It shows the strained relationship between Nebe and Six and the impossibility for the VKM to advance towards Moscow with the Reich Division, as this division had been switched south in the direction of Tchernigov.
I offer as Exhibit Number 44, Document Number 56, made by Rudolf Mueller, drafted for service with the security police in Warsaw in 1940. It is an affidavit of the 29th of December 1947. This shows the difference of opinion between Six and the chief of the Einsatzgruppen, Nebe, concerning the question of setting up an archive Komando Moscow, the visit of Dr. Six to Heydrich in order to be released from this function, Dr. Six' return to Berlin from Smolensk between the 18th and the 22nd of August 1941. Furthermore, the document confirms that the affiant on the basis of his experience as personal aide of Department Chief I of the RSHA of Streekenbach, knows that the term "special assignment" is tantamount to the term "front line duty" and was the qualifications for any promotion. The affiant confirms that the date "28 august 1941" on the promotion slip for Six contains a clerical error and should read "20 August 1941" as the end of his activity in the east and should read, as I say, "20 August 1941". The affiant finally confirms that Six was promoted to the rank of Brigadefuehrer in conformity with his rank as official as plenipotentiary and that, therefore, consequently he became honorary officer in the SS and net a police general or general of the Waffen SS.
Under Exhibit Number 45 I now offer Document Number 57. It is an affidavit of the former SS obersturmfuehrer Dr. Friedrich Hilpert of 29 December 1947. It contains the confirmation that the affiant on the 1st of September 1941 met Six in Berlin and that on this occasion he was enlightened about the fact that Six had 8 to 10 days' previously arrived in Berlin.
ASExhibit Number 46, I offer Document Number 58, an affidavit of the former SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen SS, Werner Lorenz, dated 9th of January 1948. It is confirmed here that the German Reich authorities had been using the term "special assignment" since 1939 to denote any matters connected with the war.
It is also confirmed that after the outbreak of war promotions in the SS were only considered if proof was furnished of distinguished service in a special assignment since 1939 concerning all matters of war. I am sorry, I made a reading mistake here. It should read, "that after the outbreak of the war promotions in the SS were only considered if proof was furnished of distinguished service in a special assignment, that is, in front line service, and that this was mentioned in the certificate of promotion." And it is finally certified that the term, "special assignment" did not refer specifically to a particular function within the Einsatzgruppe.
Your Honors, Document Bock II is yet to be submitted, which I have already commented on at the beginning. Furthermore, I want to offer, owing to the cross examination of the witness, Vetter, another witness, who will testify as to the date of the return of my client on the 20th of August 1941 from Smolensk, concerning the date of his arrival between the 22nd and 25th of august in Berlin. This female witness has made out an affidavit confirming these dates. I notified here by telegram, and I asked her to come here after the last Friday, but she lives in the locality, Vig, which is on the island Foehr, therefore it is possible that considering the present weather conditions , the witness will not be able to travel because the ferries might not be going or some other flood dangers exist. I have not received any information whether she will come or net, but if she is unable to come I have in any case to submit the affidavit which she made out. I would only like to announce, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, the fact that this witness, if it is technically at all possible, will be asked to come here, and I would like you to approve my request to have her in who witness stand and to confirm, and in that case I would not submit the affidavit, which is in my Document Book II. O f course, there is the possibility, Your Honor, I aim net quite sure whether , considering the conditions and the difficulty of traveling for the witness, whether you think it advisable.
to submit the affidavit in any case and have the witness come here in any case. Generally speaking, it is a practice that witnesses appear personally or they supply affidavits. I wanted to leave this ruling to the Tribunal. I am in the position to submit the affidavit, but I do not want to spoil my chances through submitting this affidavit - my chances in fact of having the witness here in the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Ulmer, in view of the importance that you place upon this date, we certainly would not deprive you of the opportunity of having this witness here personally in court, if it can be done consistent with comfort and convenience to the witness, so that we will leave it entirely open to you to have her come here; if, because of what you have outlined it is impossible or even extremely difficult for her to come, then naturally we will take the affidavit and it will be accepted provided there isn't some serious objection on the part of the prosecution to itit will be accepted at its fact value just as if she had been personally presented to the Tribunal.
DR. ULMER:Do I understand you correctly to say if through my personal appearance it would be admitted to the Tribunal or as if the witness really had been in court on the witness stand?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes. In the event it becomes impossible for the witness to come here, then you submit the affidavit and that affidavit, in the absence of a serious objection on the part of the prosecution, which , of course, it will be able to support, the affidavit will be accepted as if the witness herself had been present in court.
DR. ULMER:Thank, Your Honor, may I then ask you to permit me to have this witness here after the rebuttal because if we have rebuttal tomorrow and the day after tomorrow the witness will arrive following the telegram which was sent last Friday, then, of course, I hope I may be permitted to have the witness here on the day after tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT:That would mean that you might get her here on Thursday?
DR. ULMER:I would like to say that if the witness is not here by the end of Thursday that would mean that she is unable to come here.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. We should like to have everything presented by the closing of the session on Thursday.
DR. ULMER:Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
DR. ULMER:Your Honor, representing my colleague, Linck, for the defendant, Ruehl, I would like to say that my colleague has one document book to submit and that we would like to ask Your Honor to give us the possibility before the rebuttal to call the defense counsel, Linck, because at the moment it is vitally important that he should be present in the Krupp case, and, therefore, he is unable at the moment to wait for the opportunity to submit his document.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you mean that it is of personal importance to him to be in the Krupp case?
DR. ULMER:His presence is wanted in the Krupp case, Your Honor. No, No. Now I understand, it isn't that, Your Honor, it is only because of the difficulties that have arisen there. It is important that he should be at the disposal of the Gentlemen of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. Immediately upon reconvening this afternoon we will take up the witness that Dr. Hoffmann will present and then if Dr. Linck may disengage himself from the other court room we will have him present his document book, and then anybody else who is ready, of course, will proceed also.
DR. ULMER:I shall let him know, Your Honor. I am sorry , Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Glancy.
MR. GLANCY:Sir, in the event that there will be no other defense counsel ready to present document books, should the prosecution be ready at that time to go ahead with his rebuttal?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, because then whatever witness is called by the defense is ready, we can sandwich that witness in some way or other because we are now sort of cleaning up the odds and ends which still remain, and we won't be too formalistic about the presentation of any piece of evidence which comes in.
MR. GLANCY:Very good, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL:Take your seats, please.
The Tribunal is again in session.
PAULBURKHOFF a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE SPEIGHT:Witness, raise your right hand and repeat the oath after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SPEIGHT:Now you may be seated.
DR. HOFFMANN:Hoffmann for Nosske.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HOFFMANN:
QWitness, please give the Tribunal your first and last name.
APaul Burkhoff.
QWhen and where were you born?
AOn the 20th of December 1900.
QWhat is your present address?
AAt the moment I am in Neuengamme.
QWhy are you in Neuengamme?
AAs an SS Major I was arrested.
QWitness, were you in 1944 with the State Police Office in Duesseldorf?
AYes.
QIn what capacity?
AIn 1941 I was transferred as a reporter for church questions for the SD Sector in Duesseldorf - to the State Police Office in Duesseldorf, and I continued my activity there, the same activity as I had performed in the SD.
QDid you in 1944 meet the defendant Nosske?
AYes. Nosske was director of the State Police Agency in Duesseldorf.
QCan you, Witness, remember an incident according to which in September '44 an order was received which said that Jews and their Aryan relatives were to be shot?
AAround the middle of September 1944 Mr. Nosske informed me of a top secret matter in which it was ordered that all Jews and their German blooded relatives were to be gathered and put in one building in order to have them shot when the code word was given without any commotion. This was to be done as soon as the Allied troops would push through from Aachen to Dueren.
QWitness, did you see anything about this in writing?
AYes. This order was put down in writing and I entered it into the record for top secret matters.
QCan you remember what signature it had?
AIt bore the signature of the Inspector of the Security Police and SD in Duesseldorf.
QWitness, do you know for what reason Nosske showed you this order?
AI belonged to the Department II E. Department II B had diminished to three officials in 144 and one auxiliary employee. Before that the Jewish Department belonged to this department also. The Jewish Department no longer existed because in the area of the State Police Duesseldorf all Jews there lived in a approved mixed marriage and thus no longer came under the jurisdiction of the State Police measures.
QWitness, in what condition was Nosske when he showed you this letter?
ANosske was deeply moved and upset. To describe this condition today in words is impossible for me.
QDo you know whether Nosske undertook anything against this order?
AYes. Nosske immediately went with me to the inspector of the Security Police in Duesseldorf.
QWhat happened there?
ANosske had an introductory conference with the inspector. Then the inspector called me in and asked me whether these persons in the area near the front represented a danger. I denied this. He further asked me what was to be done. I answered it would be useful if one would leave them in their homes.
QDid you get a decision from the inspector?
AThe inspector let dismissed me and continued the discussion with Nosske alone.
QDid the order continue to be valid, to your knowledge?
AThe events came too quickly. This order was directed to the State Police Offices Cologne, Aachen, Duesseldorf and Dortmund. From Cologne we heard that the State Police there had taken all Jews, Jewesses and their German spouses and the mixed offspring of the first degree, had collected them all in an old fortress, Furthermore, alarming news came to the effect that the first tanks from the Aachen area had broken through in the direction to Dueren. Thereupon Nosske decided to send a flash telegram to the RSHA, to Berlin. In this flash teletype message, rather, Nosske confirmed the receipt of this top secret matter and he expressed his misgivings about the execution.
QWitness, if you take all of the State Police Agencies in Duesseldorf, Aachen, and Cologne together, could you approximately tell the Tribunal the number of persons who would have been affected by this?
AThis group of persons was not registered either in files or any other way. It is impossible to give exact figures there but, approximately it might have been between five to six thousand people.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Hoffmann, I would like to ask the witness something about this teletype message.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
QDid you see the teletype message yourself?
AYes. I was present when Nosske wrote this teletype message.
QYes. Now please tell us as well as you can remember, just what the teletype message contained, rather than to give us an emotional conclusion as to what it contained, tell us objectively, as closely as you can, of course, just what the teletype message contained.
A.As an introduction Nosske said in this teletype that a top secret matter had been addressed to him in which it was ordered that all Jews living in the area of the State Police in Duesseldorf and all their German relatives were to be collected and put --into one building in order to have them shot without anyone noticing it when a certain code word is to be given. The code word was to be given as soon as the Allied troops would break out of the Area Aachen in the direction of Dueren. Then he mentioned misgivings about the execution.
Q.Now, it is just for that reason that I have asked you to tell us about the message. Now you say misgivings, Now, misgivings is an emotional conclusion. What did he say? Did he use the word "misgivings"?
A.I can not remember these details which Nosske stated there.
Q.Well, you remember in such precise detail what he said in reply to the order? You remember the message almost verbatim up to this point. Now, what did Nosske say about this order?
A.Nosske objected to this order for human reasons.
Q.Do you remember what, approximately -- of course, we don't expect you to remember verbatim, but approximately what language he employed?
A.Before this teletype message was written out we discussed the matter and it was emphasized especially that these were innocent people, that many brothers and fathers of the German elements had fulfilled their duties within the Party or in the Army, that the entire order, for purely humane feeling, was not possible of execution.
Q.Well, then, the objection went to the execution of these innocent relatives. Is that right?
A.No, no, it was our effort to revoke the entire order because not only the relatives were meant among the innocent people, but also the Jews themselves.
Q.What date was this?
A.On the 15th or 16th of September.
Q. '44?
A.Yes, 44. I remember this date because on the Sunday which was the 17th of September the great parachute jump of the Allied troops in Arnheim and on the lower Rhine took place. That was in our area.
Q.Who issued the order in the first place?
A.As far as I was informed later, this order came from the Higher SS and Police Leader and came down via the inspector to the State Police Offices.
Q.All right, now, you were telling us about the message. You told us about the original teletype message and then Nosske's reply, and in his reply he repeated the message and then, as you told us, he objected to the execution of the order for humane reasons and pointed out that it would mean the execution of innocent people. All right, now proceed with what else was in the message.
A.Upon this teletyped message which Nosske addressed to the RSHA, the Office Chief IV sent a teletype reply. In this message --
Q.Well, now, you have given us the text of Nosske's message as far as you recall it; is that right?
A.Yes. But what I mentioned now, that is still Mueller's teletype message.
Q.This is the reply to Nosske now?
A.Yes, this is what I was just going to give you.
Q.Very well.
A.This teletype message from the RSHA read as follows: "It is incomprehensible to me that such measures could even be considered.
there. Should the Jews in that area represent a danger, they are to be employed as labor in Central Germany."
Q.By this time there had been instituted an order suspending the execution of Jews, hadn't there? By September 1944, Himmler himself had ordered a suspension of execution of Jews, hadn't he?
A.I do not know that.
Q.Well, do you know when it was finally decided not to execute any more Jews?
A.I have not been informed about this. THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Hoffmann. QUESTIONS BY DR. HOFFMAN (continued):
Q.May I immediately after this ask who was the highest bearer of command or authority at that time in this area Duesseldorf?
A.The State Police was organically under the command of the RSHA. The inspector, as such, had supervising rights, but, in my opinion, he had no objective right of issuing directives. Outside of this inspector, there was the Higher SS and Police Leader who, normally speaking, had no influence on the work of the State Police.
QBut was it different now?
AWell, we had become an area close to the front and how the various commands were changed there, I do not know.
QBut would you at that time have had to carry out an order by the competent Higher SS and Police Leader?
AI cannot answer that either.
QThen I will ask you witness, couldn't Noske refuse to carry out this order on his own part?
AWell Noske did refuse to carry out this order for instance. In the area of the State Police Dusseldorf the Jews were not collected in one place. Thus Noske by this had already resufsed to carry out the order by not complying with the first directive which said that all these people were to be gathered together in one building, whereas the State Police Office in Cologne had already assembled all these people in an old fortress.
QWitness, Noske was head of the State Police Office in Dusseldorf, is that right?
AYes.
QThus he was a personality who was well known there, is that right?
AYes.
QWell, can you remember that Noske one day was no longer there and what do you know about it? Please tell that to the Tribunal.
AOne morning I came to the office and there I was told that Noske had been relieved of his office, that his successor was already on the way, and that he himself had been recalled to Berlin and he had not even been permitted to hand over the old job to his successor as that is usually customary. BY THE PRESIDENT:
QWitness, do you remember the message sent by Mueller? Do you recall the text of that message?
AYes, in detail.
QWell, give it to us in detail.
ARSHA sent the following measures, "It is incomprehensible to me that such measures could he considered there. Should the Jews in that area represent a danger they are merely (and this merely was underlined) to be sent to Central Germany for work."
QThe RSHA then supported Noske's position?
AThe RSHA clearly made it understood that they considered such an order as incomprehensible.
QThey supported Noske's position?
AYes.
QThen why did they permit him to be punished for doing something which they approved of?
APerhaps I may continue with the report about Noske's dismissal.
QNo, but answer that question. If the RSHA supported Noske why did they permit him to be penalized?
AI do not know the reason. I merely know that when Noske returned from Berlin he came to see me and asked me for copies of these top secret matters and he told me that because of too lax, too soft, an attitude in the treatment of the Jewish question he had been dismissed from his job and that a proceeding was to be started against him before a Higher SS and Police Court.
QWas he tried?
AI do not know. DR. HOFFMAN:
QYour Honor, may I just say something?
THE PRESIDENT:Certainly.
DR. HOFFMAN:In my case in chief the Higher SS and Police Leader will appear in an affidavit and he, namely thelatter, was angry at Noske and now tried to start proceedings against Noske because of military disobedience, which we have in the do cuments, But, the witness cannot give you this information and I merely want to say this so that it would be logical.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
QVery well. Did you hear about these proceedings against Noske, instituted by higher SS and Police Leader?
ANo.
QWell wouldn't you have been interested in what happened to Noske after this rather serious incident?
ANoske was immediately transferred into the field. He was no longer in Duesseldorf and, therefore, I did not hear anything about how the matter progressedafterwards.
QDid you know Noske very well?
ANoske was my superiorfor about one year. Noske came from western Germany and knew the mentality of the western German population. I personally had to write reports about the religious life and this whole church program was rather a delicate problem in western German. Therefore, I had to negotiate with Noske very often.
QWould you say that he was soft in his treatment of the Jews?
AOutside of this one case I never discussed any Jewish problem with Noske.
QProceed, Dr. Hoffman. BY DR. HOFFMANN:
QWhy didn't you talk with Noske about Jewish problems?
ABecause I had nothing to do with Jewish questions and during the time when Noske was there there was hardly any Jewish question to be handled. BY THE PRESIDENT:
QWell, as a matter of fact now, witness, there weren't many Jews in that area, were there, in Duesseldorf there weren't many Jews?
AI do not know the number of Jews there, but I would estimate that in 1944 there were still one thousand Jews in approved mixed marriages.
QWell, they were mostly part Jews?
ANo, these were Jews, full Jews, who were married to German spouses in an approved mixed marriage and the children of these families those were mixed off-springs of the 1st degree.
QYes, but out and out Jews without the relationship of marriage with an Aryan didn't exist in any appreciable number there?
AAs far as I know they did not, no.
QSo that thisquestion wasn't only a Jewish question, it was also a German question to a great extent?
AYes.
QBecause it involved German wives or German husbands, depending upon which spouse was Jewish, and at least half German children, didn't it?
AYes.
QProceed, Dr. Hoffmann.
THE PRESIDENT:You may proceed, Dr. Hoffman. BY DR. HOFFMANN:
QWitness, in your opinion was Noske dismissed from his State Police job in Duesseldorf, was he completely dismissed?
AYes, that's definite.
QHow long was the period of time between his intervention in Berlin and his dismissal?
AHis dismissal had already been announced when he was recalled to Berlin because it said that his successor was already on the way.
QThen it was very shortly afterwards?
AHe was dismissed from his job by teletype and he was called to Berlin and he never returned to his job. BY THE PRESIDENT:
QWho signed the telegram of dismissal?
AI did not see it.
QWell, you were interested in the episode, wouldn't you want to know who it was that fired him?
ANoske didn't tell me.
QHow was it you saw all these telegrams and didn't see the most important of all? Here is someone you were working with, suddenly he is dismissed, is about to go away, and you don't see the telegram although you see all the other telegrams?
AI was not in the office when this message which called Noske to Berlin arrived, When I came to the office Noske was already on his way to Berlin.
QAnd had taken the telegram with him?
AI do not know.
QWasn't a copy of the teletype there?
ANo, I never saw this teletype and I can only say again what I have already said that. when Noske came from Berlin he asked me for copies of these top secret matters and on that occasion he told me that he had been dismissed because of too lax conduct as far as the Jewish question was concerned.
QWell, did he tell you who it was that dismissed him?
ANo, he didn't tell me that.
QWell now, witness, we will have to say it sounds very illogical that here you are interested in this episode of a grave nature. You see the telegram which arrived giving the order, you see the complaint, you see the reply to the complaint, you even tell us about words which are underlined in the telegram, then comes the explosion at the end with the dismissal of your own superior. You don't know who dismissed him, you don't know whom he saw, you never saw the message. It sounds a little incomprehensible. doesn't it?
AWhen Noske returned from Berlin his successor was already in the office and Noske was no longer my superior and I had no cause to ask for any details.
QDid he come to the office?
AHe came to see me in my office.
BY THE PRESIDENT: (continued)
QAnd you gave him all these telegrams?
AI gave him copies of them for his procedure.
QAnd in all this conversation he never mentioned who it was that had dismissed him?
ANo.
QAnd you weren't curious enough to say to a man who had been your boss for a year, "I am very sorry, Dr. Noske, that this happened to you. That they dismissed you, Who was it who did this dirty deed?" You didn't think of mentioning that to him?
ANo, but that Noske was dismissed from Office I, that was a matter of course that the Chief of Office (Office I) had charge of him as far as disciplinary measures was concerned so my questions would have been superfluous.
QWell, the RSHA had approved his conduct and the RSHA dismissed him, is that right?
AOffice IV, that is the office chief Mueller personally had revoked this order upon the teletype of Noske. Yes, he had approved of Noske's conduct and for this rest, as he told me, Noske was dismissed from the Job because of too lax treatment of the Jewish question, He told me personally.
QAnd he didn't mention any name who it was that told him that he had been too lax?
ANo.
QAnd you didn't ask him "Who was it who told you you were too lax"?
AThat was a matter of course. We took it for granted that Office I handled these matters.
QWell, Office I is an abstract designation. The whole office didn't tell him this. One individual spoke. Who was the individual who spoke.
ANoske did not tell me and I didn't ask him for it, either.
QVery well. BY DR. HOFFMANN:
QWitness, outside of what you have just told the President I ould like to ask you:
the fact that Noske was no longer in his position was known to you, too?
AYes, of course, because his successor was in office.
QWitness, were you already interrogated about this incident by English authorities?
AWhen I was arrested I was asked about the Jewish question but not about the Noske incident. BY THE PRESIDENT:
QWhat did the successor to Noske do which Noske hadn't done?
AAs a supplement of this teletype message instructions arrived later from the RSHA to the effect that those Jews who were fit to work were to be sent to Central Germany to work in the OT; that those who were not fit to work, and the Jewesses, were to be sent to Berlin where they would be housed in Jewish families and that is how the problem found its solution.
QDo you tell us there were Jewish families in 1944 with quarters and homes that were capable of housing other people?
AI told you what the teletype message contained. What the conditions were in Berlin I do not know.
QProceed. BY DR. HOFFMAN:
QBut, Noske was no longer there in the State Police Office was he?
AThe first transport took place when Noske was still in office, because that happened soon after the teletype came. BY THE PRESIDENT:
QWell then he did remain in the office after he was dismissed?
ANo, that was before his dismissal, this decision.
QI understood you to say that that message came afterwards. Very well.
BY DR. HOFFMANN:
QWitness, let's get this quite clear. Now, Noske sent a teletype to the RSHA, is that right?
AYes.
QThen the RSHA sent back a teletype?
AYes. And that was the one from Mueller.
QAnd when did the dismissal come off?
ASome time elapsed there but how much time it was I do not know.
QWere there three months, three days or what?
AI cannot give you any period of time. I don't remember any more. BY THE PRESIDENT:
QWell now just a moment. You can't dismiss a very reasonable question like that. When Dr. Hoffmann asked three months or three days you can tell us approximately the period of time. If you can't tell us that then one might question whether you remember anything about it. Certainly you would know how quicly came the order of dismissal of the man for whom you worked for a year. You certainly didn't have much love for him if you could forget him that quickly. Now, how seen did this message from the RSHA indicating what should be done with these half Jews that the order come through dismissing Noske?
AThe reply message from Mueller came around 16 September and the dismissal of Noske perhaps happened at the end of October, but I must say that with reservations because I do not remember the exact time Noskewas dismissed.
QAll right so that your best estimate is that about six weeks went by?
AYes, the end of October.
QYes, now it is possible in these six weeks that he could have been dismissed for something else, couldn't it?
AI do not know.
QSo that you don't know why he was dismissed?