. NMT04-T0572
Volume IV · Page 572
| report which he was compiling on the morale of the population, and he replied he did not have a chance. |
"Q. Well, how much time would it take in an SD report which you were compelled to make and which it was your job to make, to say that there were excesses in Tarnopol to the extent that 600 Jews were murdered, — or if you didn't want to say murdered — were killed by the population. How much time would it take to include that, with your fingers on the typewriter, into a report? How much time would it take to say that? |
| Fendler denies that he ever functioned as
deputy to the Kommando leader and stated that, when he acted as an advance
Kommando leader, he occupied himself only with the obtaining of intelligence
files left behind by the Bolsbevists. But, in evaluating these reports, it is
inevitable that he would need to tell someone what he found. In fact, he did
admit that this information usually was "utilized for individual reports". The
army was also informed "in a written form or orally". In order to prove that the work of every officer was specialized and thus one would not know what the others were doing, the defendant stated that his unit never divided its forces. Thus, one officer would not need to do the job of others. However, since this would establish that, by sheer proximity, the officers could not help but know each other's business, the defendant later stated that the unit was not always together because of the distance it had to travel. The defendant knew that executions were taking place. He admitted that the procedure which determined the so-called guilt of a person which resulted in his being condemned to death was "too summary". But, there is no evidence that he ever did anything about it. As the second highest ranking officer in the Kommando, his views could have been heard in complaint or protest against what he now says was a too summary procedure, but he chose to let the injustice go uncorrected. He was asked — |
"Do I understand you correctly that you were of the opinion that there was an insufficient safeguard for the suspected person, as there was no trial, that his rights as a defendant were |
