The accused Werner also denies the deeds attributed to him and emphasizes that he always personally did not agree with the actions against the Jews and never participated in any of them. Vol 1 p 148
He admits to having been, from the summer of 1941, Director of the Economics Division in the RC Lida, and in this capacity to have, among other things, administered confiscated Jewish property of various sorts, among them the clothes of executed Jews. In fall of 1942 he alleges that he was transferred to Minsk and then the RC Arensburg as punishment, because he once made a derogatory remark about the love affair between RC Hanweg and his secretary, the now married witness Lerm, and that in addition he refused the RC various items for a stage for entertaining at the front in the absence of proper requisitions. Vol 1 p 126,140
To the individual acts, the accused made statements on three different prosecutorial interrogations (January 1963, November 1964, and July 1965). In contrast, he refused any statement whatsoever to the prosecuting attorney, with the explanation that due to his long imprisonment he had neither the physical nor mental strength. Vol 1 p 125/49, vol 7 p 1086/1103, vol 12 p 1828/33, vol 19 p 2661 f, vol 23 p 3112
In particular, the accused testified as follows:
1) Shooting a Jew by his own hand during the collection of Jews on 8 May 1942 in Lida
This deed was not yet known during the first two interrogations. The accused had already admitted on his own during the first interrogation, having gone into the Jewish section, about 600 m away, the day of the mass execution because of “disturbances in the city center” of Lida. There he pulled his house boy (apparently the witness Cummings or Rubinowicz) out of a long column of Jews at an opportune moment, taken him back to his residence, and thus saved him. Vol 1 p 142
In a second interrogation he asserted, again on his own, that on the day of the execution, he had gone out only scantily dressed, and pulled out of the column of Jews passing his residence a 16-year-old boy someone had pointed out to him. Vol 7 p 1090
When the accused was first questioned, during his third interrogation, on the matter under consideration here – shooting a young Jew in a column passing by – he denied the deed. He had never shot a Jew and reiterated that her merely pulled a young Jew, employed at the RC, from a column passing his residence, thereby saving him. Vol 13 p 1828 f
2) The mass execution in Lida (8 May 1942)
A few days before the Aktion, the witness Barzach-Tennenbaum, his gardener, and his Jewish barber all told him that in the next days there would be an Aktion against the Jews of Lida. He himself knew nothing about it. He had, purely as a precaution, however, allowed these 3 Jews to spend the night in the attic of his residence. Vol 1 p1 141, vol 7 p 1089
His further statements regarding the mass execution in Lida differ.
a) In his first prosecutorial interrogation, he asserted, as already mentioned to Number 1 above, that he went to the Jewish section in the morning. There he “observed” the passing of the column of Jews and went to the RC in the morning. In the landing, he encountered Hanweg, Windisch, and Gruenzfelder. He assumed that they went to the execution site. He did not seem them any more, and is firmly convinced they spent the entire day at the execution site. At noon, on his way to lunch, he made a detour and saw 12 to 15 bodies on the street. Jewish artisans were apparently spared execution. But he didn’t know who’d made the selection of the artisans. Only Windisch had lists of the Jewish workers. In conversations he heard that the execution squad consisted of Lithuanians wearing SS uniforms, that they belonged to the SD in Baranovichi. Vol 1 p 142 ff
b) In his second prosecutorial interrogation
The accused asserted that, on the execution day, after removing the 16-year-old Jew from the column of Jews passing by his residence, he next breakfasted with Dietze. During this time he heard shots in the city, and learned that Jews were being “driven off”. He and Dietze then went to their offices, and from there, out of curiosity, into the Jewish section, from which the shots seemed to emanate. This Jewish section was adjacent to a dirt road. On the edges of this dirt road he saw the bodies of elderly people and then he arrived at an empty site. At this site, Jews had sat back to back in long rows. The accused Windisch had gone through the rows and, using a list, ordered or screamed at 10 to 15 people and “directed” at least two such groups to the execution site. There were SS men at this site, but there was none near Windisch. It was his impression that Windisch directed the Aktion on his own authority. He was at any rate the “big cheese”. Vol 7 p 1090/94
The accused then alleges to have gone into several Jewish apartment buildings with Dietze, to determine if all the Jews had indeed been driven out. Here he encountered SS-members, who were searching the buildings for hidden Jews. He saw a Jew lying in a bed fully dressed in a gazebo, but acted as if he had seen nothing. He then returned to the office. He did not go to the execution site. The witness Cummings must have confused him with someone else. At lunch he had heard remarks that there wasn’t enough chloride on hand. Vol 13 p 1828
In his opinion, the entire Aktion was planned in great secrecy by the SD in Baranovichi along with Hanweg and Windisch. At any rate, “small fry” – like him – had been “left in the dark”.
Furthermore, the accused does admit to having attended the “cozy get together” between he SD staff from Baranovichi and members of the RC Lida. Vol 7 p 1092
Finally the acussed asserts that a few weeks later there was a second, smaller Aktion against the Jews in Lida. He doesn’t know, however, if members of the RC Lida participated. Vol 7 p 1093 f
The accused claims to have been present at another mass execution, in a site unknown to him in the RC Lida. Hanweg had ordered him, with Dietze and the truck driver Knirsch, to drive to this place, and to prevent the execution of a Jewish pharmacist there. On his arrival in the place, the Jews had already been led off to the execution site. En route to the execution site, he was informed that the “matter of the pharmacist had already been taken care of”. When he wanted to go back on hearing this, the driver Knirsch suggested that they go to the execution site, which he- Werner – refused. Finally, Knirsch went alone to the execution site. After a few hours, Knirsch came back, preening himself on having shot some Jews himself. With the remark that “it was fun” Knirsch in vain tried to convince him and Dietze to return with him and “do away” with a few themselves. Vol p 1094/95
The accused admits to having been in Ivje on the day of the mass execution, but nonetheless denies having participated in the selection.
In particular, he asserts as follows: on the day of the executions, he learned in Lida that an execution was to take place in Ivje. He and Dietze drove out there from Lida out of curiosity. On remonstration he admits he might have had an order to collect jewelry and other objects from the Jews allowed to live in Ivje. Furthermore, he wanted to try, with Dietze, to “remove on humanitarian grounds a few Jews” and to spare them from execution. Vol 7 p 1097/98, vol 13 p 1833
On his arrival in Ivje, he saw only 50 or 60 Jews in a courtyard at the edge of town. The assistant to the accused Windisch eventually called up these Jews, who were strongly guarded by German Gendarmerie. There was no selection here. He – Werner – only tried to calm the whining, crying Jews and then returned to Lida.
5) Shooting of the Jew Jossek (December 1941)
The accused denies the deed and then admitted that he doesn’t recall ever having ridden in a sleigh in Lida. It was possible that Jews cleared the snow from the 2 apartment buildings belonging to the RC Lida. But he had never heard that a Jew had ever been shot in the process. Vol 7 p 1100, 1108
When the accused was shown a transparency which showed him on a sleigh in Lida, the accused admitted he might have done it once or twice. Vol 7 p 1112
In a later interrogation the accused suddenly remembered the name Jossek. In explanation he said that he’d been thinking about this event, and recalled that once, at dusk, the truck driver Knirsch had come into the dining room of the RC excitedly. Knirsch had a pistol in his hadn and explained “he’d had a bit of a dust up with the Jew Jossek”. Knirsch had asked either him or the witness Cordes for cleaning material for his pistol. That was all he knew about the subject. Vol 13 p 1830
6) Shooting of an unknown woman (December 1941)
This deed first became known during the preliminary investigation by the court. As the accused made no statements to the prosecuting attorney, there are no admissions by the accused.
7) Shooting of an unknown Jew (Spring 1942)
The accused denied this deed, with which he was first confronted during the third prosecutorial interrogation, admits to having occasionally set his dog on Jews with the command “grab him”! This had occurred only in the courtyard behind his house, because his dog had been “teased” by the Jews. Vol 13 p 1829
In the different prosecutorial interrogations, the accused contradicted himself many times in regard to setting his dog on Jews.
He did admit to taking his dog regularly in “the course of his duties”. The dog had not been trained as an attack dog, and had been completely worthless in this regard. In his first interrogation, he denied vigorously ever setting his dog on a Jew. Vol 1 p 144 f.
In his second interrogation, the accused backed off this assertion and then testified never to have “directly” set his dog on Jews. But he had been “convinced” the dog didn’t bit. Vol 7 p 1098
Only when the accused was directly confronted by the testimony of 20 witnesses, did he become partially truthful and admitted to having set his dog on Jews “here and there”. The dog only bit clothes, and then only if the Jews tried to run away. He was forced to set his dog on Jews, because Hanweg had scolded him for being friendly to Jews and had threatened to have him “disappear”, if he ever got proof. Vol 7 p 1099
This admission speaks for itself.
Finally the accused asserted that the Jews threw themselves on the ground before all Germans, not just him – probably in fear. There had been a general order to that effect. Vol 7 p 1110
This is not true. There had never been such an order.
8) Aktion against the Vilner Jews (1 March 1942)
The accused denied any participation in this Aktion. He claims never to have heard of it. Vol 11 p 1101, vol 13 p 1831
9) Murder of the Jewish stable boy Narkunski (Summer 1942)
The accused denied having murdered the stable boy or being responsible
for his death. He admits, that he had the stable boy “tied” to a
carpet beater with his hands crossed over his head right after the report
of the witness Cordes “to prevent flight”. The stable boy had his
feet on the ground, however. It was possible that he had struck him
once or twice in indignation. He or the witness Cordes had then telephoned
the police, and asked them to come get the stable boy. He then went
away. He doesn’t know the stable boy’s fate. Vol 7 p 1103/5,
vol 13 p 1832
For the deeds perpetrated by the accused abroad, section 3 StGB
of German penal law applies. Both accused were German citizens at
the time of their deeds.
The killings of Jews by the accused personally or with their participation are the crime of murder in the sense of section 211 StGB.
The determination of section 211 was revised, to take effect 14 September 1941 (RGB1. I p 549) During commission of these deeds, therefore, the section 211 StGB was already in effect in its present form. Even if the 2 acts of the accused Windisch that cannot be accurately dated took effect before this that, numbers I, 6 and 7, then the conditions of the old version of section 211 StGB – to have acted with premeditation and planning – are met anyway.
All these killings were undertaken for low motives. The Jews were killed solely because they were members of a certain race. Such a motive stands on the very lowest rung of legal ethical valuation. It is objectionable and therefore low. BGHSt 18, 37 (39) LG Koblenz 9 Ks 2/62, p 264
The mass murders were in addition brutal. The victims were subjected to bodily pain and unimaginable mental anguish from an unfeeling, unmerciful attitude. In the certain knowledge of being sent to their deaths innocently, the overwhelming majority of the victims were forced to watch their fellow sufferers being shot down helplessly and partly undressed. This was particularly hard on parents, whose children were torn from them at the edge of the trenches, and in Lida, in some cases, tossed high into the air, and then shot at as if they were clay pigeons.
The murder of the members of the Judenrat was, as described in the narrative of events, brutal.
In case No. I, 7, the killing was also treacherous: because the student was leaving the building with the impression he was free. He was shot from behind in exploitation of his guilelessness and his defenselessness by the accused Windisch.
The mass executions took place on Hitler’s order. They corresponded to the will and the race-political aspirations of his closest coworkers. Through the will of these chief perpetrators, the individual phases of the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” were planned by the RSHA, prepared organizationally and executed by fanatical handymen, drilled to unconditional obedience and brutal harshness, overwhelmingly from the SD and Security Police, but also other divisions.
The accused also acted as doers, according to their inner attitudes, and not only in those cases in which they killed on their own judgement.
The accused Windisch was and is a convinced and fanatic devotee of National Socialist ideology. The course of his entire life took place under the sign of National Socialist activism. Already in his youth he devoted himself entirely to National Socialism from inner conviction. In his letters of recommendation from 1936 and 1939 he is already designated as an absolutely steadfast and dutiful National Socialist. Doc vol VII p 556, 565
The accused Werner was a convinced National Socialist, too. Already at 16 (1923) he actively participated in shock troops and travelling commandos in the Frontbann Charlottenburg as well as in the election campaign. On resigning from the Wehrmacht (1937), he immediately entered the NSDAP. Later he was honorary Betriebsobmann in the SD-division Saar and eventually applied for entry into the SS and SD. Doc vol VII p 601, 607-617
Both accused were also convinced disciples of the national socialist race mania. They did not see Jews as human at all, didn’t just beat and kick Jews, but also killed many of them on their own judgement, simply because they were Jews.
The accused Windisch called Jews “vermin” and “syphilitc pack” and brutally beat the witness Druck for inconsequential reasons with a piece of cable.
The accused Werner distinguished himself, according to consistent statements of [many] witnesses through particular brutality (drive-by whippings from his sleigh, setting a dog on [Jews]), so that Jews fell to the ground in his presence in fear.
This attitude of the accused proves that they were fanatic antisemites. The accused Windisch is apparently still one today.
Because of this inner attitude the accused cooperated willingly in the mass executions. They not only made sure the mass shootings occurred smoothly, they also supervised the collections, and in the selections, where they had significant leeway in their actions, they evinced a particularly cooperative zeal. In the course of this they became perpetrators many times and used their energy to assure the unremitting progress of the Aktionen.
The accused Windisch reproached the RC in Lida for sending too many [Jews] to the left during the selection of Jews from the Postowska section. At the selection of Jews from the Piaski section, he screamed “finish quickly, we already have enough”.
When in Vornovo, the 3-1/2 year old son of the couple Druck had to relieve himself after the collection at the Market Place, the accused Windisch said he should do it on the spot, since “it would soon be shit anyway”.
The accused Werner remarked, after the selection of 82 skilled artisans in Zoludek that he “had enough now”, then checked these 82 personally and thereby came upon the shaft maker Derewianski, whom he beat bloody and had driven to the execution site.
The accused thereby took upon themselves to influence the course of actions that had as consequence decisions over life and death.
Both accused, in addition, didn’t just give orders with hand signals at the execution site in Lida, but also shot at victims themselves.
This entire attitude of the accused shows that they, to a large degree, controlled events, and did far more than was expected of them. All these circumstances speak for the conclusion that the accused agreed with the racist mania of the people in power at the time and made them a foundation for their own convictions and deeds. The accused are therefore to be punished as perpetrators (accomplices) for their participation in the mass executions, which by natural observation represent a closed action. The same is true for the shooting of the Vilner Jews and – with Windisch – for the Aktion against the members of the Judenrat.
It needs no further explanation that the killings by their own hand of the accused on their own judgements are to be evaluated as murder in the sense of section 211 StGB.
The killing of the Jewish stable boy is also of low motive, and still is even if the stable boy had committed a crime, which was considered a capital offense at the time; because it is not just someone who kills Jews from racial hatred who has low motives, but also he who uses the racial hatred of the time in expectation of going unpunished for his deeds. BGHSt. 18,37,39 & 1 StR 37/64 (Ks 7/62 LG Nuernberg/Fuerth ./. Paur et al.)
The accused Werner made himself arbitrarily the master of life and death and killed or had the stable boy killed without due process, because he knew he would not be called to account for his action. According to the testimony of the witness Zietlow, he whipped the boy to death, that is, he also killed him in a brutal manner.
The statute of limitations for the deeds for which the accused are indicted expires in 20 years according to Section 67 Abs. 1 StGB. BGH in NJW 1962/2308
The clock began running only on 8 May 1945, which results from the legal reasoning of section 69 StGB. In addition this is also expressly stated in section 4 of the national law for addressing National Socialist crimes in the penal law version of 23 March 1948 (GVB1. 244).
It is ordered that,
The main proceeding be opened and to admit the indictment as a primary proceeding of the Landgericht – jury in Mainz.
Mainz 15 Dec. 1966
The Chief State Attorney
By (Hinzmann)
State Attorney
Copyright © 2000 Irene Newhouse
HTML by Irene Newhouse