Are the dates correct?
A. No, they are not correct. It should say, "approximately at the end of 1930" - as I have already stated here.
Q. Very well. In the same document on page 4 of this document, it says in the last sentence of paragraph 6, I quote:"Streckenbach himself described the activity of the Einsatzgruppen in the East to me as murder." what do you want to state to that?
A. When I made my statements I stated my opinion on this, too, and I believe I have clarified the occurrence already. May I point out that when disussing these events at Oberwisch in 1945, we merely dealt with Einsatzgruppe-C. In Oberwischat the time I was only asked about these three events which are contained in this affidavit. I myself only gave confirmations of the previous questions. This statement by Streckenbach referred not to the entire activity of the Einsatzgruppen, but It also was connected with the actual wording which Obergruppen fuhrer Jekelm at the time had handed to Dr. Rasch. He thus expressed that the order transmitted in that form, namely that "women and children are to be shot so that there will be no vendetta", was an invitation to take part in murder. This position did not refer to the Fuehrer order as I already pointed out, I would like to ask that this be corrected.
Q. Please look now at document book II-C, which is Exhibit No. 82, Document No. NO-2947. That is the Operational Report No. 47 of 9 August 1941. On page 5 of this document it says, "That in Berditschew in 45 houses of Jews a great number of stolen goods were stored which was distributed among the suffering Ukranian population." Witness, do you wish to state anything on that?
A. Sofar as I remember, these were not stolen, but hoarded goods, such as food. etc. At the time, these were put at the disposal of the population, because if these had been stolen goods, that is looted property, surely, COURT IIA CASE IX measures would have been taken, which in this report have not been mentioned, and, sofar as I remember were not issued, either, but if measures would have been taken, then surely the Einsatz group doubtlessly would have reported on it.
Q. May I ask you to look at the same document, on page 7 of this document, where it states: "Furthermore Einsatzcommando-V until now has shot 74 Jews." Please say something about that?
A. I have the following comment to make on this. Shortly after I arrived in Berditschew, an officer of the Wehrmacht reported to me when I visited this Wehrmacht agency, that they had persons who had been arrested in the Citadel who were to be executed, because during the fighting for Berditschew they had been caught with arms, and had been taken to the Citadel. Since he pointed out to me from the very beginning that according to the instructions the Security Police had to carry out this task, I told him about this, and, therefore, asked a leader of the sub-command in Berditschew to carry it out, and I investigated the case. Two or three, or perhaps, four days later, Dr. Rasch visited me at Berditschew, and informed me that when he just visisted the Army group, they had objected to the fact that the executions had not been carried out as yet. Under the circumstances I had to ask the sub-commando leader to examine the occurrence, and to investigate it. I no longer am able to give the exact number of those arrested. The figure given may be correct. I do not think, however, that all persons were executed. The executions were carried out in the Citadel in the presence of the commandant, and the occupational troops were present too. I think we can say for certain that there were not only Jews, These statements COURT II-A CASE IX probably would have been made by Stabsfuehrer Hoffman, because he Seemed to like it better to out it that way into his reports.
I shall show, for example, that an incorrect statement was made on another occasion as well. This document is also of importance, because in connection with the situation Report No. 2, it can be shown that the reports were not always correct. This Situation Report No. 2 is in this same document book, on pages 6 to 15 of the German Text. It is Exhibit No. 69, Document No. 2652, Situation Report No. 2, the time of the report 29 July to 14 August, 1941. In the Situation Report No. 47, to which I compared this present Situation Report, is on page 80 of the German Text, and is correct. It shows that in Shitomir the public execution of a Jew, age 60, who had been a judge since 1918, and in who, when interrogated had admitted to have carried out one-thousand murders, and, this man was to be killed together with his hangman. In Situation Report No. II, which I have just indicated, it shows on page 14, that this man was hanged in Berditschew, while numerous people attended the execution. This is not true. Ii only this One document had existed, surely, I would have been blamed for this. However, the situation Report No. II, almost has verbally the same contents as the Situation Report No. 47. If these reports are compared, one can see that the names mentioned, the names of the cities, are not the same. In Situation Report No. 2, it says, on page 13, in Berditschew, 222 Jews were shot. I must add the same to this --
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to page 13. Now I do not find page 13 in this report in our document book. Mr Hochwald, do we have it in our document book?
MR HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I am sorry, we don't have it there, and it certainly must be somewhere else; if the COURT II-A CASE IX witness can refer to which page of the original?
THE PRESIDENT: No, he means page 13 of the original. If he is referring to page 13 of the original, I want to draw attention to the fact that on page 13 in the English Document Book, I find page 11 with the original excerpt, and, then the next itme is page 20, of the original excerpt.
MR HORLICK-HOCHWALD: That is right.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I made a mistake here. I get the wrong figures for the pages. It is page 13 in the German text, not the document page.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right. I am referring to page 13 of the original, as you indicated, and that page 13 does not appear in our document book.
MR HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Page 9 of the original document, Your Honor.
THE INTERPRETER: It is page 9 of the original document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you may proceed.
MR HORLICK-HOCHWALD: It is page 9 of the original document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we found it.
THE WITNESS: There it shows you that in Berditschew 222 Jews were shot, but according to the Situation Report No. 47 it is shown that the EK-V shot 74 Jews, and another command shot 148 people. I repeat, if this document were the only one in existence, surely because I was in Berditschew, I would have been blamed for them all.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the Situation Report No. 46 that you are referring to?
DR. DORCHHOLZ: Your Honor, it is Situation Report of No. 47, it is Exhibit No. 82.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. DORCHHOLZ: Document No. 2947.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: It is on page 66 of the document
THE PRESIDENT: I know that is the one he referred to before, but we had difficulty in locating his specific reference even in that document.
DR. DORCHHOLZ: Your Honor, unfortunately I do not have the English Document Book, else I would have tried to indicate the pages in the English document book to make things easier.
THE PRESIDENT: when you quote from a document, or refer to a document, it might be well to indicate the page and the paragraph of the original as it is shown here, and that would help us to locate the specific item being discussed.
MR HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Your Honor, the specific item to which the witness has now just referred to, the shooting of the 74 Jews, is in the middle of page 71 of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: The comparison with Situation Report No. 2 is finished now. I now want to show you Situation Report No. 47, and return to it. I want to point out page 80 of the German text, that is page 13 of the original, where the activity of the police regiment of the Higher Police and SS Chief is mentioned, and it reports on the shootings, I am talking about this, and asked that I may repeat it based on other documents in order to show this activity is particular. The units in Chorestkow were continuously active in the entire territory, therefore, it is not only possible or probable, but in my opinion it is certain that the statements as to the activity of these units were reported by my partcommandos as well. If such measures were carried out in their territory. In the Situation Report No. 47, on page 6 of this document, that is page 12 of the original - - -no, on page 10, of the original, Your Honor, in Tarmopol and in Chorestkow where pogroms took place that is, they tried to do this. For the sake of order, I wish to point out that Einsatxcommando-V was never in these localities; also according to the following statements on pages 11 and 12 of the original, in Shitomir, Trojanow, Krostyschew, Tscherjaschow, Jaslow, Polonna, Proskura, and Winnica & Barcarow that first, except for Zaslow and Polonna belonged to my territory, I do not know, because these localities I dan not find in the map at my disposal.
Q Now in Document Book II-C, Document No. NO3151, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 73, page 31 in the German text -
MR HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Page 27 of the English, Your Honor.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: That is the Situation Report No. 86, of 17 September 1941, I quote: on page 2 of this document, German text, and in paragraph four the following: "Einsatzkommando-V at the time is distributed over a large territory, and it is combing out the villages of this area systematically. Among others, several Bolshevistic mayors and chiefs of collective farms were taken care of."
MR HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Page 29 of the English Document Book.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: 9continuing) Apart from that several insane people were eliminated, who had the task to blow up railroad tracks and bridges and to carry out other acts of sabotage." Witness, what do you wish to comment on this? did not report. I am sure. In my statement I have already mentioned that a part-commando was systematically assigned not to "take care of" mayors and chiefs of collective farms, but rather to appoint such men. I assume that in this Situation Report something wrong has been reported, because I can not remember and I consider it quite impossible that here systematically mayors and chiefs of collective farms, without any special reason, should have been executed. I do not want to exclude the fact that such cases may have happened, because in my report on the activity of my kommando, I have already expressed that Russian agents were very clever to put their agents into such positions and to use their influence and there, under the cloak of reliability, they had a great deal of influence. They gave them espionage orders, and, therefore, they helped the intelligence service. If this would have happened, and I would have mentioned that, surely Herr Hoffmann would have reported it in detail, because he liked to make reports. He says in the following paragraph: "Four executions were carried out in Ulanow, and 18 in Uledowka," this was reported and the figures mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, do I understand you to say that Bolshevistic mayors were not executed?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, in this report, no executions are mentioned at all. They are just general statements that Einsatzcommando, V systemacally had the task to eliminate mayors and chiefs of collective farms, to get rid of them.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood you to say a few moments ago that it was not correct that Bolshevistic mayors had been executed. Is that what I understood you to say?
A I said, Your Honor, that this generalization is not correct. I had given the job to a Teil kommando in order to appoint mayors and chiefs of collective farms; I, therefore, think it is impossible that the Teil kommando could have been active here to get rid of them systematically, but I do not want to say that it could not have happened, that the mayor, or chief of collective farm was executed, because he was an agent or a saboteur of some sort.
Only the generalization is not correct. not be executed merely because they were Bolshevist mayors? be something in addition to being a Bolshevist and a Communist and a Mayor in order to be executed? able action.
Q But didn't the original Fuehrer Order actually include all Communist-functionaries? Communist-functionary? commit some punishable act against the German forces in order to be liquidated?
A. Your Honor, then I think I misunderstood your previous question. If a Bolshevist mayor was still in his position, and he was arrested in a deadly danger in the rear of the fighting army.
Q. Yes. Well then, we come back to the report and we find that this statement is correct.
"Among others, several B olshevist mayors and " - I can't pronounce that word -- "were taken care of."
Now, that means that the Bolshevist mayors were executed, does it not?
A. Your Honor, when such a person was arrested, and I never said this was not done then it must have happened.
I merely objected because any more.
They certainly had disappeared.
Q. But if further they were taken care of in the words of the report, and the phrase "taken care of " did not, I understand, mean
A. Naturally, your Honor.
Q. Very well. As a matter of curiosity what does that long word which I stumbled over mean, "Kulchose," well, I won't make an
A. Kolchose, your Honor. That is a collective farm.
Q. I see.
A. And these are chiefs of the collective farms. THE PRESIDENT: Very,well, thank you.
A. (Continuing) In the upper paragraph on Page 33 of the German text it is reported that in Chmielnik 229 Jews were dealt with.
This figure has been invented.
May I ask to compare it to another document?
German text. Page 25 of the original.
MR. HORLICK -HOCHWALD: Page 93 of Document Book I, your Honor.
A. (Continuing) It is a situation report, No. 60, of 22 august 1941. Here it says on Page 2 of the document at the bottom, "After the commander of the locality had been relieved and a new commander had not yet been appointed, the Jewish population used the opportunity to terrorize the Ukrainians and to spread the rumor that the Russians would now return in order to take revenge on the Ukrainians with murder during the night. In a neighboring village, according to an inhabitant ---" Now, please note the wording, "by Jews and Communists".
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. The difficulty in our locating whatever quotation is being read is that the witness states Page 2, after we once get the document, and he apparently is referring to Page 2 as it is listed in the document book, but I think it would be more specific if he referred to the page of the original. Now this document --
THE WITNESS: Page 26 of the original -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I think it would be much better if he did that because we have the pages listed in our book in accordance with the original. First we have here "Page 25 of the original, page 26 of the original, Page 27 of the original," and if you merely make that reference then we can immediately locate what he is going to read from, and then he might also indicate what paragraph of that page. Now, he is referring to Page 26, is that correct?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: This is Page 94.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, Page 26 of the original. Which paragraph?
THE WITNESS: Of the original, the top of the page.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
A. (Continuing) "After the former local commander had been relieved and before a new one was appointed, the Jewish population at once turned this occasion to advantage by terrorizing the Ukrainians and by spreading the rumor that the Russians would come back to take a bloody revenge.
According to the reports of an inhabitant, Jews and Communists killed 25 Ukrainians altogether in a neighboring village." Please note Jews and Communists. "The Jews tried to block the approach to Chmielnik--" Please may I add how wrong the terms of this report are in its whole tendency? While in the previous sentence Jews and Communists were mentioned, suddenly Einsatzgruppe only reports about Jews now. I continue to quote. " --by stretching a rope across the road, thus making a trap for motor cars. The commanding officer of a construction company and a fully loaded personnel carrier could evade the trap only at the very last minute." previously, to fight the Jewish excesses extensive actions were taken. The localities concerned are surrounded and prominent Communist Jews are taken. The Ghetto, or rather the houses of the Jews are combed out systematically. Together with the local kommando and the militia lists of the known Communists still existing, there are made, and they were searched. In Chmielnik 100 Jews and Communists have been found.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem here that we are straining at nets. You indicated that in one sentence the phrase "Jews and Communists" was used, that phrase. Then you say that this must be an error because in the following sentence they only say Jews tried to block the road with a rope, but in the next paragraph we come back again to the phrase "Jews and Communists".
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I want to explain the following, the manner in which the reports were nude. They were not made by my my kommando, but I merely wanted to point out, I wanted to show how the person in the Einsatzgruppe making the report deviates from the facts.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't see where there is much of a difference if in one place a man says, "Jews and Communists," end in the next sentence he only mentions Jews, end then later on he says, "Jews and Communists". Wherein do you find such a difference?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this situation report, which actually was made four weeks later than the document we discussed first, itstates, "During the cleaning action carried out in Chmielnik 229 Jews could be dealt with." That is the document I started off from, and I merely compared them to show that there were not only Jews, but that the other document proves wit out doubt that there were bands of Communists among them. Doubtlessly there were also Jews, That was the reason why I compared this document with the other one.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't intend, of course, to argue with you on this and you are certainly entitled to your interpretation of the two documents, but I must confess that I don't see this great difference which you seem to draw from a comparison of the documents. In the former document the statement is made that 229 Jews were taken care of. In the other document a reference is made to Jews and Jewish Communists. That still does not eliminate the possibility that 229 Jews were killed, merely because in the succeeding document to which you referred there is the additional phrase used of "Jewish Communists". That does not destroy the original reference to 229 Jews.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: It does not say in the document "Jewish Communists" but only "Communists".
THE PRESIDENT: My document says "Jewish Communists", Jews and Jewish Communists.
THE WITNESS: Everything is mixed up in the reports of the Einsatzgruppe. That is what I wanted to point out.
THE PRESIDENT: But I don't see this mix-up. They say very flatly, definitively, clearly and specifically that 229 Jews were taken care of, and when they say "taken care of " we know that they don't mean to lodge them and put them up at a hotel.
It means that they were executed.
THE WITNESS: Of course, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That is very specific. Inthis other document the reference is made to the activities of the Jews and and the Communists. This is a little more specific, a little more in detail, a littlemore graphic. It tells the story about the stretching, of the rope across the road, it tells about their various activities, and that is the reason they were executed.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it will be best if I tell you how it happened as far as I remember, according to my recollection. May I start. One day the local commander of Chmielnik came to me who had been, appointed as new local commander. His rank was captain, with him was an officer of the Army Group South, These two described to me very excitedly the events in Chmielnik and the murder of twenty-five Ukrainians. The reason was because they had worked together with the German Army agencies, according to the request of the officer of the Army Group South I asked the Toil command leader -- Sorry, I made a mistake, I gave the local commander a. Toil command. The events in Chmielnik were investigated very carefully and the following impression was given:
Court No, II-A, Case No. IX.
still heavily armed, were hidden in the woods. With the assistance of many inhabitants of villages they actually terrorized, the area, and the biggest event of these was when twenty-five Ukrainians were murdered. A Russian officer made out requisition papers. With the assistance of local inhabitants he got food and cattle. The skins of the cattle were given to the local commanders during the night, as settlement, as payment, and were taken near his house. These settlement bills gave both the unit and name of the Russian officer. letters. He actually did not feel safe any longer with his few soldiers. Several other things occurred. I cannot remember the details any more. For example, the car trap. One trio investigations took four to five days. As far as I remember a Wehrmacht unit was also appointed to search the woods, and the troops hiding in the woods went south. At the order of the Army, the Wehrmacht, that is at the order of the local commander, those who participated in the terrorizing, were shot. The command was in the hands of the local commander. As far as I remember at the time about ninety persons were shot.
THE PRESIDENT: Were these Russians, ninety Russians were shot?
THE WITNESS; Russian inhabitants of the City of Chmielnik. Not only Jews, but, say three Communists, members of the terror group, among them a number of Jews, were executed.
THE PRESIDENT: But your narrative tells us of the terrorization by Russian soldiers who were hidden in the woods.
THE WITNESS: These Russian soldiers in the woods used, the local inhabitants in the City of Chmielnik, for example, to get food, to get cattle and other things.
The local inhabitants helped them, and these local inhabitants helped, these troops who were still hiding in the wood, and they got the things for them which they needed. These inhabitants also carried out terrorizing. Their own population was threatened. It was said that the Russians would return, and twenty-five Ukrainians were murdered of whom it had been said that they had collaborated with the Germans. Of course. I cannot remember everything. I can only tell you what I remember.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: I believe that about ninety persons, including a number of Jews, were shot. The measure was not taken because they were Jews but because they had acted as terrorists, and also had arms which they were not allowed to have. I remember this case in detail because after a few days the local commander and the mayor and an officer of the Army came to me, and thanked me for the assistance. The local commander thanked me in particular, because through these events he had been able to strengthen his forces, he got reinforcements. If I mention a service of thanksgiving, a religious service, this is not meant to be in bad taste, out if it was mentioned at the time it was only meant to emphasize the fact that the population actually felt that they had been relieved of terror. since this figure is incorrect, of course the other figures will also not be right.
THE PRESIDENT: While you are on this question of figures, do I understand now that you approve of both these reports but differ from them only in the matter of the figures?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. The executions were carried out. As far as I remember there were nineth persons in Chmielnik but never 229.
THE PRESIDENT: You claim, then, that 229 is excessive?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What about the following paragraph where it says that your kommando took care of 506 Bolshevists and Jews in the course of fourteen days. Do you claim that figure also in incorrect?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. I just indicated this, Since this figure 229 is incorrect, doubtlessly the other figure will also be wrong. How this figure, 506, was made up, I can't imagine at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Again I say I am not attempting to argue with you, out I am wondering how the report can be so correct in everything else, out yet be wrong only in the matter of the figures?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I can only explain this because the Einsatzgruppe did not think that the report by the Einsatzkommando was not high enough and on their own authority they reported higher figures. I think I can presume that almost for certain because men of the Einsatzgruppe once told me about this, that Hoffmann sent false reports to Berlin, but perhaps there is a possibility that during Dr. Rasch's investigation, more details can De found out about this.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, may I explain something briefly to you which I think still is not clarified? This concerns an execution of about ninety persons executed by the Wehrmacht. Einsatzkommando 5, that is the witness, had nothing to do with this execution, only based on the reports here he wants to prove that the reports made by Stahsleiter Hoffmann at the time are not correct.
The defendant had nothing at all to do with these executions.
THE PRESIDENT: The form and substance then of the witness's explanation is that generally the reports are true as to what. transpired there, but insofar as he is concerned only ninety people were executed, and these ninety represented individuals who had been proved guilty of sabotage and acts of violence, Is that what we take from his testimony?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes. BY DR. DURCHHOLZ:
Q. You wanted to talk about the insane persons yet, didn't you?
A. Concerning the Insane persons mentioned before, I remember that actually on one occasion I believe two persons were taken who had orders to carry out sabotage, and who were insane. A generalization of this, however, as the group report shows again, according to which the NKVD preferred to use such persons to carry out sabotage, certainly the person making the reports invented this. In the reports of Einsatzgruppe 5, this has certainly never been mentioned.
Q. I now ask you to look at Document Book II-A.
THE PRESIDENT: Suppose we take our morning recess now. The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. DURCHHOLD: (Attorney for the Defendant Schulz) Your Honor, in reference to the incidents described by the witness in Chmelnik and in Berdischew, there seem to be a few unclarities. Therefore, may I briefly summarize what the witness wanted to say with his testimony. September, 1941, according to the report 229 Jews were executed in Chmelnik.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honors please, the explanations of defense counsel are entirely immaterial at this time. I do think at the time of the closing argument or in the closing brief, such an explanation may be made, but not just now. The. Tribunal has asked the witness what he wanted to express. He also explained to the Tribunal and the Tribunal has summarized the statements of the witness and the witness has said, "Of course, very well, that is what I was thinking," I do think a further explanation on the part of the defense counsel can be only entirely argumentative.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be unnecessary, Dr. Durchhold, to relate again what the witness said or even to summarize the evidence. If there is any specific item that you desire to direct the Tribunal's attention to, because of any misunderstanding or because of any error, we will entertain whatever you have to say on that subject.
DR. DURCHHOLD: I don't want to argue, Your Honor, about what the defendant has said. I merely wanted to correct an unclarity.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If there is something incorrect, defense counsel can make a correction by asking questions, but not by explaining himself.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that might be better. Just call the witness' attention to the particular item, and, if there is an error, he has an opportunity to correct it.
DR. DURCHHOLD: Yes, I shall ask the witness questions.
BY DR. DURCHHOLD:
Q Witness, were 229 Jews executed in Chmelnik? were some Jews.
Q Were you in Chmelnik at that time?
Q When did you hear about these executions in Chmelnik? incidents, after the executions had been carried out by the Commandant of Shmelnik.
Q Did you give this order for the executions in Chmelnik? Chmelnik.
DR. DURCHHOLD: I think this clarifies the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say, "Village Commandant" you refer to the commandant of what, of what organization?
THE WITNESS: Of the German Army, Your Honor.
Q Now I refer to Document Book II-A. This is Prosecution Exhibit No. 46, page 9 of the original document, Document NO-3149, Operational Report 88, of the 19th of September, 1941. I quote on page 9 of the original, first paragraph, "Between 24 August and 30 august 1941, Einsatzkommando 5 carried through 157 executions by shooting comprising Jews, officials, and saboteurs." Witness, what is your comment on this? because during the time of this report I was in Berlin, but I would like to point out that it can be seen from the text that these are not expressly Jewish actions. In the number given, certainly, executions done by other units are also included. Maybe the erroneous reports are responsible for these figures, about which I spoke yesterday, but are responsible for these figures, about which I spoke yesterday, but I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that in this same document in the following sentence it is pointed out that a Kommando of the Higher SS and Police Leaders executed 1,303 Jews, among them 875 Jewesses of over 12 years of age.