He has told us all that.
DR. MAYER:Your Honor, I only wanted to make sure that it was taken in the record, that is the answer. But I withdraw the question.
THE PRESIDENT:I think it is adequately in the record, you need not worry about that.
DR. MAYER:Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:If it is not in the record, we will get after these court reporters. BY DR. MAYER:
QIn your two affidavits, which were made by you before Mr. Wartenberg, you mentioned these executions in Tatarsk, but you didn't say that three women were also shot, as the document showed. Can you explain to the Tribunal why you didn't speak of these happenings?
AThe case of Tatarsk and with all these details had escaped my memory somewhat, when I gave the first and second affidavits. It was only when I looked at the documents submitted by the Prosecution that I suddenly remembered about the three women. These three women whom I has shot in Tatarsk, I had forgotten, because of my own personal attitude which was against the shooting of innocent people, and, of course, especially against the shooting of women and children. I constantly had in my mind the two-hundred women who were re-installed in the Ghetto in Tatarsk.
QWhat was the guilt that was proven against these three women?
AThere were statements of witnesses, and other statements of the Jewish Council, and they were found guilty of having established connection with the Partisans, and having taken active part in the mutiny.
THE PRESIDENT:Witness, you say that when you made up this affidavit, or when you signed it, after you had read it, that you forgot that you had killed three women. Now as difficult as it is to believe that one who had sent to their death three women could forget so horrible an episode in his life, it seems even a little more difficult to understand how you could make reference to women in your statement, and then not mention that you had killed three women, because your statement contains, "Although I had orders to shoot women and children too I did not comply with this part of the order."
It is not a matter of forgetting, it is a matter of distinct negation. Explain that?
ANo, Your Honor, when I was interrogated for the first time, I was so nervous and excited that I had no proper perspective of what had happened at the time, and even later, I can not explain, but I am now stating it quite openly and honestly and frankly that I had not remembered these three women. It was only when I saw this document, it immediately struck me that there were also three women among those people executed at Tatarsk, and , that at the moment I suddenly remembered the further details of the whole affair.
QWas it because when you finally realized there was documentary evidence of the fact that you saw three women mentioned, that then you suddenly realized that you had shot three women, was that the reason?
ANo, Your Honor, that is, of course how it looks, no doubt.
QThe interrogator, Mr. Wartenberg, must have asked you, did you shoot any women and children? Did he ask you that question?
AHe asked me whether I had shot any women and children; thereupon, I told him at the time that on principle my attitude was against the shooting of women and children; in this connection I said that I led them back into the Ghetto, because I remembered, as I said, this picture of the two-hundred women and children.
QDid you remember the picture of the three women standing before these ten men out in the woods, ready to go to their Creator, with their graves dug close by; did you remember that picture?
AI didn't take part in the execution, Your Honor.
QYou remembered the picture of your telling the NCO to shoot them at ten places, to blindfold them; don't take away their clothing, Do you remember that picture?
ANo, I didn't remember it at the time. I didn't remember any of these details.
QNow this happened in 1942, didn't it?
ANo, that was in 1941, Q 1941, and how long did it take you to recall this episode of the shooting of the three women.
Now many years had to go by before your brain finally revolved and came to the point where it could recollect this picture of three women about to be shot. How long did it take you to recall that?
AI can not state that, I don't know.
QWhen did you first remember that you shot the three women?
AI remembered the very first time when my defense counsel showed me this document to the effect that in Tatarsk, apart from those thirty men were also three women who were shot; at the moment I remembered these three women. Before that it had all disappeared from my memory, I didn't remember it. I cannot explain it.
QSix Years later you remembered it?
AYes.
QIt was not until your counsel called it to your attention, then you said, " By Joe", that is right, they killed three women?
ANo.
QWell, what did you do when he called it to your attention that you had killed three women , and how did you acquaint him with the fact that now you remembered that you killed three women. What was your reaction?
AWell, I was shocked.
QYou were shocked that they had made the report?
ANo, Your Honor, I was shocked because I , although I attempted to tell the truth, had omitted to tell that originally, that I had forgotten these three women, and, therefore, I was suspected of having made a false affidavit and embezzled these three women, as it were, that was the shock that I had.
THE PRESIDENT:Is that the right word,"embezzled"?
THE WITNESS:That was I didn't name these three women. That this can be regarded as my bad intention, that is what I meant, that was my reaction when these three women cropped up.
QYou remembered then that you had made either an incorrect or false statement to Mr. Wartenberg?
AAn incomplete statement. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well, thank you. Shall we recess, Dr.Mayer, or is there something you want to say?
DR. MAYER:No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 12 December '47)
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Otto Ohlendorf, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on December 12, 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Musmanno, presiding.
THE MARSHAL:The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
DR.SCHWARZ: (Attorney for the defendant stein) I would like the defendant Sandberger be excused from attendance in court this afternoon. I ask this for Defense Counsel Stein, who is not here. He wants to prepare his document books.
THE PRESIDENT:The Defendant Sandberger will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
DR. KRAUSE:Deputizing for Ridieger for the Defendant Haensch. Your Honor, I have the same request concerning the Defendant Haensch. He needs him also in order to prepare document books and ask him to be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT:The Defendant Haensch will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
DR. MAYER:For Klingelhoefer.
THE PRESIDENT:Would you mind awaiting just a moment or two, Dr. Mayer, until a member of the prosecution arrives?
DR. MAYER:Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Thank you.
You may proceed, Dr. Mayer.
WALDEMAR KLINGELHOEFER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. MAYER (Attorney for the defendant Klingelhoefer):
QWitness, as the last document, I take from Document Book II-A, page 41 of the English, page 39 of the German, Document NO-3403, Exhibit No. 63. It is the Report of Events No. 125 of 26 October 1941 and on Court No. II, Case No. IX.
page 4 of the original for Staff and VKM, a figure of shootings of 2457 is mentioned, an increase of 428 shootings, as compared with the Report of Events No, 108, discussed before. What can you tell us about this.
AAbout this summarized report of the shootings of the Group Staff and the VKM I have to say the same as I have said before. At that time I was not a member of the VKM any more but belonged to the Group Staff. In the Group Staff I belonged to Department SD where I had nothing to do wit other tasks, except the three missions which I have already mentioned in detail which I carried out on orders from Nebe or from Naumann because of this special situation and the special circumstances. The figures of shootings I can merely explain this way: That I assume that the persons executed in Tatarsk, these 30 Jewish men and the 3 Jewish women are contained in this total report.
QHave you told us about all events of shootings in which you participated or which you witnessed?
AYes, except those cases which I mentioned, I took part in no other executions, nor did I have them carried out, nor did I witness them.
QI have another question about a point which came up when Naumann was questioned on the witness stand. You know that the Defendant Naumann, after he arrived here in prison, gave you a sheet of paper. What did you do with this note?
AThis note I did not read and sent it on to the interrogator, Mr. Wartenberg, without reading it and enclosed it in an envelope, with a letter.
QWhat way was the accompanying letter worded?
AAs far as I can remember, I wrote there, among other things, the following, approximately: "Enclosed, I forward to you a note given to me on 3 July, after the evening walk, handed to me by Erich Naumann." I refuse to do such things. I did not open it and did not know its contents.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
QWhy did you act in that manner?
MR. FERENCZ:Your Honor, the witness has been purporting to give us the contents of a note he sent to Mr. Wartenberg. He said he has given it to us to the best of his memory. I have the original of that note here and request that the witness, if he intends to give the contents, he give the complete contents and not that part of it he recalls and that is a very small part, be admitted into the record.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, Mr. Ferencz, you will have the opportunity to cross-examine him on that very statement, on that letter. Proceed, Dr. Mayer.
Q (By Dr. Mayer) What was your motive in acting that way?
ARight from the beginning during my interrogations in Nurnberg, I tried to say the pure truth and describe everything as it actually happened. It is my opinion that when Naumann gave me such a note this was in order to induce me to make certain statements which did not conform with the truth. I could not answer for such action which are in conflict with my conscience.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
QWhy could you suddenly decide that Naumann wanted you to perjure yourself without seeing the note?
AI did not quite get the question.
QYou say that you immediately concluded that because Naumann has sent you a note that he was going to try to induce you to say something which was not the truth. Why should you come to that conclusion without reading the note?
AYour Honor -
DR. MAYER:Your Honor, may I interrupt here. I think there was a mistake in the translation. Perhaps the reply could be repeated and retranslated.
Q (By the President) Yes, Witness, you started that when you received this note from Naumann , you refused to read it because you Court No. II, Case No. IX.
assumed that Naumann wanted you to tell an untruth. How could you determine that Naumann was endeavoring to persuade you to perjure yourself without seeing the note?
AYour Honor, this was a spontaneous reaction, because if a note is given to me secretly, I must assume that somebody is trying to induce me to do something.
QWell, had Naumann ever lied to you before?
ANo, certainly not.
QWell, then, why should you suddenly assume that he was going to lie in this note.
AWell, because of the general situation, I thought so. I had never met Naumann in such a situation.
QHad Naumann attempted to communicate with you before or give you any sign or any indication that he was going to transmit a message to you?
AYes, he told me before that he wanted to let me have a note which I had to read.
QAnd what more did he say?
AHe said nothing else. He merely said he had written a note for me and I absolutely had to read it.
QDid he tell you what he was going to put in the note? Did he indicate the subject matter of the note?
ANo, he did not tell me that. There was no possibility to talk during that time.
QThen, just because he told you he was going to send you a note and you received a note from someone, who had never been unfriendly to you, you concluded that he was going to ask you to do something wrong?
AYes, because I assumed in general that a note is written in order to induce me to make false statements. That was my personal assumption.
QIs that the only reason a note is written?
AI thought so, Your Honors. In the state I was in at the moment -I was very nervous at the time --, of course, I reacted to this in that manner, that I objected to it.
THE PRESIDENT:Proceed, Dr. Mayer.
DIRECT EXAMINATION -- Continued BY DR. MAYER:
QI now talk about your work in Office VI of the RSHA, after you were ordered back from Russia on 20 December, 1943. When did you start to work in Office VI?
AAt the end of January, 1944 I started to work in Office VI, after my leave from the Russian assignment had expired.
QWhat did you do Office VI?
AIn Office VI, I was assigned to Group VIC. This Group Detachment dealt with the subject of Eastern Europe; the so-called "Operation Zeppelin" was part of it, which included Department VI-C, 1 to 3. I worked in the Department VI-2. In this department we worked on evaluation of the information material, namely, concerning Russia. After starting to work there for the "Operation Zeppelin" at first, I remained there in Berlin for a few days for general information and after that, as far as information work was concerned, I was ordered to Special Department VI-C2, in a special camp. This special camp had to cope with the first systematic work on the incoming Russian material which was received at Berlin, sent to the camp and then it returned to Berlin where work was continued. This utilization work was done by Russian specialists of all departments who were under the charge of a German expert who spoke Russian. These Russian specialists mostly were formerly POW's who on account of the "Operation Zepplin" had been selected from POW camps. Recruiting of Russian POW's was done on a voluntary basis. The Russians thus selected were released by the Army for the Operation Zeppelin and were released from captivity as POW's. There were not considered POW's any more in working for the "Operation Zeppelin" but they were considered foreign co-workers of the RSHA. They were paid according to a special day order. They had free housing, free clothing, and free food. They were allowed to move about freely and apart from the neutral uniform for work, they received civilian clothes for their spare time and they could move about freely without supervision. Roll calls or any measures of a military nature were not held, as there was nothing similar to a military manner at all, because that work was purely scientific so that these Russian xco-workers would not feel they were forced to work.
After a training period of about three months I was put in charge of this special department, being instructed that questions of war economics and armament were going to be dealt with by this special de partment and that it was to be extended to all other domestic spheres in Russia.
That means from then onwards cultural, inner political and other problems of public life in Russia were to be dealt with. At that time the department was called Sonderlager L, Special Camp L. This "L" here stands for "Lebensgebiet," which is domestic sphere.
In September 1944, I received instructions from Berlin that this camp was to be transferred from Breslau to Upper Austria in a camp of the Labor Service near Gross-Hollenstein, where I continued to work until it was dissolved in April 1945.
QWhat happened to the Russian experts when the camp was dissolved?
AThe Russian experts, on their own request, were either sent to the Labor Office in Linz, or, at their own request, they were given an opportunity to volunteer for the Zlasow Army.
QWitness, as defense counsel for the Defendant Steimle, I have a question. In a document the locality Zadrudub is mentioned. This is Document NO-316, Exhibit 65 in Document II-B, English page 54, German page.48, page 1 of the original. This locality Zadrudub is not mentioned on any map. You yourself know the Russian language; could you tell me from what this name originates?
AThe word, "Zadrudub" appears to me to be a remnant of a word, because the word makes no sense. "Dub" in Russian means "oak", but a word on the basis of "Zadru" does not exist in the Russian language, but I know that the word "Starudub" or "Starudubsk" exists as a Russian town name. The meaning of thiw work in both cases would mean "Old Oak". "Zadrudub" I consider a corruption of "Starudub" or "Starudubsk."
Q "Starudub" actually is between Gomel and Orel; Would you know which kommando operated in this territory?
AI know that in the territory, Gomel, Bryansk, and Orel, the Special Kommando 7B was the only one operating there.
DR. MAYER:Your honor, this concludes my direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Mayer, in connection with your last question, do we understand that the witness says that in his opinion there is no such town called Zadrudub, and that in his opinion the town referred to is "Starudub?"
Is that what his explanation was?
DR. LAYER:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. Any other defense counsel desiring to cross-examine please advance to the podium.
EXAMINATION BY THE DR. KINNERT (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT NAUMAN):
QWitness, where did you get to know the Defendant Nauman first?
AIn Smolensk.
QWhen was this?
AThat was between the 20th and the 25th of November approximately.
QCan you remember this time exactly and why can you remember this particularly?
AI was on an official trip from Gshatsk to Smolensk and had an accident and therefore I had to remain in Smolensk for six days for medical treatment. Therefore, I remember this time so exactly.
QDuring that time, was Naumann's predecessor, Nebe, still in Smolensk?
AYes.
QDid you see Nebe yourself during those days?
AYes, I reported to Nebe when I arrived.
QDo you know when Nebe left Smolensk?
AI don't know exactly, because those six days which I stayed in Smolensk I had to stay in bed and did not know anything of events happening outside my room. I therefore must assume he left during those six days.
QDo you have any further recollection confirming this period?
AYes, after staying in Smolensk for six days, I traveled with Nauman to Gshatsk, that is, Nauman only went as far as Jasma and the following day he followed me to Gshatsk.
QAnd when did Naumann visit you in Gshatsk?
AThat must have been on 29th or 30th of November.
QWhen and why did you see Naumann again?
AI met Naumann again on Christmas Day 1941 when I returned from leave, and went to the Group-staff in Smolensk.
QWhen did you start your leave?
AI started this leave immediately after Naumann's visit in Gshatsk, on 2nd of December 1941.
QThe read from Gshatsk goes right by Smolensk, doesn't it? When going on leave while passing through Smolensk, did you visit Naumann's office?
AYes.
QDid you meet Naumann on that occasion?
ANo.
QAnd why not?
ANaumann was not present in his office, and on inquiry I was told that Naumann was on a journey visiting commanders.
QWhat day was this?
AThat was on 2 December 1941.
QOne further question. Did you ever receive any execution orders from Naumann?
ANo.
Dr. KINNERT: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Is there any defense counsel desires to cross examine? If not, Mr. Ferencz may conduct the cross examination for the Prosecution.
CROSS_EXAMINATION BY MR. FERENCZ:
QHerr Klingelhoefer, you have been reading your answers from a typewritten sheet, is that correct?
AYes.
QWho wrote the answers for you?
AI wrote the replies.
QAnd did you type out the copy you now have in front of you?
ANo, I didn't type it. I didn't have a typewriter.
QWho typed them out for you?
AWell, my defense Counsel saw to that.
QDid you discuss your answers with the defendant Naumann before you brought them into the courtroom?
AThe answers? Well, of course, he showed the questions to me, of course, and, I answered as I would answer naturally, of course.
THE PRESIDENT:I don't think that he understand the question, Mr. Ferencz.
MR. FERENCZ:I am having a little difficulty in getting the switch on. BY MR. FERENCZ:
QMy question was, did you discuss your answers with the defendant Naumann before you read them to the Tribunal?
AThe questions Naumann gave me before, of course, and after that I wrote down the questions -- no, the answers as far as I could remember them, and then had then had them copied.
THE PRESIDENT:I don't think he still got your question correctly. BY MR. FERENCZ:
QI am not referring now to those questions which Naumann's counsel directed to you, but to all the questions which were put to you by your counsel on direct examination, Did you show him all of the questions, and all the answers that you were going to make in court?
THE PRESIDENT:Did you sow whom, ought you to say in order to make that clear. BY MR. FERENCZ:
QDid you show the defendant Naumann?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
DR. MAYER:Your Honor, I Object to those questions because I myself discussed the questions with the defendant, and, therefore, had an opportunity to discuss that examination with any other defendant.
The only question that can be put, is whether they have been discussed before.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, the Prosecution counsel certainly has the right to inquire as to whether the witness discussed his answers with the defendant Naumann. There is nothing wrong about that question, especially in view of the fact that this witness has already testified at some length about the note he had received from Naumann. The objection is overruled. BY MR. FERENCZ:
QI repeat my question. Did you discuss with the defendant Naumann the answers which you read in this court before you came into the court to testify?
AI didn't really discuss them with him. Probably I just told him what I would answer to his questions.
QI am now asking you about the other questions which were not put by Naumann's defense counsel, or are you trying to say that Naumann gave you all the questions and all the answers?
AI don't understand the questions, Mr.Prosecutor.
QYou stated that the answers which you gave to the questions of your counsel of direct examination were read by you from a type_ written sheet, which you have before you. I am sking you if you discussed all these questions and answers with the defendant Naumann before you took the stand?
AOf course, I discussed these questions with Naumann before I went into the witness stand.
QAnd did the defendant make any changes in your answers, or additions to your answers?
ANo.
DR. MAYER:I beg your pardon, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
DR. MAYER:It is like this. The defendant Klingelhoefer does not understand the question.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, but just a moment, please, the witness must answer this. It is not for counsel to indicate what he did. You will have an opportunity in redirect examination if there is something which must be cleared up because of the cross examination, but Mr. Ferencz, now, is conducting the cross examination on a certain feature of the case, which is certainly amenable to cross examination. It is not necessary for you, Dr. Mayer, at this point to make any statement. The Witness can do that. You, of course, will have the right when Mr. Ferencz finishes to clear up anything which you believe needs to be cleared up.
DR. MAYER:Yes, I merely want to point out that the defendant does not understand the questions as they are put.
THE PRESIDENT:I see, all right, now, Mr. Ferencz, in putting the questions don't use any pronouns; repeat the names of the individuals involved, and perhaps that will make it very precise and incapable of any ambiguity. BY MR. FERENCZ:
QWith what other defendants did you discuss your answers before you read them to the court?
AThe replies to Naumann you are referring to?
QI am referring to all the replies which you gave in your direct examination?
AWith no one.
QYou stated that you were a member of Sondercommando VII_B from June to 10 July 1941, is that correct?
AFrom 22 June, from the beginning of the assignment, that is, when the Commando was set up, approximately, until 10th or 11th of July, yes.
QDidn't you say in your affidavit that you were a member of the VII_B until August 1941?
ANo, I can not remember that.
QI call your attention to Document Book III_B, page 57 of the English, page 105 of the German. You will notice there in your first paragraph you state that is Document NO_4235, page 105, of the German copy, Document Book III_B.
AI don't find it here.
QWell, never mind. I shall withdraw my question if you are having difficulties. That is page 112 of the German?
AYes.
QI drew your attention to the end of the first paragraph, still on page 57 of the English copy, where you are describing your duties, and, your say that "Dr, Six was recalled to Berlin in August, and you were then transferred from VII_B to the Vorkommando_Moscow, which Six had just left."?
ANo. that is not right, Mr. Prosecutor.
QWhat did you mean by your statement in your affidavit?
AIt says here, "After this unit had reached the city of Minsk," that is 7B and the sentence before that: " Nebe transferred me to the Vorcommando_Moscow, Advance Commando Moscow." The commander of the unit at the time, Professor Dr. A Six, was recalled to Berlin in August 1941, and already in Minsck, I was transferred to Advance Commando Moscow.
QWhat did you do between 10 July and August, when you were transferred to Vorcommando_Moscow?
AI belonged to the Vorcommando_Moscow, and I prepared myself for work in Moscow, and afterwards when we had rested at Smolensk and were stationed in Smolensk for sometime, as I have already explained, I made search in the NKWD offices, and Soviet houses to evaluate material, as Six had ordered me to do.
QAnd from 10 July until August when Six left, you were working with him in Vorcommando_Moscow, is that correct?
AYes.
QReturning now to your activity in Sondercommando VII_B, you stated in your direct examination that Rausch, the commanding officer addresses the Commando before you went into Russia, and told you that the rules of war will be disregarded, is that correct?
ARausch said that the Soviet Union did not recognize International Law, didn't recognize the Hague Rules of Land Warfare and the Geneva Convection, and, therefore, we wanted to conduct our war in a ruthless manner, and would have to expect the Soviets to conduct it in a ruthless manner. He also said that the Military Law and Material Law as used by the High Command of the Army were not going to be applied.
QTherefore, before Germany invaded Russia, you were ordered to disregard the rules of war, isn't that correct?
AThat was not ordered, no. It was merely said that the Soviet Union didn't keep to the rules of war of the Geneva Convention and the Hauge Rules of Land War are, and, therefore, would not recognize them, and would not apply them.
QAt that time, you were not really at war with Russia, were you?
AWell, at the time when this was announced, I don't exactly remember that date, but it must have been on the evening before the war started.
QSo that before you started war with Russia, you were told that you would have to conduct your war ruthlessly, because Russia was not following the rules of warfare, is that correct?
A.I don't know whether this was on the eve before the war started. I don't remember the exact date when this happened. That might have been one or two days earlier, or later. We left, I believe, the day after the German troops had crossed the border. On the 21st we left Dueben, and later in the evening before this was announced to the Commando that we were going to declare war on Russia, just as the units at the border had also had this drawn to their attention, that we were going to wage war against Russia.
Q.So that all the troops had had announced to them before the war, that the rules of war would be disregarded?
A.Yes, this was announced to us. We were not told that we would not have to keep the rules of war, but that we were told the Soviet Union would not keep the rules of war, because they didn't recognize these three agreements.
Q.You told us yesterday that Rausch told you that the Army courts martial were to be disregarded, and that the rules of war were to be disregarded. Do you now change your testimony?
A.No, I merely said that the war would be conducted severely and ruthlessly.
Q.Let me read your answer to you inasmuch as you have apparently forgotten it. Your counsel said to you, following the question by the President of the Tribunal: "Q Please continue slowly" and you answered, quote: "Therefore, we had to fight them just as ruthlessly. Therefore, the war laws and courts martials were not to be applied concerning the enemy. These laws had been given by the High Command, and they were to be disregarded as far as the enemy were concerned." End of quote. Now do you intend to change your testimony on that point at this time?
A.No.
Q.You deny that you said that?
A.Yes.
Q.You, therefore, deny that you said it?
A.I didn't say that. I didn't say it like that.
Q.Yes certainly intend to change that statement at this time then?
A.No, not at all. What I said, once more, was not that martial law was not going to be adhered to, as far as I remember, I said that the enemy, that is, the Soviet Union did not recognize the argeements, and, therefore, we had to expect a ruthless manner of warfare, and that, therefore, the Germans would have to conduct their war accordingly, very ruthlessly.
Q.Now I have just read to you where you said specifically, the rules of war were to be disregarded, and you have stated that the transcript is wrong in that respect, that you didn't say that. Therefore, isn't it true, that you intend to change your testimony, and say the rules of law were to be followed?
A.No, I do not want to change my testimony at all, but I never said we would not keep to the regulations of war. I merely said that we would fight severely and ruthlessly if we were to conquer our enemy.
Q.And he didn't tell you to disregard the rules of law?
A.No, that was not said.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Ferencz, may I interrupt just a moment and thus let's clear this up whether he did or didn't say what you have read to him. I have in my notes an answer as follows: "Now witness please listen to this, and tell us whether you said this or not: "we had to fight them just as ruthlessly; therefore, the war laws and the courts martial were not to be applied concerning the enemy. These laws had been given by the High Command, and were to be disregarded so far as the enemy was concerned." Now all we want is an answer as to whether or not you did or didn't say that yesterday?
THE WITNESS:I said words to that effect, your Honor, that is what I meant. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q.I read the said question just a few moments ago, and you said specifically, "no, I didn't say that."