For they could in no case prevent the orders given to them from being carried out, even if they wanted to risk their personal destruction. In this connection, the Prosecution's reference to German Military Penal Law is out of place, by which the assertion is to be proved that even according to German law a person renders himself liable to punishment by carrying out an order for the commission of a crime. For the quoted provision of the Military Penal Code has a meaning and is applicable only under the obvious condition that the man who receives such an order knows himself protected by a higher authority by which he is inthis particular case secured against the otherwise resulting consequences of a refusal to obey an order. But in our case the defendants know clearly that they could expect no such protection on the part of anyone, since, these orders originated from the highest authority of the Reich as their immediate source. It is evident that at that period the refusal to carry out an order of the Fuehrer or the attempt to frustrate the execution of such an order would have meant the death penalty for every one who would have dared to make such attempts. Moreover, there must be no doubt that whoever would have been prepared for this risk could have done this only while knowing exactly that the sacrifice of his person would have meant no change in the carrying out of the order. The conflict of conscience arising out of this fact for everybody reflecting on those things, was probably so terrible that it is today hardly possible to conceive it adequately.
But it arose only for him who did not work himself spontaneously and in full accord with the aims of his leaders. I therefore consider it to be my task as counsel for the defense of the defendant Steimle to explain from what social background the defendant comes, in what ideas he was educated, and what his opinion was concerning his task as Chief of the SS-Leitabschnitt (SS Administrative District) Stuttgart, I think it is necessary in submitting evidence to show the Tribunal also, as briefly as possible, the field of activity of the defendant Steimle in this SS Administrative District, In this way it will be seen that Steimle when he was sent to Russia, was transferred to a world that was entirely foreign to him not only externally, but particularly also as far as the essence of his task was concerned, He tried, therefore -- also in the new field of his activity -- to put into the foreground his intelligence service which he had given up at Stuttgart, I want to show hereby, in what conflict of conscience particularly he was bound to come when, after taking over his Kommando 7a in the Einsatzgruppe B, he got to know the existing orders, and in what way he tried to find a solution compatible with his conscience.
As to particulars, I will try to prove that the Kommando 7a was led by the defendant only from 7 September 1941 to 10 December 1941, because at that moment he was given leave of absence to Germany, From this leave Steimle did not return any more to Kommando 7a. He cannot be charged any more with the events that took place after his departure to Germany because he had, of course, no influence insofar -- apart from other possible points - for purely external reasons. Hereby it is interesting to state that Steimle who, for the period of his leave, with the approval of his superiors handed over the Kommando to a deputy, was definitely superseded as leader of the Kommando in the days between 10 and 15 January 1902, Nevertheless, he is still mentioned as Kommando leader 7a in the report on events No. 186 dated 13 February 1942, Exhibit No. 107. This can easily be explained by the fact that the appointment of another Kommando leader was delayed by some weeks, that the Kommando was led by a deputy, and that during this period Steimle remain registered -- merely formally on paper -- as leader of the unit.
Only by the way it may be said that the documents submitted must only lose part of their probative value by the statement of such facts.
Furthermore, I shall try to prove that the shootings that took place while he was Kommando leader -- as far as they can be ascribed to him -- concerned partisans and saboteurs. Before, by detailed interrogations, the fact which, without any doubt, was punishable according to War and International Law, had been ascertained in detail. Hereby it will become clear that the main task of the Sonderkommando 7a under Steimle had to consist just in safeguarding the German troops - engaged in serious fights -- and their rear communications from the continuous partisan raids. The special nature of the fight in the East, which was particularly characterized by a partisan war -- organized systematically by the Red Army - made other tasks of the Sonderkommando 7a less important during this period. Above all, the plan of the enemy had to be thwarted who made use of the whole population in the rear area and, in this way, intended to create an intolerable situation for the German troops. The frustration of this intention was a justified security measure and cannot be called a crime by saying that there had been only camouflage of an extermination policy concerning anti-social elements, or elements that were, racially, of inferior value.
The Prosecution has submitted no evidence whatsoever for the period in which, the defendant Steimle was Chief of Sonderkommando 4a in Einsatzgruppe C. Steimle had commanded the Sonderkommando from about the end of August 1942 to 15 January 1943. On the witness stand he will give a truthful explanation of the tasks carried out by his Kommandos (Detachment) during this period.
It will be our further task to examine more closely the probative value of the reports on events (Ereignismeldungen) presented by the Prosecution. In this we will have to pay special attention to the fact that these reports contain no description of the facts by the defendant himself, but that they are combined reports written in the Reich Main Security Office, which were based on individual reports of the Einsatzgruppen, which, in their turn, were summaries of the reports of the Kommandos.
At least in the Reich Main Security Office this work of utilizing reports was done by men unfamiliar with the local combat area and who already for this reason were prone to mix things up, often in the crudest manner. Therefore, if we want to ascertain to what extent each single defendant took part in all the actions in question, it is of decisive importance to examine whether, and how far, he had altogether any share in the events described in the reports concerning him. The mere contents of reports on events can by no means be of decisive importance in this connection.
The Defense in this trial confronted with a task of enormous difficulty. On the one hand we find horrible and cool figures which cannot be explained away though they are not correct in every single case; on the other hand we see the men in the dock who, enmeshed in the net of the machinery of a Dictatorship, were put in their position by an inexorable order and are now made responsible for things they have not devised and which did not originate in their own responsibility. May the Defense in its case in chief succeed in establishing the facts in accordance with the truth, and thus assist in facilitating a just verdict of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT:In view of the lateness of the hour, I doubt the succeeding counsel would be able to finish his opening statement before recess time, which is 4:30, so the Tribunal will now be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30 o'clock.
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is in recess until 0930, tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930, 7 October 1947)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Otto Ohlendorf, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 7 October 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Musmanno, presiding.
THE MARSHAL:The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. II-A.
Military Tribunal No. II-A, is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT:Will the Marshal ascertain if the defendants are present in Court?
THE MARSHAL:May it please your Honors, the defendants Rasch and Strauch are absent because of illness. The defendants Ohlendorf, Jost, Schulz and Blume are absent at their own request.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. The record will so indicate.
MR. WALTON:Your Honors, yesterday during the session it was stated by counsel for the defense that they had not received a copy of the affidavit of Biberstein, which the Prosecution contends was served on them by specified date, in obedience to direction of the Tribunal. I am ready to produce a signed receipt by an employee of the office of Dr. Bergold, with a copy in the German language that the affidavit of Ernst Emil Heinrich Biberstein made on the 25th day of June 1947 at Iselheide, has been received by that office on the 3rd day of October. I shall be glad to show this to the representative of Dr. Bergold's office, or Dr. Bergold if he is present.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
MR. WALTON:If the Court desires to see it I will present it to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT:It will not be necessary for us to see it. Your word is sufficient. I think both Dr. Bergold and Dr. Ficht are absent this morning. In fact they asked me to allow them to present their opening statements at a later order.
When their representatives do arrive I will appreciate your showing it to them.
MR. WALTON:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Now we are ready to proceed with the further interrogation of Mr. Wartenberg by counsel who desire to avail themselves of that privilege.
DR.HEIM: (For the defendant Blobel).
CROSS EXAMINATION In Document book 1 of the Prosecution, on page 195 of the German text, there is Document No. NO-3824, Exhibit 31, an affidavit by defendant Blobel of 6 June 1947.
Q (By Dr. Heim) Witness, did youcheck this affidavit of defendant Blobel on the 6th of June 1947.
AYes, counsel, I have an affidavit in front of me dated 6 June 1947, signed by Paul Blobel.
QIs this affidavit an excerpt from a longer, former interrogation of defendant Blobel?
AIt is.
QDid you, on the basis of an excerpt of a former interrogation, make this affidavit yourself, or rather had it made by another gentleman of the Prosecution?
AThat is correct.
QWitness, did you make it yourself?
AYes.
QThis affidavit which you made, you then gave to the defendant Blobel to sign, is that correct?
AThat is correct.
QDid the defendant Blobel before signing this affidavit state that he wished to alter this affidavit submitted to him on various points, or rather to complete it?
AThat is not correct, in the way you just put it, counsel.
I am just looking for my record. On the 6th of June 1947, the day when that affidavit was signed, I had the defendant Blobel in my office, I checked his identity, and then I told him that I consolidated his interrogations of 26 and 27 May, and I told him to read it. through, to make all corrections he wanted to, and to sign it. This was in the morning between ten and eleven hundred. My record further shows that the witness read it and trade corrections, and because of a number of additions this declaration was rewritten and presented to the defendant Blobel on the very same day at fourteen thirty for signature I want to indicate by that, that the defendant Blobel had all possibilities to make changes. I have changes of this particular interrogation in my files.
QWitness, did you not say to defendant Blobel that the text as it stood should not be changed in principle?
AI doubt that I have made such a statement; and I want again to refer to my record - that between ten and eleven hundred this statement was presented to the defendant Blobel as I first put it down; that he made his corrections; that I had it rewritten; with all his alterations; and in the afternoon of the same day it was again presented to him. I think that shows to you that the defendant Blobel had every chance of making the alterations he wanted to make.
QWitness, you did not answer my question. I asked you, did you explain to defendant Blobel that the affidavit as submitted to him should not be changed in principle? I ask you to answer this question.
ADefinitely not, because - I want to refer again what I have just said: That I presented him an affidavit in the morning, when he did make the changes. If I would have told the defendant Blobel that he was not permitted to make any changes in that affidavit there would not have been any reason to rewrite it and present it to him the afternoon of the very same day.
QWitness, - did you, before your interrogations, point out to defendant Blobel that also according to American law He had the right to refuse to sign as witness concerning statements which would incriminate himself?
AAt that time, when I had my first conversation with the defendant Blobel, he was for me just an interrogatee, and I never have instructed an interrogate that he may refuse testimony.
QWitness, can you tell me whether, according to American law-- it is not the same as in German law that a witness may refuse to act as witness if he incriminates himself by his testimony?
MR. FERENCZ:He is asking Wartenberg questions about American law which he is not qualified to answer.
THE PRESIDENT:That may be. Very well, what did you want to say? Dr. Heim?
DR. HEIM:In my opinion it was the duty of Mr. Wartenberg, to inform the defendant that according to procedure practized here, i.e., to American law he had the right to refuse testimony concerning facts which might incriminate himself. If Mr. Wartenberg interrogated Blobel he should, as an interrogator, have informed the defendant about the American law and he should know about it.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Heim, this is a legal argument which in due time you may present to the Tribunal.
You have Mr. Wartenberg here for the purpose of ascertaining the facts. Ascertain just what physically and objectively happened. And if, from these facts, you fell that you have been aggrieved - well, of course in due time you will address yourself to the Tribunal. But this is not the time to argue a question of law - and especially with the witness.
DR. HEIM:Thank you.
Q (By Dr. Heim) Witness, if I understood you correctly, the defendant Blobel was not informed by you of the right to refuse testimony?
AHe has not been informed that he has the right to refuse testimony?
AHe has not been informed that he has the right to refuse testimony, but the defendant Blobel did not refuse to answer any questions I put to him.
THE PRESIDENT:Was there at any time, Mr. Wartenberg, any indication from the interrogatee that he was reluctant to converse with you on any subject which you introduced for discussion?
WITNESS:At the first interrogation I had with the defendant Blobel, according to my information he was lying. He did not give me the proper indentification of his units, and so on. During the second interrogation he changed his mind and gave me his full story of the units, without any reservatiob, as taken down in the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT:You did not answer my question. I said, during the time that you talked with the defendant - at that time not a defendant - did he indicate, or evince any reluctance to converse with you on any subject which you presented for the purpose of discussion?
WITNESS:No, Sir, he did not.
BY DR. HEIM:
QWitness, during the interrogation, did you tell the defendant Blobel a swear word such as "pig"?
AI told him that in my opinion he is a liar. I do not recall having used the word "pig."
QWitness, at the time when Blobel was submitted the affidavit, did you explain to him that the points mentioned were taken out of the context by you, and that further explanations were still necessary?
AThe defendant Blobel had, after the first affidavit was taken, an additional interrogation; and after that additional interrogation a further affidavit had been prepared. So the defendant Blobel had ample time to add, for the preparation of the second affidavit, any points not covered in the first one.
QWitness, the second affidavit of defendant Blobel deals entirely with the so-called Action Water Cases, that is, the action of the Foereign Office No. 5. It has nothing to do with the first affidavit of 6 June.
I would like to ask you, at the time did you explain the defendant Blobel that he would still have an opportunity to correct the affidavit of 6 June; and if so, did you give Blobel the opportunity to make the corrections Blobel requested?
AI do not recall that the defendant Blobel requested any additions; but even in case he did he could have requested to put certain questions which have not been properly explained, into the affidavit of 18 June 1947.
QIs this statement of the 18th of June which you just mentioned, also an except of a longer interrogation of the defendant Blobel?
AYes, counsel, it is.
QDid you also make out this affidavit of the 18th of June?
AYes, I did.
QDuring the interrogation, before making out this affidavit did you ask defendant Blobel, about the facts which were subjects of the interrogation, for the affidavit of 6 June 1947?
AI do not think so, but the defendant would have had the chance to speak up and tell me if he wanted to have any additional points in it.
QThat will be enough. Witness, under figure 7 of the affidavit of 6 June, on page 162 of the German document book No. 1, it reads in the second line, and I quote:
"In September or October 1941 1 received from Einsatzgruppe C under Dr. Rasch, a gas van, and execution was carried out by means of a gas van."
During the interrogation, did the defendant Blobel explain to you that the gas van of SK 4a was never used, but that he, that is Blobel - had seen the gas van used with another unit?
AI would have to check this statement against the interrogation because I do not recall every single item off-hand, which was mentioned in any of the affidavits I have taken; but even if that would have been the fact, as you stated, counsel, then Blobel had the chance of making the corrections.
I definitely have given every single man who wanted to make additions or corrections to the affidavits the chance to do so.
QWitness, do you have the affidavit in front of you?
AYes, counsel.
QI would like to ask you to look up figure 6 of the affidaviton page 161, Document Book 1 in the German text. It there reads, I quote:
I witnessed several mass executions, and in two cases I was ordered to direct the executions.
In August or September 1941 an execution took place near Korosten, where 700 to 1,000 men were shot, and there Dr. Rasch was present."
Witness, I would like to ask you, after making out the affida vit yourself, in the second sentence concerning the execution in Korosten, did you wish to explain that these executions were conducted by defendant Blobel - because, according to the previous statement one could assume that.
ACounsel, I never tried to express my own opinion in these affidavits. I just repeated the statements the defendant had made during an interrogation. If he told me exactly as it is stated here, that there was an execution, and Dr. Rasch was also present - then these are the facts he told me. That is what I put down. I do express my own opinion ... if Dr. Rasch was present, or if Dr. Rasch was in charge, or if Blobel was in charge.
QWitness, I believe you misunderstood me. If one look at the so twosentences which I just read out, one can see quite clearly that these two sentences somehow are taken out of the contest and put together.
I would like to ask you - did you, when making out this affidavit, take individual sentences within the long interrogation of Blobel and put them together?
AI am trying right now to find that out of my record, what the defendant said.
If it please the Tribunal, I would like to read some excerpts of that interrogation, in Germna, to bring out the points:
Question 73: "Were you also present during an execution?
"A Yes, by Korosten."
"Question 86 of the same interrogation, on the same subject.
"Who gave the command for shooting?
AThe Commander at the time.
QAnd you supervised?
AYes, I watched it, and avoided excesses."
DR. HEIM:Your Honor, I believe if the witness gives us sentences from the interrogation of Blobel taken out of the contest, picture in my opinion the same/is given as is given in the affidavit.
I would like co ask the Tribunal, and make a special request, that the interrogation of defendant Blobel, on which the affidavit of 6 June is based, be made available to me because, in my opinion, a great number of questions arise out of that to be put to the witness.
MR. WALTON:I would like to be heard here before the Tribunal makes its decision on that request, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:You may proceed.
MR. WALTON:At this time another request is entered with the Tribunal to have the stenographic transcription of an actual interrogation. To grant this request, your Honors, would be in effect throwing open the files of the Prosecution to the entire defense counsel. We believe, first of all, that such applications for the prosecution's records of pre-trial investigations should be denied on principle, because these investigations concern others, besides defendants in the dock, and these others may be those against whom indictments are contemplated, Also, it will prejudice the Prosecution's case against the present defendants unduly, and it goes far beyond the statutory time of notice.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Walton, let me interrupt. I would like to suggest to defense counsel the following: He has before him the interrogator, and he has at his disposal the interrogatee. He can question his client at length whenever he desires, and he has the witness here who conducted the interrogation, and defense counsel may put to him any questions which he desires. Defense counsel has, in addition, the document, which is the only piece of evidence before the Court, namely, the statement, so we see no reason why it is necessary to go into collateral matters when the whole field of inquiry is open before you. We have no desire, and will not permit, that the defense counsel not be given every opportunity in the world to present their defense, but at the same time we don't want the proceedings to be unnecessarily protracted with questioning and investigations which will, in the end, produce no more than what is before us.
Wow, you have Mr. Wartenberg here before you. You can put any questions before him which is relevant, which you desire.
DR. HEIM:Thank you.
BY DR. HEIM:
QWitness, having the interrogation of Blobel in front of you, I would like to ask you that while looking at the interrogation to answer me the following questions: In Figure 6 of the affidavit there are contained two sentences which I have read. You have read the sentences; you have these sentences in front of you. Can you tell me whether these two sentences are excerpts from an interrogation of Blobel which occured in immediate succession, or, whether Blobel made these two statements concerning the executions at different stages of your interrogation.
AAs far as I recall it happened that the defendant Blobel only at a later time wanted certain names added to the interrogation. I do not recall exactly how it was at this point, but I recall that in the first affidavit which was presented to him in the morning of the 6th of June that we made changes by adding several names on which the defendant Blobel insisted. I cannot definitely tell you if it was also at this point, but as far as I can see right now on my interrogation report he did not mention at that time the presence of Dr. Rasch.
QWitness, may I interrupt you. Not being able to look into the interrogation of the defendant Blobel, and since the Tribunal permitted me to address questions in that respect. I would like to ask you to answer my previous question, It is based on the interrogation of Blobel. Can you determine whether Blob el concerning the two first sentences under Figure 6, said these two sentences in his affidavit in immediate succession or whether the two sentences are taken out of two different stages of the affidavit.
AThey are taken out of two different stages. As I said before, when he spoke during the interrogation of that execution) I have not the name of Dr. Rasch mentioned, and as far as I recall it, Blobel insisted later on after he was presented with the first affidavit to add a number of names.
QWitness, the examination can be shortened very much if you will answer the following question: Are these individual sentences taken out of different parts of the interrogation and did you then put them together?
ACounsel, I just stated that I have the name of Dr. Rasch not mentioned at this place of the interrogation.
QWitness, you did not answer my questions. I asked you in general concerning this affidavit of 6th June, did you state the individual sentences of the defendant Blobel and join them in this statement?
AIn general, yes.
QThen, I only have a few more questions to you. Did Defendant Blobel tell you that the figures concerning the executions in Kiev were not correct as seem from the operation report?
AThat is correct, and in paragraph 8, the last sentence expresses that fact.
QWitness, did the defendant Blobel tell you that the figure maintained by the Prosecution of 60,000 executions as stated in the operation report SKVA, was not correct?
AThe defendant Blobel stated that the figures are too high. In the last paragraph, the last sentence of paragraph 5 of his affidavit he states that the figure is between 10,000 and 15,000 persons which were executed by Sonderkommando IV-A, and in the last sentence of paragraph 8 in regard to the figure of Kiev he states that according to his opinion only half of the figure would be correct.
QIn this connection, witness, did Blobel say that the figures given by him of ten to fifteen thousand was the figure which SK IVA was at all connected with?
AI would like to read that sentence in German. "According to a superficial estimation, the correctness of which I cannot guarantee, I think that the number of people executed in participation of Commando IV-A was somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000.
QFurther oral explanations which might not have been taken down in writing which Blobel made, you don't remember?
AThe defendant Blobel told me that sometimes he was sick in the hospital.
QWitness, under Figure 7 of the affidavit of 5th June, the first sentence reads; I quote: "Sonderkommando IV-A also shot women and children." can you still remember whether Blobel gave this explanation concerning the entire activity for all the time of Kommando IV-A; or, whether he told you during the interrogation that this statement merely concerned Kiev.
AI will try to find that paragraph, but basically, when I took the affidavit, I did not consider it important if that happened only once or if it happened more often. I was concerned with the fact that the Kommando had killed women and children. As to the defendant Blobel's statement how often, I will try to find out right now. I asked him the question: "were women and children also shot?" his answer was: "on one occasion women and children were also shot."
QWitness, may I ask you to what time does this statement of Blobel's refer -- which occurrence?
AThat statement was made in general; not on a specific incident, because just before we were talking about they way of preparing reports.
QWitness, now one more point. The figure 9 of the affidavit of the 6th June; was the defendant Blobel asked by you who during his absence was Blobel's deputy?
AYes, he was asked that question.
QCan you still remember the reply Blobel gave you?
AI think that became evident pretty clearly out of the second part of paragraph 9, because on this point I definitely recall it that the defendant Blobel insisted on adding certain names to the affidavit. As far as I recall right now, offhand, the names mentioned here, namely, Dr. Rasch, Radetzky and Dr. Bayer. Either all three of them or part of them had been added by Blobel when the affidavit was presented to him in its original form in the morning of the 6th of June, I recall this incident definitely that he stated he wants to have these names in.
QWas not Blobel asked by you at the time who was the senior leader in the Sonderkommando IV-A after Blobel?
AThat is quite possible.
QDo you still remember the reply?
AI don't recall it, but may be you can help me with the facts and may be I can confirm it.
QDid Blobel reply that the senior leader might have been Radetzky?
AThat is quite possible.
QDid Blobel during an interrogation tell you that Radetzky was his deputy during his absence; did he say that expressly?
AIt is possible, but I cannot tell it offhand. I cannot find this passage right now in the interrogation, but I think that he mentioned the name of Radetzky; he definitely asked me to put the name of Radetzky into the affidavit.
QOne more question, please, witness. Did Blobel express to you during the interrogation the possibility that Radetzky was Blobel's deputy during Blobel's absence?
AYes, he did,
QNow, my last question. Under Figure 9 of the affidavit of the 6th June, at the very end, during Blobel's absence three different persons were his deputies. I quote: "Under their command a number of mass-executions were carried out." Witness, do you know for sure that Blobel explained this to you, at the time, because in my opinion he could not have learned who was his deputy at Sonderkommando IV-A during his absence?
AI do not recall this fact that he stated he did not know who was there during his absence, but I would like to point out that I did not believe that Dr. Rasch, the commanding officer of an Einsatzgruppe would be the deputy of a Kommando-leader; but anyhow, as the defendant Blobel wanted to have that point in his affidavit, it was put in, although I figured it improbable; but anything whatever a defendant or at that time an interrogates wanted to have in his affidavit was put in.
DR. HEIM:Thank you; I have no further questions.
MR. WALTON:I have one or two questions to ask on the Blobel interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT:Certainly.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WALTON:
QMr. Wartenberg, when you took certain facts which the Defense Counsel for Blobel has spoken of as sentences from the interrogation of the interrogates Blobel, did you do anything at that time any different than you did from other interrogations?
ANo, not at all.
QDid you after you had excerpted these sentences or facts, did you submit these sentences or facts in the form of an affidavit to the now defendant Blobel?
AYes, I did.
QWas he allowed to make corrections and changes as he so desired?
AYes, he did.
QAfter he had made the changes and corrections did he signify his willingness to sign the changed or corrected, affidavit?
AYes, he did.
QDid he sign it?
AHe signed it in my presence.
QDid he demur or object to signing it after he had corrected it?
ANo, he did not.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. HEIM:
QWitness, I have one more question. Did you let defendant Blobel make any corrections he wished to make?
ACertainly, yes.
QDid you not explain to him that the text had to remain essentially as it stood?
ANo. As I have explained before, because he had a number of objections, we re-wrote the whole affidavit; and I am not quite sure, it is very possible, that I dictated the new affidavit even in his presence, but I am not sure on that point, But anyhow, as he did not accept the first draft of the affidavit, a new affidavit was prepared in the afternoon and that was just done to the effect that the defendant Blobel could make all corrections he wanted to.
QDid the defendant Blobel make some more alterations in this second draft of the affidavit?
ANo, he did not.
DR. HEIM:Thank you. I have no further questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL (Attorney for the Defendants Ott and Schubert):
QI would like to ask a few questions concerning the affidavit Ott, which is the last document, in Document Book II-B, as Exhibit 67, MO-2993. Witness, was this affidavit Ott of the 24th July, 1947, formulated by you?
AI have the affidavit in front of me of the 24th of April, 1947.
QWas it formulated by you?
AYes. it was.
QDid you make this affidavit based on the statements by Ott at previous interrogations?
AThat is correct.
QWhen did this interrogation take place?
AOn the 21st of February, 1947, between 1000 and 1110 hours.
QDo you have on exact record of the interrogation of the 21st of February 1947?
AYes, I do.
QMay I presume that all points of the affidavit are contained in the records of the interrogation?
AYes, I think so.
QAre there some more detailed statements in the record of the interrogation than in the affidavit?
AYes. Usually the interrogation is much more detailed end after certain points which were not quite clear had been always cleared, basically, they were put into the affidavit in a clear and precise form.
QWhat statements does the record of the interrogation contain about his start of the work and the time when the Kommando was actually taken over by Ott? I ask this in connection with Figure 3 of the affidavit.
AI have there the statement where he says that he was also in Russia from the 15th of February, 1942 until January, 1943, mainly with headquarters in Orel.