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."
Now you say you did, which one is the truth?
Q.Well, I said, as I expressed it before, I said that Rausch said ---
Q.No, no.
A. --that the Soviet Union -
Q.I am just asking you --
A. --that the Soviet Union rejected all these laws, and, therefore, we would have to conduct the war very ruthlessly, and that the Wehrmacht -
Q.Just a moment. I am not asking you to repeat the whole story. I read the question to you. You said to me, "I didn't say that." The President of the Tribunal read the same quotation to you, and asked you if you said that, and you said, yes, you did say that, Now your answer is, well --
DR. MAYER:Your Honor, I believe that question is settled, through the reply the witness made to the President's question.
Mr. FERENCZ: Your Honor, there are two contradictory replies. I am just trying to find out which one the defendant intends to rest.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, let's ask him it direct. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q.Your answer is correct in the reply to the President, that you did say that, or the reply that you gave me, that you didn't say that, which is it?
A.Well, the reply that I made to the President is right.
Q.Thank you. You were also told at that time that Hitler had ordered that all Jews, Gypsies and Political functionaries were to be shot, is that correct?
A.Yes.
Q.Did you take an oath of allegiance to obey the orders of your Fuehrer?
A.Yes, I swore an oath like every one else.
Q.You also stated that you noticed that all the persons who heard the order had a certain conflict in their feelings, just as you did, is that correct?
DR. MAYER:Your Honor, I believe I can clear up this misunderstanding. It is due to a translation mistake. The witness said -
MR. FERENCZ:Pardon me, Your Honor, sofar there has been no misunderstanding. I just put the question to the witness, and if the defense counsel intends to read me his answer which the defendant read yesterday to the Tribunal, I object to it.
DR. MAYER:Well, no. I don't intend to read the reply, but to say that the witness spoke of material law and military law, and the translation was " Rules of warfare." That means rules of war, and the witness didn't talk of rules of war in general, but of the military and martial law.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, I think that the phrase "courts martial" was incorrectly used anyway. I don't know what it is in German, but we understand from all that has been said by the witness that he was informed that the rule of warfare as laid down by the custom of war, and also as established by International Conventions, were to be disregarded, because it was anticipated that Russia would disregard those rules. That is what I gather there by what has been said about this. That was the witness understanding. Isn't that what it amounts to?
DR. MAYER:Perhaps it it possible that the President ask the witness in view of this misunderstanding between rules of and martial laws.
THE PRESIDENT:Witness, you have heard what your counsel has stated. Now tell us very briefly, just what you understand when you went into Russia with regard to ruthless warfare?
AWell, the ruthless warfare was special severeness concerning the enemy but it did not mean that the rules of war are going to be disregarded. I only said that the martial law was not to be applied towards the enemy but that the rules of war were not going to be applied by the Germans, I did not say.
THE PRESIDENT:I think we need to have a little orientation on these phrases. Unaware of the phraseology actually being employed by the witness in German I am unable to make the correction myself if a correction is in order. But, I would suggest to the interpreter that in translating what I am now about to say that the phrases "military law, and courts martial" be used in the English with whatever explanation will be necessary later one.
Military law is the law which controls and governs the military, the Armies, the actual forces in the field.
Martial law is the law which is imposed upon a civilian population by an Army that has taken over a designated territory.
Courts martial refers only to that law and procedure which governs the inquiry and disposition of a case involving a transgression or an alleges transgression by a member of the military and the Tribunal inquiring is the military itself. So, that I don't think that courts martial enters into the discussion at all. A courts martial is handled by German officers over German soldiers. A Russian courts martial is handled by the Russian military over Russians.
Now, just before you entered Russia you were given certain instructions with regard to the manner in which the enemy would fight. Now, keeping in mind these distinctions which we have drawn, tell us very briefly now what you heard and what you did in following out those orders concerning the manner in which you were to fight the enemy.
AYour Honor, it was explained to me that the High Command of the Army for the assignment in the East excluded applying martial law and Court Martials as far as the enemy was concerned. Then we were told that the enemy, as I have already said, disregarded the agreement about the rules of warfare and, therefore, it had to be expected that they would fight ruthlessly in their warfare and that the Germans on their part would have to deal accordingly but it was not said that Germany on their own were going to disregard the rules of war.
THE PRESIDENT:I think you had better go on now, Mr. Ferencz, BY MR. FERENCZ:
QYou stated yesterday in your direct examination that after you had received the order that the Jews, gypsies, and political functionaries were to be killed you had a certain conflict in your feelings and you noticed that all who heard the order had a similar conflict, is that correct?
AYes, I had that impression.
QYou also stated that you did not discuss this order with any one, is that correct?
AYes....
QNow, if everyone - -
AI was very reserved. We talked about it but we did not discuss it. It was sad the Fushrer order would be difficult in general but --
QWhat do you mean, you talked about it but did not discuss it? Either you talked about it or you didn't talk about it.
AWell, it was mentioned briefly but no one wanted to state his opinion about it. Everyone wanted to keep his opinion to himself.
QNow, if everybody had the same opinion, that is a certain conflict, why didn't they discuss it?
AI don't know. My personal attitude was to settle the matter within myself. Whether the others did it in a different manner I don't know. In my small circle I did not see any one who started a lively discussion about this order.
QBut if you felt that all had the same opinion you had and it was in opposition to the order why were you afraid or why didn't you discuss the order with them?
ABecause there was no point in discussing this difficult matter as it could not be changed.
That was my personal opinion.
QYou felt then there was no point in discussing it because the order would have to be carried out, is that correct?
AIt was my opinion that I would have to carry out the order if a matter came to my attention which made it necessary.
QNow, how many people - - - You stated yesterday that Rausch formed three groups out of Sonderkommando VII-B, is that correct? Two you called executive groups and one group was to write reports, is that correct?
AYes.
QNow, by executive groups you mean groups which had to execute people, isn't that correct?
ANo, not at all. These are groups who have State Police members and of the Criminal Police who carry out the task of security. I said that the Kommando was given two kinds of missions. First of all, security in the rear of the Army territory and secondly, to make reports and seize material, etc.
QNow, if anybody had to carry out executions in Sonderkommando VII-B would it be these two executive groups or would it be your group which was supposed to write reports, you tell us.
AIt was intended that these executions were to be carried out by the 2 Troop Kommandos which had members of the State Police and the Criminal Police.
QIn other words, the other two groups, the executive groups, would have to carry out any executions which were carried out by Sonderkommando VII-B, is that correct?
AYes, they would have.
QThen the picture you are trying to give us of Sonderkommando VII-B is two groups carrying out executions and your group writing reports, is that correct?
AIt had been intended like that theoretically
QAnd was it that way actually in practice or was it just a theory?
AAt the beginning it was like this practice but later on this was changed because of experiences during campaigns because individual departments had to be formed where executive tasks and reporting had to be made by them. Therefore, this arrangement which Rausch made at the beginning was not regarded later on.
QSo even those who had to write reports could carry out executions and those who were to carry out executions only could write reports, is that correct?
ANo, that was not possible, Mr. Prosecutor, because ....
QWell, are you trying to say then that they were all writing report afterwards?
ANo. There were special experts, State Policemen for example, could never make SD reports. They were not able to do so as they.....
QYou told us, witness, that theoretically the organization was two groups, executive groups, that would have to carry out any executions there would be and one group to write reports. You said that in the beginning this was not only theory but practice and later it changed. Now the only way it could have changed is that either the executive groups would start writing reports or the reporting group would start executing people, or all would start writing reports, or all would start executing. Now which of those alternatives was_it?
ANo, later on the so-called 2 detachments, that is, the two executive groups and the SD troops, in time were mixed up so that in the three detachments, the troops, the executive people, and the SD people, were all mixed up.
QAll three groups then had the same function?
AAfter the changes had been made.
QWhen did the changes take place?
AWell, I didn't know that, at the time in Minsk the Kommando was active as Rausch had planned it because the Kommando was always en route.
QDid those changes take place while you were still there?
ANo.
Dr. Mayer: I beg your pardon, your Honor. I would like to point out to the defendant Klingelhoeffer that he should talk a little slower. I don't think the translation and the court reporters can keep up.
THE PRESIDENT:You have heard that, witness, please be governed accordingly. BY MR. FERENCZ:
QTherefore, the conclusion is, is it not so, that during your time in Sonderkommando VII-B there were three groups in theory and in practice, two groups carried out executions and your group wrote reports?
AYes, that is how it was.
Q.How many officers were there in Sonderkommando VII_B?
A.Officers? There were 1,2,3, - about 8, I estimate.
Q.What was the highest ranking officer's grade?
A.The highest ranking officer was SS_Sturmbannfuehrer Rausch, the Kommando chief.
Q.Would the interpreter please give the rank in English?
A. SS.Sturmbannfuehrer - A captain.
THE PRESIDENT:Let the witness himself indicate what the appropriate rank would be in the military.
A.That was major. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q.And what was your grade at that time?
A.I was also major at the time.
Q.Were there more than two majors?
A.Not in the Kommando.
Q.So that next to the highest ranking officer or the Kommander of the Kommando you were next in line.
A.Yes, I was the next one in that sense.
Q.Now, tell we, during the time that you were a member, or second in command, of Sonderkommando VII-B how many people were killed by that Kommando?
A.When I was there I did not hear of anything while I was in the Kommando.
Q.You mean that in all this time you were so busy writing reports that you didn't even hear about executions?
A.Well, Mr. Prosecutor, it is like this. In Brest-Litowsk we crossed the border - - - -
Q.Witness, you just stated that you didn't hear about executions. I am not interested in what you did in Breat-Litowsk.
A.I did not hear anything about executions.
Q.How do you explain the fact that you were the second highest ranking officer in Sonderkommando VII_B and you never heard about executions in that Kommando?
How do you explain that? Did you speak to other officers? Did you speak to the men or were you in the hospital all the time? How do you explain the fact that you didn't hear anything about it?
A.In the time when we were in Brest-Litowsk - I want to explain this in more detail - I, together with my SD Troop, separate from the rest of the Kommando who were in Brest-Litowsk for a few days, were in the NKWD building and there carried out investigations of material and documents, while the rest of the Kommando was at some distance in some nn or somewhere on some farm. What happened there I don't know. I just went there sometimes. Nothing else. Apart from that I was in the NKWD building.
Q.So your answer is the reason you didn't hear anything about executions was that the rest of the Kommando was in an inn or on a farm or somewhere and that you went there some times but that you were very busy in the NKWD building.
A.All furing those days I made investigations in the NKWD building of documents. I did not deal with anything ----
Q.So you never spoke to any of the other officers in Sonderkommando VII-B or men in Sonderkommando VII-B about anything else except the documents you were busy just reading in the NKWD building?
A.Well, of course I talked about the things I was working on, of course.
Q.And while you were in that NKWD building were you looking for lists of Communists or Party functionaries?
A.No, I looked for the material I found. I found some lists as well. Whether these were execution members of the NKWD I don't know. I simply utilized and compiled the material and handed it over to the chief for further evaluation.
Q.So, therefore, you found some lists giving you the names of all the Party functionaries in that area and you just gave that list to Rausch, is that correct?
A.Yes, that was my duty.
Q.Now, you knew that Hitler had given an order that all Party functionaries were to be exterminated, did you not?
A.Yes, I knew.
Q.So you took the list of names and gave it to Rausch. Didn't you know at that time he was going to exterminate all those people he could catch?
A.I only knew that I had the order to utilize the material and pass it on.
Q.I asked you, witness, didn't you know that when you were giving him these lists of Communist Party functionaries that he was going to exterminate all those he could? You either knew it or you didn't know it.
A.Of course, I did.
Q.Therefore, your share in this murder enterprise was giving him the names and his share was to shoot them.
A.I only did my duty as a soldier and did what was expected and nothing else. What happened with them I do not know.
Q.So the picture you are trying to give us of your activity in this, is a very busy major writing reports. Of course, you gave the list to other people who had to do the shooting but you never discussed anything about shootings of heard anything say anything about executions? Is that correct?
A.I did not hear anything of shootings in Brest-Litowsk, and never .......
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Ferencz, I don't know that there seems to have been a contradiction or perhaps I am in error - you asked one question as to whether he knew what would be done with this list. As I recall the answer he said, "Well, of course, I had to know." Then just now you asked, two or three questions back, whether he knew and he says he didn't know what was to be done with the list. BY MR FERENCZ: