oath which you took. Isn't it true that your religious training and your inner convictions compelled you so strongly to tell the truth in your affidavit that you were unable to resist it?
A.That is probably true of every man because an oath is an important matter and a person has the obligation to testify to the best of his knowledge and to the best of his conscience.
Q.Mr. Biberstein, would you have withheld certain facts if you had been told you are entitled to refuse testimony?
A.Well, I am thinking of mentioning names. Yes, I think I mentioned a few, and I said, -- you see, thats ---
Q.I do not recollect that you -- but with the exception of these names, let's go away from the names. Would you have told the whole story as you told this story in your interrogation and as you signed it in your affidavit even if you would have been told that you are in a position to refuse this?
A.Certainly.
Q.You would have?
A.Probably I would not have mentioned a few things the way I did. That would be possible -- it is possible.
Q.Why?
A.Only because one can construct an incriminating fact out of it for me, because opinions are different about different problems.
Q.Would you tell the Tribunal then you would not have said the truth if you would have been informed that you can refuse testimony?
A.If I get the right to refuse testimony, then I make use of a right which has been given me without my saying an untruth.
Q.I do think the whole truth is just telling the truth without withholding anything, but in this respect we may be of a different opinion. Would you have refused to give testimony about executions which you witnessed?