That is possible, but at that time he was a Police Lt. or a Police Captain. Whether he belonged to the SS I cannot tell you for certain. statements capable of belief?
A Well, Mr. Prosecutor, it is hard to answer that question. Please show me these statements, put his statements to me and then I will tell you whether according to my views they are capable of belief. It is rather difficult to give a power of attorney carte blanche that everything which Jones said was true.
Q Not everything. I am just asking you generally whether in your knowledge of him the man told the truth when he made a statement.
A I know him only so superficially, Mr. Prosecutor that I cannot permit myself to judge his love for the truth. enough to say either yes or no, certainly. Now was this Karl Jonas ever under our command, either temporarily or permanently?
A He was at Odessa when I took over the command; as far as I remember, he was Marschoffizier, officer in command of the march, when we went from Odessa to Simferopol and, as far as I remember, the Chief of a Company asked him to deal with the preparation for the moving of the old company. They had to move out as the new company had already arrived. connections with him after you left Simferopol that you remember?
A Well, Mr. Prosecutor, he led the march and, as far as I remember, formally speaking, he belonged to the kommando until he left, but I believe that Hauptmann Gabel was asked to take over his duties as leader.
matter of executions?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I don't remember that. with an execution which occurred in December 1941 from ten to fifteen kilometers outside of Simferopol?
AAccording to my recollection, Mr. Prosecutor, Jonas was not involved in that, but, as I pointed out before, six years have gone past and I cannot exclude the possibility that my memory may be wrong. the question, did you ever direct him to place a cordon of men around the site of execution in December 1941?
A I have already said, Mr. Prosecutor, that there was Sturmfuehrer Schulz who dealt with the details in my subkommando, but that does not exclude the possibility that I said to Jonas, will you supervise the matter, or will you throw a cordon around, but I cannot remember it.
Q Let me show you his affidavit. Indicate to me when you have finished readint it, if you please.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you see that Dr. Mayer gets a copy in German?
MR. WALTON: Just as soon as the page comes back, Sir.
A I have read it, Mr. Prosecutor. of that affidavit -
Q And I quote: "During my activity with Einsatzgruppe D, I had the opportunity of attending an execution. In December, 1941, Dr. Werner Braune, Chief of Sonderkommando II-B, gave the order to rope off the site of the execution" and so forth and so on.
execution about which you have just finished testifying?
A It can only be the same execution, Mr. Prosecutor, because that is the only one that I attended. reasonably correct Statement of fact.
A Well, I have read through paragraph 3. I have just glanced through it and in doing so I did not spot any important mistakes, but if you wish me to give you a concrete answer, perhaps you would allow me to read through it quickly again. It is always possible that one can overlook something. concerning paragraph 3.
MR. WALTON: If it please the Tribunal, at this time the prosecution desires to offer into evidence Document NO-5273, which is the Jonas affidavit and which will be Prosecution Exhibit 184.
DR. GAWLIK (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SEIBERT): Your Honor, I object to the admission of this affidavit in this form and with regard to paragraph 4, as far as Jonas' statements concern the Defendant Seibert. I do not Know to what extent these statements in this phase of the trial are supposed to be of evidential value. If the prosecution intends to submit this affidavit, including paragraph 4, it should have, at the latest, submitted it during the crossexamination of Seibert. At this time it would have been of evidential value then. If the prosecution submits this affidavit without the first sentence of paragraph 4, in that case I do not have any objections, but at the moment this can only be submitted to examine the credibility of the witness Braune and in that connection is of no evidential value.
For that reason I object to the affidavit being introduced in this form.
MR. WALTON: The prosecution desires to submit the whole affidavit, Your Honor. We cannot submit parts of affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no question that if the affidavit is submitted, it must be submitted in its entirety because otherwise there is no way of studying it for authenticity. Now, with regard to paragraph four, we have another situation. It is true -- and Dr. Gawlik has the right to complain -- that if this document is to be used against Seibert, Seibert should have had an opportunity to answer to that paragraph four if he chose to do so. Now, Mr. Walton, What do you submit in connection with paragraph four? As it stands now the affidavit is accepted insofar as it concerns the present witness Braune. Now please indicate to the Tribunal What you have to present regarding paragraph four.
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, if the Tribunal feels that this is not fair, so far as Seibert is concerned, I don't know how I am going to do it... but I should like to submit the entire affidavit with the exception of the first sentence of paragraph four until the rebuttal, and then I want to submit the first sentence of paragraph four.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes... yes... yes. We will accept the document in its entirety only for the purpose of determining the authenticity of the document; but so far as probative value is concerned, the document is before us now only in connection with paragraph three. Paragraph four -- and particularly the first sentence of paragraph four-is excluded at the present time from the consideration of the Tribunal insofar as that paragraph has probative value.
MR. WALTON: That doesn't prevent me, sir, from presenting it in the rebuttal document also?
THE PRESIDENT: It doesn't prevent you from re-submitting the affidavit with reference to paragraph four, nor does it prevent Dr. Gawlik -- and I know this is superfluous -- does it prevent him from objecting at that time against the document.
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, please allow me to make one short note here.
Q (By Mr. Walton) Now, Doctor, let's go to the fourth paragraph of your own affidavit.
.. do you still have the German copy of the German document, Book III-D, page 55? disposal but that you did not use it for executions because in your opinion the shooting of victims was more honorable for both parties; and I listened carefully to your direct examination today, in which you stated that you were told by your second in command, the officer Schulz, that while you were engaged in any partisan warfare, away from your headquarters, this van was used. That's correct, isn't it?
A It is not quite correct. What I said was that I did not remember exactly whether Schulz told me that then I returned from several days' action against the partisans -- in fact, I don't remember for certain if it was then that he told me about the gas van, or after; when I returned from leave. I believe that is what I said here.
Q Schulz was still under your command, even if you were away? of gas vans to carry out the Himmler order -- would be your responsibility as commander of that unit, wouldn't it?
A Yes... that, too, was my responsibility... for, Mr. Prosecutor, I had not issued a prohibition, but I don't believe that Schulz would use a gas van for we were disinclined to use the gas vans from the very first day onward. luctance in using the gas vans? like that and we did not intend to use it, but there was no possibility for me to issue any express prohibition, for, as has been testified here before, the gas van arrived with a direct order from Himmler; but I believed that I could by-pass that order because apparently somebody in Berlin -- as it was not right when we had assumed that people in Berlin thought we should make it a little easier for the men to carry out their tasks.
Q Doctor, let's turn now to the same Document Book III-D, page 1 of the English, page 1 of the German, Document NO-2856, which is Prosecution Exhibit 148. This is the affidavit of General Ohlendorf, and I particularly direct your attention to paragraph three, and that part of it, your Honors, in paragraph 3 on page 2 of Document Book it is the general-
A On the second page of the affidavit? text. I think it is on page 3 of the German text.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 3 of the original.
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, I have my book paginated in conformity with the German text; in other words, on page 1 of my book I note where it begins where the German page 2 begins... and pages two, three and four--
THE PRESIDENT: The only point I make is that the page of an original document may be different from the page in the German document book en masse.
MR. WALTON: That's right. That's why I had my book paginated so I could talk to the witness.
Q (By Mr. Walton) Does the General in his affidavit refer to the same execution as you mention in Your statement, and as you have talked about on the stand?
Q So that we understand each other, let me quote: "For this reason I personally inspected a number of executions -- for example, executions" -- the plural is used -- "which were carried out by Kommando 11-b under the direction of Dr. Werner Braune; executions by Kommando 11-a under Sturmbannfuehrer Zapp in Nikolajew; and a smaller execution by Kommando 10-b under the leadership of Alois Persterer and Ameniev." That is what I have reference to; and your answer also applies to that sentence -can only refer to that execution at Simferopol of which I have spoken so far.
.. in his affidavit about supervising an execution on December 1941 in Simferopol, which is contained in Document Book 1, page 108 of the English, page 141 of the German, and is Document NO-3055, Prosecution Exhibit 28, and the incident referred to is in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. Is your answer the same, that this was the same execution about which all testimony has been given? Prosecutor. your career as commanding officer of Kommando 11-b, Krimchaks were also killed. Can you tell the Tribunal whether Krimchaks constituted any particular threat for the security of the German army?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I can only say the same again as I said about the Jews - they were Jews... they came under the Fuehrer Order... and in accordance with that order it was not for us to examine whether the individual person constituted an acute danger. That was outside our power of decision. the Communist party?
A Mr. Prosecutor, the general public considered them to be Jews. At this moment I cannot tell you, whether we made any difference at the time when making general investigations about the Jews. I cannot remember any differences being made.
THE PRESIDENT: What language did Krimchaks speak, witness?
A Mr. President, if I remember it properly, they were Jews, they were of Jewish origin, they were of the Jewish faith, and the Jews themselves, and the population, considered them to be Jews; but in my view they spoke a language which was similar to the Turkish language.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY MR. WALTON: lines as with the other Jews... that is, was it effected through a Council of Elders?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I was not present when the registration took place. It is possible that they were registered together; but it is also possible that a second committee dealt with them, but I cannot tell you for certain. Elders was, in the individual case, requested to register the Jews; or, where the Jews had registered themselves, the Council of Elders was to turn this list over to the Kommando. Can you tell the Tribunal whether the members of the Jewish Council knew for what reasons this registration was carried out?
A I don't think that they knew of that, Mr. Prosecutor, but I am bound to assume that things were handled the same way as elsewhere -that is to say, that the sub-kommando leader told them at the time that this was being done for the purpose of resettlement into other areas. collaborated in the registration were also killed together with the registered Jews after their work had been completed? Kommando was located in Simferopol, the city of Simferopol itself?
A Not my Kommando, Mr. Prosecutor... I gave a detailed explanation of that matter. When I arrived, where sub-kommandos were sent -and may I refer to that because I gave a detailed account and I used documents in giving my account...
taining security in the Simferopol area during the month of December 1941, was it not?
A Yes, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q Now, Doctor, let's refer to Document Book II-D, page 20 of the English, page 25 of the German, which is Document 2828, Prosecution Exhibit 86. I have very carefully read the transcript of Your testimony as you spoke of this document last week. How many of this total, or what percent of this total of 2929 Jews and Communists executed, as shown in this report, were chargeable to Kommando 11-b?
A I believe, Mr. Prosecutor, in My direct examination I pointed out that I an of the conviction that my Kommando did not take part in those shootings, and I also gave the reasons. I said that my sub-kommandos began their march in the first days of December, and that certainly they did not take part in executions on the very first day. On the other hand, that report of the 12th of December, that is to say -- we are speaking of the report which was written on the 12th of December in Berlin, which means that even if it had been sent by wireless, a few days would have passed before the report would have reached Berlin from my sub-kommando, and for that reason I think it was out of the question that my sub-kommandos were involved in this matter.
Q All right. I accept your explanation at this particular time. Now let's go on in the some Document Book II-D, to the next report, which is on page 22 of the English, page 27 of the German, and is Document NO-2834, and is Prosecution Exhibit 87.
MR. WALTON: Your Honors, I refer specifically to page 28 of the English, and to the last page of the excerpt, witness, which is page 20 of the original..
Q (By Mr Walton, continuing) Now, in your direct examination you testified that you could not be charged with these executions, because your Kommandos were active in the second part, of this period only, is that correct?
A That is not all, Mr. Prosecutor. I made some reservations concerning the time, and concerning the area; and thirdly, I doubted the total figure as such, contrasting it with other figures.
Q Doctor, you anticipated my next question. But just to keep the record clear... you stated that Karasubsar and Feodosia were never in your area of command, and your sub-units of your command were active approximately five days in Jewpatoria and for ten days in Alustchka and Kerch, did you not? Was it Kerch? I did not get that word, I am not sure what it was.
MR. WALTON: The English-
A (continuing) I beg your pardon, but my trouble was that I did not get the German text at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Please repeat the question, Mr. Walton. BY MR. WALTON: in your area of command, is that correct?
A No, that is not correct. What I said was that Kerch and Feodosia did not belong to my Kommando. Mr. Prosecutor, you must have made a mistake there.
Q All right. Kerch and Feodosia were not in your command.
WITNESS: May I interrupt for a second? There is something wrong with the German translation. I get it very weakly. I can only just about understand it. The strength of it is only a fraction above the normal. Will you repeat it? Yes, I can get it properly. I just moved the switch. Thank you.
Q (By Mr. Walton) So that we can understand each other, the towns of Kerch and Feodosia were never in your command, but that you did have sub-units of your command for approximately five days during the period covered by this report in Jewpatoria, and for approximately ten days covered by this report in Alustchka and Karasubasar? into a town or village before you began to carry out your security missions? How many hours would lapse?
A Mr. Prosecutor, that is a purely theoretical question, and in that form I cannot answer it for that depends on the tasks with which one had to deal, and what the actual situation was. If what you want to know is, whether in the first twenty-four hours the sub-Kommando had been attacked by partisans, if that is what you want to know I can tell you that probably that is how I imagine it...within the first twenty-four hours the partisans would have been shot. Forward elements of your Kommando reach a town. This town has already been taken by the German Wehrmacht, and they moved on, and now it is time for the police to come into the town. All right. I will ask it this way: As soon as you reached a town with your Kommando, wasn't the first task which confronted you, for your own safety, to apprehend and to remove all potential threats to your security...wasn't that your first task, as soon as you reached a place?
A Well, Mr. Prosecutor, they immediately tackled all their tasks. They made contact with the agency of the Army forces, they tried to find people who would give them data, with Intelligence, who knew the place...certainly, they also tried to find out whether the important objects, such as the water works and the gas works which were of special importance had been made safe and were in order. personnel reached the town, then?
A I believe so, for certain; but actually I was never there when a sub-kommando did these things. But that is what I imagine. I imagine that the commander of the sub-kommando would have tackled all his tasks. or to collect up the Jewish Council of Elders in order to get the registration list of the Jews and the Communist functionaries in the place, at the same time they looked after the water works and the same time they took over from the elements of the Army, they also treated the Jewish problem, is that correct?
A Well, perhaps I may stick to this example. Before one has made acquaintance of people who had a particular knowledge in the place, one has to find out, who are the most suitable people, and that means in enemy territory that first of all you have to get hold of other people who, in their turn, can give you information, and in the meantime, time passes.
Q Yes, what I want to know is how much of this time passed. Was it a matter of hours, or a matter of days, or a matter of weeks?
A Mr. Prosecutor, perhaps I can give you a concrete example. The Sub-Kommando 10-a, as far as the documents show, reached Simferopol on the 3rd or 5th of November...that at the beginning of December orders were received from the Army, that is to say, four weeks later, the execution had not yet been carried out. I cannot tell you whether the sub-kommando leader after two days, or after ten days, had the registration carried out.
Perhaps this example will show you that it isn't days one goes by in such matters. tration of the Jews was concerned...how long did it take there?
A I really can't tell you, Mr. Prosecutor. I don't think it out of the question that both executions too, as far as any executions were necessary, were carried out before Christmas - but I think it highly improbable. I am more included to believe that they took place in January, but I cannot tell you for certain.
Q Well, as a matter of fact, Doctor, isn't it possible-- I don't say that it happened, but isn't it possible -- in some of the smaller places to get the registration lists from the Jewish Council of Elders and know of the name of every Jew and Communist functionary in a few hours after the arrival of your units in a specified town? Isn't it possible?
A I think that is practically out of the question, Mr. Prosecutor. For it meant entering a town which was destroyed...the zone was practically destroyed... and you have to have seen those Russian town..."towns", in quotes... I am firmly convinced that the first thing my sub-kommando did was to look for accommodations. Perhaps after that the sub-kommando leader went out to see where the nearest army place was, where he and his people would get something to eat in the evening and next morning. That is probably how it happened.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until one-forty-five.
(The Tribunal recessed until 1345 hours) (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 1 December 1947) BY MR. WALTON:
Q. Doctor, prior to recess for the lunch hour, we were speaking of the duties of the commandos upon entering a given town. You testified that they had duties which were in connection with the preservation of utilities, public utilities, electricity, and water, taking over the police duties from the Wehrmacht; you also said that they were concerned with the finding of billets in these badly shot up towns for the Einsatz Personnel and the German Personnel, and they also entered upon the solving of security questions in the Jewish problems, is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now these activities went on simultaneously. I mean, enough personnel was present to start handling all questions concerning the safety and security or the German forces, and the preservation of whatever you found there?
A. Unfortunately there was not sufficient personnel. There was such a small subcommando, and we had everything in such a short time to finish as a job, but I have only given a concrete example. I told you in Simferopol that it was more than a month before the Jewish problem had been solved.
Q. Now sometimes in the smaller places could not your commando in a space of a few days have every Jew report to a place designated by the authorities through the council of elders for registration?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I said this morning that I can remember for certain that as far as these small places it was necessary to carry out any executions.
I told you that in the case of Jewpatoria XI-A carried out the executions, as I said, I believe I can remember for certain that before Sinferopol, that is to say, prior to the middle of December, these executions were not carried out in other places either.
Q. In January 1942 didn't you take any more towns, January and Febuary of 1942?
A. No. Mr. Prosecutor, I told you how it was in the Crimea; it was in the second half of October that we took the Crimea, and I have already testified how it began with the individual subcommandos entering the Crimes, and I have said what time my commando entered that it was at the beginning of January when the town of Alushta was occupied, and it was from that time until the end of July the men were stationed there and at that time we left. That is where they were.
Q. Well, according to your own testimony subcommandos also went into Karasubasar and Alushta, your subcommondos, didn't they?
A. That is correct. After my commando had arrived, after the vehicles had been brought up slowly, that was at the beginning of January, after that the various commandos were organized, and they marched off. I repeat: They went to Karasubasar, they went to Alushta, and they wont to Eupatoria later and that is where they stayed until we left the Crimea. There was no change in the locations.
Q. Well, you also testified, I believe, that in December some of your commandos, certainly the forward elements, went into some of these towns, didn't they?
A. Yes, yes, that is what I said. So far as I remember that was the first half of January.
Q. They were not there in December at all in spite of What you testified?
A. No, there must be a misunderstanding. Will you repeat your question, please? If I understand you correctly, you want me to confirm that in December the subcommandos were sent to these various localities, and there they stayed until we left the Crimea.
Q. I do not have a transcript of the record before me, but as I remember it in studying the document for Wednesday's testimony of last week, you said that your forward elements of your entire commandos reached Karasubasar, Alushta and Eupatoria approximately the 5th to the 10th of December 1941?
A. Yes.
Q. Now with.......
A. Yes, yes, it was at that period, at that time,
Q. So that five to ten days, the way your commando operated, was sufficient length of time for this unit to begin to perform executions in Eupatoria and Alushta, wasn't it?
A. No, it was not enough time, for I said that during the first few days no executions took place, and that sofar as I remember, sofar as any executions did take place they were carried out after those at Simferopol, and, that is why I am saying that those executions which had been reported in Berlin on 12th December; that in these executions my commandos had not taken part.
Q. We had left the document dated 12th of December, and the one before us is dated 2nd January, and refers on its face from 16th November through the 15th of December 1941?
A. Yes, yes, I beg your pardon, the mistake was mine. I thought you were still referring to the document of 12th of December.
Q. All right. This document which we are discussing now is in Document Book III-D, and the beginning of it is on page 22. We are referring to that portion which appears on page 28 of the English text, and on the last gage of the German text, and is Document NO-2834. being Prosecution's Exhibit No. 87. Now, will you state under oath that none of these 21,185 Russian citizens were killed by members of Commando XI-B from 15th of November to 16th of December 1941?
A. No. Mr. Prosecutor, I never meant to say that. What I said just no' is that we have been mistaken on the other points, because I have thought you were still referring to the Document of December 12th. I believe that under direct examination I conceded that during the last few days of the period from 16th of November until 15th of December, shootings might have occurred with my subcommandos, too.
Q. In Karasubasar and Alushta?
A. In karasobasar and Alushta that is possible. As to Jewpatoria I want to exclude that, because as I showed in the document the subcommando for the first time on is mentioned on 10th of December.
Q. Did your commando to your knowledge, your subcommando to your knowledge, ever execute any Communists or Soviet officials during the time that you were its commanding officer?
A. Communists and officials, I don't think that is the right expression, if you are referring to Communist functionaries.......
Q. Yes.
A. .....or Communists who were engaged in actions against the German Wehrmacht, and who had violated those regulations which were threatened with the death penalty by the Wehrmacht, in that case I have to answer in the affirmative.
Q. Who finally determined whether respective persons were Communists or Soviet Functionaries?
A. In direct examination I read out of a document the Fuehrer Order, according to which the decision had to be made by an officer, and that was how it was with my subcommandos before I took over the command, and that is, also, how, of course it was after I had assumed the command, that is, to say, the leader of the subcommando was the person who had to make the decision in accordance with that Fuehrer Order.
Q. Did you ever make such a decision yourself?
A. I can not recall that, but it is testified to that at Simferopol my subcommando leader notified me in a case before that had been dealt with, and that we agreed that a person who had committed sabotage, or whatever also he had committed, and had to be shot in accordance with the order that had been issued.
Q. Now down to what level were Communist party functionaries considered a danger to your security, for example, the town mayor and council were always considered security threats, were they not?
A. I believe, Mr. Prosecutor, that is a point here which needs clarification.
Q. Yes.
A. I have in the course of my previous examination had the impression that by a functionary in our language is meant something different from what the English word "functionary" means. We understand by the term "A Communist Functionary" a political functionary; that is to say, a political leader of the Communist Party. I myself in my direct examination explained this, and, I believe it has been mentioned here a great many times, that the bulk of those functionaries fled, but of those who had remained, concerning them, I never witnessed a case of such a functionary not having stayed behind but with a definite task, and in all those cases these men stayed behind in accordance with Lenin's and Stalin's orders, in order to become active.
I can not remember one single case where such functionary was not apprehended without our discovering that he was in charge of a Sabotage group, or was engaged in intelligence work, or to engage the enemy in support of a Partisan group, or was a person who had sabotage action carried out in the Wehrmacht, by other saboteurs. I can remember a case, Where a certain large drive with poisoning was initiated. There was one case, Where they had planned a poisoning with Arsenic, and if they had succeeded 10,000 German soldiers would have been killed. Behing that action there was the fun ctionary, who was in charge of that action; and, I should also like to say that an official, say, an official of a Municipal savings Bank, or any other administrative official, was not considered as dangerous, because of his work, but if you mention this Lord Mayor of Simferopol, I should like to point out that in the Bolshevist system, the entanglements between the State and the Party was such in such a position that the Lord Mayor at the same time also carried out very important functions in the Party, and, if he did remain behind he did so with definite concrete aims.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, we understand the communist system and the Nazi system were alike, were they not?
A. Your Honor, I believe that in the National socialistic era the important positions of the State were occupied by reliable National Socialists, and the offices of these persons carried out two-fold functions, insofar, that is correct.