Chapter XIX: Part I: , Page 713 (11)

COL. POKROVSKY: Had you occasion to discuss, with your chiefs and your colleagues, the fact that motor vans had been sent to your own particular Einsatzgruppe from Berlin for carrying out the executions? Do you remember any such discussions?

OHLENDORF: I do not remember any specific discussion.

COL. POKROVSKY: Had you any information concerning the fact that members of the execution squad in charge of the executions were unwilling to use the vans?

OHLENDORF: I knew that the Einsatzkommandos were using these vans.

COL. POKROVSKY: No, I had something else in mind. I wanted to know whether you received reports that members of the execution squads were unwilling to use the vans and preferred other means of execution?

OHLENDORF: That they would rather kill by means of the gas vans than by shooting?

COL. POKROVSKY: On the contrary, that they preferred execution by shooting to killing by means of the gas vans.

OHLENDORF: Yes, I have already said that the gas van . . .

COL. POKROVSKY: And why did they prefer execution by shooting to killing in the gas vans?

OHLENDORF: Because, as I have already said, in the opinion of the leader of the Einsatzkommandos, the unloading of the corpses was an unnecessary mental strain.

COL. POKROVSKY: What do you mean by “an unnecessary mental strain”?

OHLENDORF: As far as I can remember the conditions at that time—the picture presented by the corpses and probably because certain functions of the body had taken place leaving the corpses lying in filth.

COL. POKROVSKY: You mean to say that the sufferings endured prior to death were clearly visible on the victims? Did I understand you correctly?

OHLENDORF: I don’t understand the question; do you mean during the killing in the van?

COL. POKROVSKY: Yes.

OHLENDORF: I can only repeat what the doctor told me, that the victims were not conscious of their death in the van.

COL. POKROVSKY: In that case your reply to my previous question, that the unloading of the bodies made a very terrible impression on the members of the execution squad, becomes entirely incomprehensible.

OHLENDORF: And, as I said, the terrible impression created by the position of corpses themselves, and by the state of the vans which had probably been dirtied and so on.

COL. POKROVSKY: I have no further questions to put to this witness at the present stage of the Trial.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecutor for the French Republic desire to put any questions to the witness?

M. FRANÇOIS DE MENTHON (Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): No.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the counsel for Kaltenbrunner desire to cross-examine now or at a later date?

DR. KAUFFMANN: Perhaps I could ask a few questions now and request that I be allowed to make my cross-examination later, after consultation with Kaltenbrunner.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. KAUFFMANN [_Turning to the witness._]: How long have you known Kaltenbrunner?

OHLENDORF: May I be allowed to sit? May I sit down?

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.

OHLENDORF: I saw Kaltenbrunner for the first time during the journey from Berlin to Himmler’s headquarters at the time when Kaltenbrunner was to be appointed Chief of the Sipo and SD. Before that, I only knew of his existence.

DR. KAUFFMANN: You did not know him?

OHLENDORF: I only knew of his existence.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you come into personal contact with Kaltenbrunner in private or official discussions after his appointment as Chief of the RSHA?

OHLENDORF: Yes, of course.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you know his views on the Jewish question, for example?

OHLENDORF: No, I don’t know his particular views on this question.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you know his attitude in the church question?

OHLENDORF: In the question of the church—he repudiated the anti-church course followed in Germany. We agreed that an understanding had to be reached with the church.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you know his attitude on the liquidation of civilian prisoners, parachutists, and so on?

OHLENDORF: No.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you know that Kaltenbrunner made special efforts to use the SD, in order to supply the criticism lacking at the Führerstab?

OHLENDORF: Yes, that was the task of the SD even before Kaltenbrunner, and he also gave his material support to this task.

THE PRESIDENT: A little bit more slowly.

OHLENDORF: It was the task of the SD even before Kaltenbrunner came, and he approved and materially supported this tendency.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you know, either directly or indirectly, that Kaltenbrunner had no authority to give executive orders, for example, that he had no authority to send people to concentration camps or release them from concentration camps, that all these things were handled exclusively by Himmler and Müller?

OHLENDORF: I think this question is too general to be answered in a concrete way, it must be divided up.

If you ask whether Kaltenbrunner could order executive actions, I must answer in the affirmative. If you then name Himmler and Müller to the exclusion of Kaltenbrunner, I must point out that in the organization of the RSHA Müller was Kaltenbrunner’s subordinate; and consequently orders from Himmler to Müller were also orders to Kaltenbrunner, and Müller was obliged to inform Kaltenbrunner of them.

On the other hand, it is certain that, particularly in regard to the concentration camps, the final decision on dispatch to them or release from them was really made by Himmler. I can say with absolute certainty—in this connection the expression “to the last washerwoman” was often used—that Himmler reserved the final decision for himself. Whether Kaltenbrunner had any authority at all in this regard, I cannot say definitely.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you personally see the original orders and original signatures of Kaltenbrunner ordering the liquidation of sabotage troops and so on?

OHLENDORF: No.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you know, either directly or indirectly, that after Heydrich’s death a change, which to be sure was not a formal change, took place and that another and milder course was followed by Kaltenbrunner?

OHLENDORF: I couldn’t answer that question with concrete proof.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Then I will leave that question, and come to another. Did Kaltenbrunner know that you were an Einsatz leader in the East?

OHLENDORF: Yes.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Who gave you this order?

OHLENDORF: Heydrich.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Heydrich gave it to you? Then it was before this time?

OHLENDORF: Yes, of course.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I have no further questions at the moment.

THE TRIBUNAL (Major General I. T. Nikitchenko, Member for the U.S.S.R.): Witness Ohlendorf, can you answer up to what date the Einsatzgruppe under your command was operating?

OHLENDORF: The staff of the Einsatzgruppe went as far as the Caucasus and then returned. As far as I can remember, a combat command (Kampfkommando) was formed out of it under the name “Bierkamp,” and that was used in fighting the partisans. Then, I think, the Einsatzgruppe was entirely disbanded, Bierkamp went into the Government General and took a large number of his men with him.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): What did the group do after Bierkamp left?

OHLENDORF: I think I can say that the Einsatzgruppe ceased to exist after the retreat from the Caucasus. It took over tasks similar to those of the Wehrmacht under the immediate command of the Commander of the Sicherheitspolizei in the Ukraine and particularly under the command of the Higher SS and Police Leaders in the Ukraine.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): In other words, it merely carried out its activities in different surroundings under different leadership, and that was all the difference. Such functions as were performed by the Einsatzgruppe in the past continued to be carried out in new surroundings.

OHLENDORF: No, it actually became a combat unit.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): What does that mean? Against whom were the military actions directed?

OHLENDORF: Within the scope of operations directed against the partisan movement.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Can you say more particularly what this group was actually doing?

OHLENDORF: After the retreat?

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): When you say that the function of this group changed when it conducted operations against the partisans.

OHLENDORF: I have no concrete experiences myself. It was probably used for reconnaissance against the partisans and also in combat.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): But did it carry out any executions?

OHLENDORF: I can no longer say that definitely for this period, for the unit now entered territories in which that sort of activity was out of the question.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): In your testimony you said that the Einsatz group had the object of annihilating the Jews and the commissars, is that correct?

OHLENDORF: Yes.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): And in what category did you consider the children? For what reason were the children massacred?

OHLENDORF: The order was that the Jewish population should be totally exterminated.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Including the children?

OHLENDORF: Yes.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Were all the Jewish children murdered?

OHLENDORF: Yes.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): But the children of those whom you considered as belonging to the category of commissars, were they also killed?

OHLENDORF: I am not aware that inquiries were ever made after the families of Soviet commissars.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Did you send anywhere reports on the executions which the group carried out?

OHLENDORF: Reports on the executions were regularly submitted to the RSHA.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): No, did you personally send any reports on the annihilation of thousands of people which you effected? Did you personally submit any report?

OHLENDORF: The reports came from the Einsatzkommandos who carried out the actions, to the Einsatzgruppe and the Einsatzgruppe informed the RSHA.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Whom?

OHLENDORF: The reports went to the Chief of the Sipo personally.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Personally?

OHLENDORF: Yes, personally.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): What was the name of this police officer? Can you give his name?

OHLENDORF: At that time, Heydrich.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): After Heydrich?

OHLENDORF: I was no longer there then, but that was the standing order.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): I am asking you whether you continued to submit reports after Heydrich’s death or not?

OHLENDORF: After Heydrich’s death I was no longer in the Einsatz, but the reports were, of course, continued.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Do you know whether the reports continued to be submitted after Heydrich’s death or not?

OHLENDORF: Yes.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Yes?

OHLENDORF: No, the reports. . .

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Was the order concerning the annihilation of the Soviet people in conformity with the policy of the German Government or the Nazi Party or was it against it? Do you understand the question?

OHLENDORF: Yes. One must distinguish here: The order for the liquidation came from the Führer of the Reich, and it was to be carried out by the Reichsführer SS Himmler.

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): But was it in conformity with the policy conducted by the Nazi Party and the German Government, or was it in contradiction to it?

OHLENDORF: A policy amounts to a practice so that in this respect it was a policy laid down by the Führer. If you were to ask whether this activity was in conformity with the idea of National Socialism, then I should say “no.”

THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): I am talking about the practice.

THE PRESIDENT: I understood you to say that objects of value were taken from the Jewish victims by the Jewish Council of Elders.

OHLENDORF: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Did the Jewish Council of Elders settle who were to be killed?

OHLENDORF: The Jewish Council of Elders determined who was a Jew, and then registered the Jews individually.

THE PRESIDENT: And when they registered them did they take their valuables from them?

OHLENDORF: That was done in various ways. As far as I remember, the Council of Elders was given the order to collect valuables at the same time.

THE PRESIDENT: So that the Jewish Council of Elders would not know whether or not they were to be killed?

OHLENDORF: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now until 5 minutes past 2.

[_A recess was taken until 1405._]

-----

[1] Only the first half of the preceding question, originally spoken in Russian, was transmitted to the witness in German by the interpreter. The answer of the witness, therefore, refers only to this first half of the question.

_Afternoon Session_

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): When you spoke of the written agreement between the leaders of the Einsatz groups and the Army, do you know whether or not the functions and purposes of the Einsatz groups were described in the agreement? Did the agreement say what the groups were going to do?

OHLENDORF: I no longer remember that. In any case the task of liquidation was not mentioned.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you understand the question?

OHLENDORF: Yes. I cannot quite remember whether there was a general clause in the agreement about the tasks and activities of the Security Police in the operational area, but I am certain that it contained nothing regarding the task of liquidation.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You stated that there had been a general order for the liquidation of all Jews. Was that order in writing?

OHLENDORF: No.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you know who gave the order?

OHLENDORF: Is this question with regard to the activities of the Einsatzgruppen?

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.

OHLENDORF: Regarding the Einsatzgruppen, the order came first via Himmler, Heydrich, and Streckenbach to the Einsatzgruppen and then was repeated a second time by Himmler personally.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did a similar order go to the Army?

OHLENDORF: I know of no such order to the Army in this form.

THE PRESIDENT: Now do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to cross-examine this witness?

DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): Witness, you said that several weeks before the opening of the Russian campaign, there were conferences regarding the tasks of the Einsatzgruppen and the Einsatzkommandos. Were you personally present at these conferences?

OHLENDORF: May I briefly correct this by saying that the main subject was not the tasks of the Einsatzgruppen but the set-up within the operational area . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a moment. Will you repeat that, please?

OHLENDORF: May I make a correction by saying that, according to my recollection, the main subject was not the tasks of the Einsatzgruppen but the establishment of these mobile organizational units for activities within the operational area of the Army.

DR. NELTE: In other words, this concerned tasks within the sphere of the Army?

OHLENDORF: Yes.

DR. NELTE: You testified that the written agreement was concluded between the RSHA on the one hand and the OKW and OKH on the other. Are you familiar with the difference in authority between the OKW and the OKH?

OHLENDORF: Yes.

DR. NELTE: Who was present from the OKW at these conferences?

OHLENDORF: I cannot mention any one name because I personally was not present at these conferences, but these conferences were conducted by Heydrich on the one hand and by his deputy, Schellenberg, on the other.

DR. NELTE: Schellenberg also spoke on this question in an affidavit presented here, but he mentioned Quartermaster General Wagner as the official with whom he had to deal. Can you remember now whether this was also the case at the conferences to which you are referring?

OHLENDORF: At any rate the name of Quartermaster General Wagner is one of the few names mentioned which I remember in connection with these conferences.

DR. NELTE: Is it known to you that Quartermaster General Wagner had nothing to do with the OKW as an institution?

OHLENDORF: Yes.

DR. NELTE: I take it that you cannot therefore name any personality who might be regarded as representative of the OKW?

OHLENDORF: No, I cannot. I merely said that I remembered—that is, I still have in my mind’s eye—the letterhead OKW-OKH. I took this double heading to mean that essential negotiations with Canaris were probably being carried out, that arrangements with Canaris were therefore included in this agreement, and that this accounted for the letterhead OKH plus OKW, which, to me as well, had appeared unusual, since the OKH, _per se_, was naturally in charge of all movement and supply.

DR. NELTE: A joint letterhead OKW-OKH, as such, did not, of course, exist. In your case then it could have been only a typewritten copy?

OHLENDORF: I can still visualize a mimeographed sheet.

DR. NELTE: Do you know which signatures were on this document which you visualize?

OHLENDORF: I cannot remember, I am sorry.

DR. NELTE: One of the judges already put the question that orders would naturally result from an agreement of this kind. Is the name of the OKW, or the signature perhaps, included in any one such order?

OHLENDORF: Now I do not understand what kind of orders you mean.

DR. NELTE: When an agreement is made between two different organizations such as the RSHA on the one hand and, shall we say, the OKH on the other, then the office entrusted with the execution of that which has been agreed upon must be informed thereof in a form known as an “order” in military parlance. Is such an order known to you as originating from the OKW?

OHLENDORF: Please understand that no such orders from the War Office or the OKW were received by me. I should have had only orders or wishes expressed by the Army.

DR. NELTE: By the Army or by your superior command?

OHLENDORF: No. I am speaking now . . . If I think of the Armed Forces . . .

DR. NELTE: Therefore, there was no connection of any kind between you, as leader of the Einsatzgruppe, and the OKW as such?

OHLENDORF: No immediate connection. I know very well that individual reports reached the OKW through official channels.

DR. NELTE: If you know that, can you tell me to which office? Because, after all, OKW covered a great many.

OHLENDORF: I should assume they eventually reached Canaris.

DR. NELTE: I thank you.

DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for the Reich Cabinet): Witness, in your position as Chief of the SD, you will probably have some idea about the trustworthiness of the members of the Reich Cabinet and about the secrecy in which very important matters were kept. Please answer this question: whether the order which has been discussed today regarding the liquidations, in your opinion, originated in the Reich Cabinet and whether this order, in your opinion, was made known to the individual members of the Reich Cabinet?

OHLENDORF: I am convinced that both questions are to be answered in the negative.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to ask the witness a few more questions on behalf of the Defendant Speer, since counsel for the Defendant Speer is absent and I, as a colleague, have taken over this task.

Witness, is it known to you that the Defendant Speer, contrary to Hitler’s orders, took measures to prevent the destruction of industrial and other installations?

OHLENDORF: Yes.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: That these measures also extended beyond the interior of Germany to the then still-occupied area of Upper Silesia, _et alia_?

OHLENDORF: I believe that the date when I learned about this was so late that, although applicable to some small areas in the West, it no longer applied to any area in the East.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: One more question which you might perhaps know about. Do you know that the Defendant Speer prepared an attempt on Hitler’s life in the middle of February of this year?

OHLENDORF: No.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Do you know that Speer undertook to turn Himmler over to the Allies so that he could be called to account and possibly clear others who were innocent?

OHLENDORF: No.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: This question will perhaps be answered in the affirmative by another witness.

Are you well informed regarding the events of the 20th of July?

OHLENDORF: To a considerable extent.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Is it known to you that the circle of plotters of 20 July had also planned to keep the Defendant Speer as head of his Ministry?

OHLENDORF: Yes.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Do you know any details about that?

OHLENDORF: From the participants in the plot of the 20th of July I merely learned that they had considered him, on a drafted organizational scheme, as continuing in his post as head of the armament ministry.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, do you believe that this intention of the plotters of the 20th of July was due to the fact that the Defendant Speer, in view of his activities, was considered not only in these circles but even elsewhere merely as an expert and not as a politician?

OHLENDORF: The question is very hard to answer. It is very difficult not to be considered a politician if one has been so closely connected with those authorities of the Reich who made the final political decisions and has perhaps been an essential contributor to the suggestions and proposals from which the decisions evolved. On the other hand, Minister Speer was known or believed not to be purely a politician.

DR. RUDOLF MERKEL (Counsel for the Gestapo): Witness, do you know that in April 1933 the Gestapo was created in Prussia?

OHLENDORF: I do not know the month, but I do know the year.

DR. MERKEL: Do you know what was the purpose of creating this institution?

OHLENDORF: To fight political opponents potentially dangerous to the State.

DR. MERKEL: Do you know how this institution, which was intended originally for Prussia only, was extended to the rest of the Reich?

OHLENDORF: Either in 1933 or in 1934 the institution of the Political Police was created in all of the Länder. These Political Police agencies were officially subordinated in 1934, as far as I remember, to the Reichsführer SS as Political Police Chief of the Länder. The Prussian Secret State Police Office represented the first central headquarters. After the creation of the Main Office of the Security Police the command tasks were delegated by Himmler to Heydrich who carried them out through the Main Office of the Security Police.

DR. MERKEL: Who created and instituted the Gestapo in the individual Länder?

OHLENDORF: I cannot give you an answer to this question.

DR. MERKEL: Do you know whether before 1933, in the area which then constituted the Reich, there had existed a similar institution, a political police force?

OHLENDORF: Yes, that existed, as far as I remember, at Police headquarters in Berlin, for instance; and I believe it was Department IA. At any rate political police organizations did exist.

DR. MERKEL: Do you know anything about the sphere of activities of this organization which existed before 1933?

OHLENDORF: Yes. They were the same; at any rate their activities were fundamentally the same.

DR. MERKEL: Do you know anything about the personnel of the Gestapo, which on the whole, was a new institution and consequently not constituted merely by a transfer of personnel already in existence?

OHLENDORF: When I became acquainted with the State Police it was certainly true that the nucleus of expert personnel had been taken from the Criminal Police and the majority of the leading men in the State Police offices, that is, in the regional offices of the State Police, had risen from the ranks of the civil administration, possibly also from the Police administrations of the various Länder (Länderpolizeiverwaltungen), and that they had, in part, even been detailed from the civil administration. The same was also true for the experts within Amt IV—the Gestapo.

DR. MERKEL: You say the majority of the officials were detailed?

OHLENDORF: I did not say the majority were detailed, but I said “in part.”

DR. MERKEL: Detailed in part? Was it possible for any of these members of the Gestapo to resist being taken over into the Gestapo if they did not wish it, or was it not?

OHLENDORF: I would not affirm that a definite resistance was possible. Some of them might have succeeded, by cunning, in avoiding it had they not wanted to go. But if one was detailed to such an office from the civil administration, then, as an official, one simply had to obey. As an official one had to.

DR. MERKEL: The members of the Gestapo evidently consisted almost exclusively, or exclusively, of civil service officials? Do you know anything about that?

OHLENDORF: That probably was no longer the case during the war. But as a rule it should be assumed that they were officials insofar as the specialists were concerned. Some of them, of course, while in training, were not yet officials and others again were engaged merely as employees or, especially, as assistants.

DR. MERKEL: Can you tell me the approximate number of the members of the Gestapo towards the end of the war?

OHLENDORF: I estimate the total organization of the Gestapo, including the regional offices and the occupied territories, at about 30,000.

DR. MERKEL: There was therefore within the Gestapo a considerable percentage of officials who were merely administrative officials and had nothing to do with operational functions?

OHLENDORF: Yes, of course.

DR. MERKEL: And what was the percentage of these administrative officials who performed purely administrative functions?

OHLENDORF: We must, in the first instance, take into consideration that this number included the assistants, as well as the women; and I cannot give you any figures off hand. But it is certain that a proportion of one specialist to three or four persons not employed in a functional capacity could not be considered excessive.

DR. MERKEL: Do you know anything about who was responsible for the direction and administration of the concentration camps?

OHLENDORF: It was Obergruppenführer Pohl.

DR. MERKEL: Did or did not the Gestapo have anything to do with the direction and with the administration of the concentration camps?

OHLENDORF: According to my knowledge, not.

DR. MERKEL: Therefore, no members of the Gestapo were active or in any way involved in the measures carried out in the concentration camps?

OHLENDORF: As far as I could judge from a distance, only investigating officials of the State Police were active in the concentration camps.

DR. MERKEL: Did the Gestapo in any way participate in the mass executions undertaken by your Einsatzgruppe which you described this morning?

OHLENDORF: Only to the same extent as every other person present in the Einsatzgruppe.

DR. MERKEL: I ask the Tribunal to give me the opportunity of questioning this witness again after the return of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner, since I am obliged to rely exclusively on information received from Kaltenbrunner.

THE PRESIDENT: I think that the Tribunal will be prepared to allow you to put further questions at a later stage.

DR. MERKEL: Thank you.

PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for the General Staff and the High Command of the German Armed Forces): Witness, you mentioned the negotiations which took place in the OKW, which later led to an agreement between OKW and OKH on the one side, and the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) on the other. I am interested in this point: Can you assert that during the negotiations for this agreement there was mention of the extermination and the killing of Jews?

OHLENDORF: I cannot say anything concrete on this particular subject, but I do not believe it.

DR. EXNER: You do not believe it?

OHLENDORF: No.

DR. EXNER: In addition you have told us that the Commanding General of the 11th Army knew about the liquidations, and I should like to ask you: Do you know anything regarding the commanding generals of the other armies?

OHLENDORF: In general they must have been informed through the speech of the Führer before the beginning of the Russian campaign.

DR. EXNER: That is a conclusion that you have drawn?

OHLENDORF: No, it is not a conclusion that I have drawn; it is merely a report on the contents of the speech which, according to Himmler’s statement, Hitler had made to the commanding generals.

DR. EXNER: Now you have spoken about directives given by the Commanding General of the 11th Army. What kind of directives were they?

OHLENDORF: I first spoke about the commanding general in the Nikolaiev incident, that is, about the order given at that time that the liquidations should take place 200 kilometers away from the headquarters of the High Command of the army. The second time, I did not speak about the commanding general of the army but about the High Command of the army at Simferopol, because I cannot say, with any certainty, who had requested the competent Einsatzkommando at Simferopol to speed up the liquidations.

DR. EXNER: That is the very question I should like to put to you: With whom in the 11th Army did you negotiate at that time?

OHLENDORF: I, personally, did not negotiate at all with anyone on this subject, as I was not the person directly concerned with these matters; but the High Command of the Army negotiated with the competent local Einsatzkommando either through the responsible army office, which at all times was in touch with the Einsatzkommandos, namely the I-C or the I-CAO, or else through the staff of the OQ.

DR. EXNER: Who gave you orders for the advance?

OHLENDORF: The orders for the advance came, as a rule, from the Chief of Staff.

DR. EXNER: From the Chief of Staff? The Commanding General of the army at the time referred to was Von Manstein. In this case was there ever an order signed by Von Manstein?

OHLENDORF: I cannot remember any such order; but when the advance was being discussed there were oral consultations with Von Manstein, the Chief of Staff, and me.

DR. EXNER: When the advance was being discussed?

OHLENDORF: Yes.

DR. EXNER: You said that the Army was opposed to these liquidations. Can you state how this became evident?

OHLENDORF: Not the Army, but the leaders were inwardly opposed to the liquidations.

DR. EXNER: Yes; but I mean, how did you recognize that fact?

OHLENDORF: In our conversations. Not only the leaders of the Army were opposed to the liquidations but also most of those who had to carry them out.

DR. EXNER: I thank you.

PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KRAUS (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Were you acquainted with the personal records on Reichsbank President Schacht kept in your department?

OHLENDORF: No.

DR. KRAUS: Do you know why, after the 20th of July 1944, the former Reichsbank President Schacht was arrested and interned in a concentration camp?

OHLENDORF: Probably the occasion of the 20th of July was favorable also for the conviction at last of Reichsbank President Schacht, who was known to be inimical to the Party, inasmuch as by means of witnesses or other methods he could be brought to trial in connection with the events of the 20th of July.

DR. KRAUS: Then Defendant Schacht was known to your people as being inimical to the Party?

OHLENDORF: Yes, at least from 1937-1938 on.

DR. KRAUS: Since the year 1937 or 1938? And you also suspected him of participating in Putsche?

OHLENDORF: Personally I did not suspect this, because I was not concerned with these matters at all. He was mainly under suspicion because of his well-known enmity. But, as far as I know, this suspicion was never confirmed.

DR. KRAUS: Can you tell me, who caused Schacht to be arrested?

OHLENDORF: That I cannot say.

DR. KRAUS: Then you don’t know whether the arrest was ordered by the Führer, by Himmler, or by some subordinate authority.

OHLENDORF: I don’t think the order could possibly have come from any subordinate authority.

DR. KRAUS: Then you assume that it had been ordered by the Führer?

OHLENDORF: At least by Himmler.

DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Göring): Witness, if I understood you correctly, you said: At the beginning of 1933, after the seizure of power by Hitler, the Gestapo was created in Prussia; but before that time there had already existed in Prussia an organization with similar tasks, for instance at the Police headquarters in Berlin with Department IA, with the difference that this organization was opposed to National Socialism, whereas now the contrary is true. But its task was likewise to keep political opponents under observation and if need be to arrest them, and thus to protect the State from these political opponents.

OHLENDORF: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: You said further that in 1933, after the seizure of power, a political police with identical tasks was also instituted in all the other Länder.

OHLENDORF: Yes, in the year 1933-1934.

DR. STAHMER: This political police, which existed in the various Länder, was then centralized in 1934 and its direction handed over to Himmler?

OHLENDORF: It was not at first centralized, but Himmler did become Chief of Police of all the Länder.

DR. STAHMER: Now one more question. Did the Prussian Gestapo play a leading role, as far as the other Länder were concerned, as early as 1933 or only after Himmler took over the leadership in 1934?

OHLENDORF: I do not believe that the Prussian State Police, which after all was under the leadership of Reich Marshal Göring, became, at that time, the competent authority for the other Länder as well.

FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBUEHLER (Counsel for Defendant Dönitz): I am speaking as the representative of the counsel for Defendant Grossadmiral Raeder.

[_Turning to the witness._] Witness, you just mentioned a speech of the Führer before the army commanders, in which the Führer is supposed to have given instructions to the commanders regarding the liquidation of Jews. Which conference do you mean?

OHLENDORF: A conference which must have taken place shortly before the Russian campaign with the commanders of the army groups and the armies at the Führer’s quarters.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Were the commanders of the various branches of the Armed Forces absent?

OHLENDORF: I do not know that.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Were you yourself present at this conference?

OHLENDORF: No. I have recounted this conference on the basis of a conversation I had with Himmler.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Did this conversation with Himmler take place in a large circle of people or was it a private conversation?

OHLENDORF: It was a private conversation.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Did you have the impression that Himmler stated facts, or do you consider it possible that he wished to encourage you in your difficult task?

OHLENDORF: No. The conversation took place much, much later and did not spring from such motives, but from resentment at the attitude of certain generals of the Armed Forces. Himmler wanted to say that these generals of the Armed Forces could not disassociate themselves from the events that had taken place, as they were just as responsible as all the rest.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: And when did this conversation with Himmler take place?

OHLENDORF: In May 1945, at Flensburg.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Thank you.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, with regard to the command channels at the disposal of the RSHA for the execution of its orders and measures and for the transmission of these orders to tactical organizations, such as the SD and the concentration camps, did the RSHA possess its own command channels or did it rely on the channels of the Leadership Corps organization, that is, were these orders forwarded via the Gauleitung and the Kreisleitung?

OHLENDORF: I know nothing about it. I consider it entirely out of the question.

DR. SERVATIUS: You consider it entirely out of the question that the Gauleitung and the Kreisleitung had been informed? How was it, for instance . . .

OHLENDORF: One moment, please. You asked me whether these orders passed through these channels. You did not ask me whether they had been informed.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were these offices informed of the orders?

OHLENDORF: The inspectors, the Gestapo leaders, and the SD leaders were all considered as police or political agents (Referenten) of the Gauleiter or the Reichsstatthalter; and these office chiefs had to report to the Gauleiter on their respective fields of activity. To what extent this was done, I am unable to judge. It depends on the activities and on the degree of co-operation between the Gauleiter and these offices, but in any case it is inconceivable that the State Police could carry on these activities for any length of time without the knowledge of the responsible Party organizations.

DR. SERVATIUS: Does this also hold for reports from lower to higher units? For the activities of the concentration camps?

OHLENDORF: The concentration camps were not subordinate to the State Police. I am convinced, since these were purely affairs of the Reich, that there was no such close connection between the Gauleiter and the concentration camps as there was between the Gauleiter and the permanent activities of the State Police.

DR. SERVATIUS: I also represent the Defendant Sauckel. Do you know of the impressment of foreign workers by the SS? Foreign workers who, as a matter of fact, came from the concentration camps?

OHLENDORF: Only superficially.

HERR BABEL: Witness, this morning you mentioned the figures of 3,000 and 30,000 for the Security Service. I should now like to know for certain how these figures are to be understood. Do the 3,000 members of the SD whom you mentioned this morning represent the entire personnel of the SD at that time, or did they represent only those members who were employed in the field with the mobile units also mentioned by you this morning?

OHLENDORF: No, it represented the total personnel including employees and women auxiliaries.

HERR BABEL: Including employees and women auxiliaries. And the 30,000 which we also discussed—were they honorary members (ehrenamtliche Mitglieder) employed only in the interior of Germany?

OHLENDORF: Yes; as a rule, in any case.

HERR BABEL: And who, for the most part, belonged neither to the SS nor to the Party?

OHLENDORF: Yes.

HERR BABEL: How large were the mobile units of the SD employed in these executions?

OHLENDORF: The SD had no mobile units but rather only individual members of the SD detailed to outside organizations. The SD, as a separate entity, did not act independently anywhere.

HERR BABEL: In your opinion and judging by your own experience, how many of these detailed personnel were there?

OHLENDORF: The figure was quite small.

HERR BABEL: Will you please give an approximate figure.

OHLENDORF: I place the figure at an average of about two to three SD experts per Einsatzkommando.

HERR BABEL: I should like to know the total strength of the SS. Do you know anything about that?

OHLENDORF: No, I have no idea at all.

HERR BABEL: No idea at all. Did any units of the Waffen-SS and other subordinate SS groups in any way participate in the Einsatzgruppen?

OHLENDORF: As I said this morning, in each Einsatzgruppe there was, or rather there should have been, one company of Waffen-SS.

HERR BABEL: One company. And what, at that time, was the exact strength of one company?

OHLENDORF: I do not know about the Waffen-SS serving with the other Einsatzgruppen, but I estimate that my particular group employed approximately 100 men of the Waffen-SS.

HERR BABEL: Were Death’s-Head Units (Totenkopf Verbände) also employed?

OHLENDORF: No.

HERR BABEL: Was the Adolf Hitler Bodyguard (Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler) employed in any fashion?

OHLENDORF: That was purely a matter of chance. I cannot name a single formation from which these Waffen-SS had been taken.

HERR BABEL: Another question that was touched upon this morning: When was the SD created and what, at first, were its duties?

OHLENDORF: As far as I know, the SD was created in 1932.

HERR BABEL: And what were its duties at that time?

OHLENDORF: It constituted, so to speak, the Intelligence Corps of the Party. They were supposed to give information about Party opponents and, if necessary, to thwart them.

HERR BABEL: Did these duties change in the course of time, and, if so, when?

OHLENDORF: Yes, after the seizure of power, the combatting of political opponents was, in certain spheres, one of their principal duties and supplying the required information on certain individuals was considered an important factor. At that time an intelligence service, in the true sense of the word, did not yet exist; the real evolution of the SD machine within the field of home intelligence service only followed as from 1936-1937. From that time on the work changed from the observation of individuals to technical matters. With the 1939 reorganization, when the Main Office of the SD was dissolved, the handling of political opponents was completely eliminated from the work of the SD, which work was thereafter limited to technical matters. Its duties now consisted in observing the effects of the measures carried out by the leading authorities of the Reich and the Länder and in determining how the circles affected reacted to them; in addition, they had to find out what the moods and attitude of the people and its various classes of society were during the course of the war. It was, as a matter of fact, the only authority offering criticism within the Reich and reporting facts from an objective point of view to top levels. It should also be pointed out that the Party did not, at any stage, legitimize this work until 1945. The only legitimation for this critical work came from Reich Marshal Göring, and that only after the war, for he could in this way draw the attention of the other departments, at meetings of the Reich Defense Council, to faulty developments. This expert critical work became, in fact, after 1939 the main function of the SD home intelligence service.

HERR BABEL: Another question. To what extent were units of the SD employed for duty in the concentration camps?

OHLENDORF: I would ask you at all times to distinguish between the SD home service (SD-Inland) with the head office of Amt III, and the SD service board (SD-Ausland). I cannot give you any information about the SD service board; but the chief, Schellenberg, is present in this courthouse. As far as Amt III is concerned, I know of no single case in which the SD home service had representatives or anything at all to do with concentration camps.

HERR BABEL: Now, a question concerning you personally. From whom did you receive your orders for the liquidation of the Jews and so forth? And in what form?

OHLENDORF: My duty was not the task of liquidation, but I did head the staff which directed the Einsatzkommandos in the field, and the Einsatzkommandos themselves had already received this order in Berlin on the instructions of Streckenbach, Himmler, and Heydrich. This order was renewed by Himmler at Nikolaiev.

HERR BABEL: You personally were not concerned with the execution of these orders?

OHLENDORF: I led the Einsatzgruppe, and therefore I had the task of seeing how the Einsatzkommandos executed the orders received.

HERR BABEL: But did you have no scruples in regard to the execution of these orders?

OHLENDORF: Yes, of course.

HERR BABEL: And how is it that they were carried out regardless of these scruples?

OHLENDORF: Because to me it is inconceivable that a subordinate leader should not carry out orders given by the leaders of the state.

HERR BABEL: This is your own opinion. But this must have been not only your point of view but also the point of view of the majority of the people involved. Didn’t some of the men appointed to execute these orders ask you to be relieved of such tasks?

OHLENDORF: I cannot remember any one concrete case. I excluded some whom I did not consider emotionally suitable for executing these tasks and I sent some of them home.

HERR BABEL: Was the legality of the orders explained to these people under false pretenses?

OHLENDORF: I do not understand your question; since the order was issued by the superior authorities, the question of legality could not arise in the minds of these individuals, for they had sworn obedience to the people who had issued the orders.

HERR BABEL: Could any individual expect to succeed in evading the execution of these orders?

OHLENDORF: No, the result would have been a court-martial with a corresponding sentence.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, do you wish to re-examine?

COL. AMEN: Just a very few questions, Your Honor.

[_Turning to the witness._] What organization furnished the supplies to the Einsatz groups?

OHLENDORF: The Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) furnished the equipment.

COL. AMEN: What organization furnished weapons to the Einsatz groups?

OHLENDORF: The weapons were also furnished through the RSHA.

COL. AMEN: What organization assigned personnel to the Einsatz groups?

OHLENDORF: The Organization and Personnel Department of the RSHA.

COL. AMEN: And all these activities of supplies required personnel in addition to the operating members?

OHLENDORF: Yes.

COL. AMEN: I have no more questions.

THE PRESIDENT: That will do; thank you.

[_The witness left the stand._]

COL. AMEN: The next witness to be called by the Prosecution is Dieter Wisliceny. That witness will be examined by Lieutenant Colonel Smith W. Brookhart, Jr.

[_The witness, Wisliceny, took the stand._]

THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?

DIETER WISLICENY (Witness): Dieter Wisliceny.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath: “I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.”

[_The witness repeated the oath._]

THE PRESIDENT: Please speak slowly and pause between questions and answers.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL SMITH W. BROOKHART, JR. (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): How old are you?

WISLICENY: I am 34 years old.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Where were you born?

WISLICENY: I was born at Regulowken in East Prussia.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Were you a member of the NSDAP?

WISLICENY: Yes, I was a member of the NSDAP.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Since what year?

WISLICENY: I entered the NSDAP first in 1931, was then struck off the list and entered finally in 1933.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Were you a member of the SS?

WISLICENY: Yes, I entered the SS in 1934.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Were you a member of the Gestapo?

WISLICENY: In 1934 I entered the SD.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: What rank did you achieve?

WISLICENY: In 1940 I was promoted to SS Hauptsturmführer.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Do you know Adolf Eichmann?

WISLICENY: Yes, I have known Eichmann since 1934.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Under what circumstances?

WISLICENY: We joined the SD about the same time, in 1934. Until 1937 we were together in the same department.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: How well did you know Eichmann personally?

WISLICENY: We knew each other very well. We used the intimate “du,” and I also knew his family very well.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: What was his position?

WISLICENY: Eichmann was in the RSHA, a section chief in Amt IV, Gestapo.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Do you mean Section IV or a subsection, and, if so, which subsection?

WISLICENY: He ran Section IVA4. This department comprised two subsections: one for churches and another for Jewish matters.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: You have before you a diagram showing the position of Subsection IVA4b in the RSHA.

WISLICENY: Yes.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Did you prepare this diagram?

WISLICENY: Yes, I made the diagram myself.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Does it correctly portray the organizational setup showing the section dealing with Jewish problems?

WISLICENY: Yes, this was approximately the personnel of the section at the beginning of 1944.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Referring to this chart and the list of leading personnel as shown in the lower section of the paper, were you personally acquainted with each of the individuals named therein?

WISLICENY: Yes, I knew all of them personally.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: What was the particular mission of IVA4b of the RSHA?

WISLICENY: This Section IVA4b was concerned with the Jewish question for the RSHA. Eichmann had special powers from Gruppenführer Müller, the Chief of Amt IV, and from the Chief of the Security Police. He was responsible for the so-called solution of the Jewish question in Germany and in all countries occupied by Germany.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Were there distinct periods of activity affecting the Jews?

WISLICENY: Yes.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Will you describe to the Tribunal the approximate periods and the different types of activity?

WISLICENY: Yes. Until 1940 the general policy within the section was to settle the Jewish question in Germany and in areas occupied by Germany by means of a planned emigration. The second phase, after that date, was the concentration of all Jews, in Poland and in other territories occupied by Germany in the East, in ghettos. This period lasted approximately until the beginning of 1942. The third period was the so-called “final solution” of the Jewish question, that is, the planned extermination and destruction of the Jewish race; this period lasted until October 1944, when Himmler gave the order to stop their destruction.

[_A recess was taken._]

LT. COL. BROOKHART: When did you first become associated with Section IVA4 of the RSHA?

WISLICENY: That was in 1940. I happened to meet Eichmann . . .

LT. COL. BROOKHART: What was your position?

WISLICENY: Eichmann suggested that I go to Bratislava as adviser on the Jewish question to the Slovakian Government.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Thereafter how long did you hold that position?

WISLICENY: I was at Bratislava until the spring of 1943; then, almost a year in Greece and later, from March 1944 until December 1944, I was with Eichmann in Hungary. In January 1945 I left Eichmann’s department.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: In your official connection with Section IVA4, did you learn of any order which directed the annihilation of all Jews?

WISLICENY: Yes, I learned of such an order for the first time from Eichmann in the summer of 1942.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Will you tell the Tribunal under what circumstances and what was the substance of the order?

WISLICENY: In the spring of 1942 about 17,000 Jews were taken from Slovakia to Poland as workers. It was a question of an agreement with the Slovakian Government. The Slovakian Government further asked whether the families of these workers could not be taken to Poland as well. At first Eichmann declined this request.

In April or at the beginning of May 1942 Eichmann told me that henceforward whole families could also be taken to Poland. Eichmann himself was at Bratislava in May 1942 and had discussed the matter with competent members of the Slovakian Government. He visited Minister Mach and the then Prime Minister, Professor Tuka. At that time he assured the Slovakian Government that these Jews would be humanely and decently treated in the Polish ghettos. This was the special wish of the Slovakian Government. As a result of this assurance about 35,000 Jews were taken from Slovakia into Poland. The Slovakian Government, however, made efforts to see that these Jews were, in fact, humanely treated; they particularly tried to help such Jews as had been converted to Christianity. Prime Minister Tuka repeatedly asked me to visit him and expressed the wish that a Slovakian delegation be allowed to enter the areas to which the Slovakian Jews were supposed to have been sent. I transmitted this wish to Eichmann and the Slovakian Government even sent him a note on the matter. Eichmann at the time gave an evasive answer.

Then at the end of July or the beginning of August, I went to see him in Berlin and implored him once more to grant the request of the Slovakian Government. I pointed out to him that abroad there were rumors to the effect that all Jews in Poland were being exterminated. I pointed out to him that the Pope had intervened with the Slovakian Government on their behalf. I advised him that such a proceeding, if really true, would seriously injure our prestige, that is, the prestige of Germany, abroad. For all these reasons I begged him to permit the inspection in question. After a lengthy discussion Eichmann told me that this request to visit the Polish ghettos could not be granted under any circumstances whatsoever. In reply to my question “Why?” he said that most of these Jews were no longer alive. I asked him who had given such instructions and he referred me to an order of Himmler’s. I then begged him to show me this order, because I could not believe that it actually existed in writing. He . . .

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Where were you at that time? Where were you at the time of this meeting with Eichmann?

WISLICENY: This meeting with Eichmann took place in Berlin, Kurfürstenstrasse 116, in Eichmann’s office.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Proceed with the answer to the previous question. Proceed with the discussion of the circumstances and the order.

WISLICENY: Eichmann told me he could show me this order in writing if it would soothe my conscience. He took a small volume of documents from his safe, turned over the pages, and showed me a letter from Himmler to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD. The gist of the letter was roughly as follows:

The Führer had ordered the final solution of the Jewish question; the Chief of the Security Police and the SD and the Inspector of Concentration Camps were entrusted with carrying out this so-called final solution. All Jewish men and women who were able to work were to be temporarily exempted from the so-called final solution and used for work in the concentration camps. This letter was signed by Himmler himself. I could not possibly be mistaken since Himmler’s signature was well known to me. I . . .

LT. COL. BROOKHART: To whom was the order addressed?

WISLICENY: To the Chief of the Security Police and SD, that is, to the office of the Chief of the Security Police and SD.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Was there any other addressee on this order?

WISLICENY: Yes, the Inspector of Concentration Camps. The order was addressed to both these offices.

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Did the order bear any classification for security purposes?

WISLICENY: It was classified as “secret.”