should be done as there was nothing against her. It was really quite an unjustified suspicion against her. In this connection she told me about this rumor and she asked me about it. She added that she was very worried about her friends and acquaintances of her family who were partly Jewish, and she asked me whether she should not advise them to leave Denmark in some way or other. I did not know anything about the whole matter. I had heard about it for the first time and I, after all, was an officially. Therefore, I could not advise her with words but I told her....... and this was approved later on and I was told that that was completely justified and right......I, as I say, through my whole personel attitude and even through the expression on my face, I let her know that I was of the opinion and of the conviction that she should leave Denmark.
Q. Witness, what was your won attitude toward the measures on the part of the government or rather the party against the Jews?
A. I would like to make a destination there, State and Party. Those measures were taken on the part of the State and I saw in these measures that they would serve the purpose of bringing about the solution of the Jewish problem insofar as the Jews would be brought about to emigrate and leave Germany. At that time, as far as I know, the solution of the Jewish problem was always discussed and as it has been mentioned in this trial, this Madagasgar plan was also mentioned. I have, before this examination, told my defense counsel that I seem to remember just Madagasgar and Palestine and that at the time this was also discussed in the press and that negotiations were in progress with France, I believe, in order to have Jews migrate to Madagasgar.
Thus in these measures on the part of the State, or at least as far as they concerned these laws, I saw a sort of legal gap between the two enemy parts of the population which was to serve the purpose of forcing the Jewish population to emigrate on the one hand, and furthermore, regarded from the foreign policy point of view, to cause the other states, who would have been prepared to take in Jews, to carry this out. I must emphasize again that acts of violence were never mentioned to me and I never found out anything about them. I never experienced anything, but acts of violence and terror. I objected psychologically and I still do. only I alone; have strongly objected to the acts of terror which took place in 1938 in November. Again I can only say I did not find out anything else about them until this very day, I, as I say, regard them as purely arbitrary acts of the Party authorities.
As I say I regard them as purely arbitrary acts of party authorities. I was told at the time, and I found out about these things in November, in the shape of rumors that behind these acts was the party leadership under Goebbels. I think it must have been the 8th of November 1938. At that time I was not the Berlin myself, but on this day and the following day I was in Munich and I did not see or experience anything immediately myself but it was at night after midnight in the hotel when suddenly the rumor circulated that excess had happened and were still happening. The largest part of the departmental officials and the leader of the SD main office had come to Munich to take part in the 9 November celebrations. And I know that this bit of information we received in the hotel. There were a number of other leader present. I can certify that generally the whole chain of events was regarded with strong misgivings. This was expressed by all these men. And after that, the next day, not the next but the next but one, I left for Berlin and only in Berlin I learned the facts from acquaintances and friends in the vicinity of our apartment. I found out, I said, in what incredible manner these actions had been carried out. That must have been a day later when it was made known through the press, that acts of terror of any kind, would be punished severely by the police. Until this very day I am of the opinion that these acts were events which were merely arbitrary acts carried out by radical party members and which according to my opinion then had been
PRESIDENT: Dr. Riediger, when the witness has narrated an incident or episode, is it unnecessary for him to repeat it? I would suggest that you keep a central over his testimony. Now, he has told us this episode, that of the responsibility of the party. He referred to it yesterday. He has given it to us today. Now, he is again telling us the responsibility of the party, which is naturally repetitious and unnecessary. I would suggest that when he goes on to an unnecessary length, and it most be apparent to you when that happens, that you ask another question. In that way we will keep it moving.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I shall follow this example. BY DR. RIEDIGER:
Q. Witness, I believe we can now leave this particular sphere. What is your attitude toward Christianity?
A. I already said that I was educated and grew up ion a Christian home, and my religious psychological attitude was and in a positive affirmation of God, or the Christian term of God. Since my early childhood I never felt myself of confronted with any problems concerning this my conviction. For this reason, I did not have to search for God, but for me it is an unvielable firm possession, and the highest one, governing all matters of this earch. And we all have to bow to it; scientists as well as philosophers, because after all the very essential questions cannot be answered by these scientists.
Q. Why did you leave the church, and when was that?
A. I may add now that my leaving the church has nothing to do with my religious conviction or my membership of the party or the SS. I never discussed this with any superior or with any responsible party member of the SS, and I was never asked about these matters, about my own attitude toward these matters, but that is my own private matter, and here again there is a long development until I arrived at the solution: it started after the first world war. I then regarded the church as a mundane organization. I saw and I believe that they had given up their real Christian task, the care of sould of human beings, and had become a mere or less political power. Already in 1922 and '23 I saw church elections of the church parties, that is, in the Protestant Church of Germany, which actually reflected the political parties, and that way one found conservative Christians, liberal Christians, and the church steered more and more towards political power. After '33 the impression became stronger and stronger. by press and radio we learned of the dispute between the various churches. One heard of remarks against the state, on the part of the clergy, and all this brought up the conviction within me that the church was not any longer a church as it should be, namely, the binding member or the spiritual organization and spiritual unit of all these believing in Christ.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, do we understand from what you have just said that you learned from the press and radio that the church in some way was opposed to the state government?
A. Yes.
Q. And you looked with regret upon the dispute between the church and the state?
A. Yes, Your Honor.
Q. And I understand that you felt that that was an improper attitude of the church, and therefore you were willing to withdraw from the church?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, I just wanted to know. BY DR RIEDIGER:
Q. Did your leaving the church mean that you gave up the belief in Christ?
A. No. In no manner, but I may now add to the words of the President, I was confronted with the psychological conflict not caused by the press information which I received but by the events which I experienced myself, that the gap within the population came into existence again, and that it even touched individual families. The cause of my leaving the church was a visit to my own home village; when I found out there that in one individual family, a family of a clergyman, the conflict had become so extensive between father and son-in-law and children that family life as such split up and Christian love could not even be discussed. I have already said that I learned belief from earliest childhood on, and I have always been happiest when I saw the close contact from man to man or from people to people.
Q. Witness, did you have any advantages from your leaving the church?
A. No. There were no advantages gained by my leaving the church, and I never attempted to have any advantages. I should like to say now that my promotion, within the SS especially, took place before my leaving the church. Apart from the last promotion to obersturmbannfuehrer, which had to come as an assimilation of ranks in my office as oberregierungsrat, (Senior Government Counsellor), and this promotion itself came about almost four years after my last promotion to Sturmbannfuehrer.
Q. Witness, I think we can now leave this subject and I would now like to clarify the point concerning your membership in the SD and the SS. When did you enter the SD?
A. I joined the SD as a civilian employee on the 1st of August 1935.
Q. When did you join the SS, Witness?
A. On the 1st of May 1936 I joined the SS, that is, the SS formation SD. This was caused by my new office within the SD.
Q. What offices did you hold in the RSHA?
A. In the RSHA I was only a member of office I.
Q. What tasks did you have to deal with?
A. I had to deal with disciplinary matters--official disciplinary matters and penal matters within my group.
Q. Did you membership of Office I change when you were promoted to Regierungsrat, Government Counsellor?
A. I am sorry, I did not understand the beginning of the question.
Q. Did your membership of Office I change when you were promoted to the Regierungsrat, and when you were taken over in the state service?
A. No. Unfortunately not. At the time it was my wish that it should be so, and it was again a period in which I attempted to apply for another office. With the moment of my promotion to Regierungsrat (Government Counsellor), I became a member of the Ministry of Interior, but I remained a deputy to the Reich Security main office, I requested this, and my request was refused owing to the condition of the war.
PRESIDENT: Just what did the witness mean when he said that he dealt with "disciplinary, and penal matters" within his group? Which group?
DR. RIEDIGER: In my knowledge, it is the group within the Office I.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, may I clarify this? BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Well, just tell me what group, whom do you mean by "group"? Now, just tell me that.
A. I only wanted to express that I was in charge of the group which dealt with disciplinary and penal matters; Office I, was sub divided into various groups.
By this I mean departments, and one of these departments dealt with disciplinary matters and penal matters concerning officials.
Q. Which officials?
A. These were the officials, first of all, members of SD, then officials of other departments of security police or belonging to the Reich Security Main Office.
PRESIDENT: Very well. That answers the question. BY DR. RIEDIGER:
Q. Did your leaving the RSHA change your relationship and your membership in the SS?
A. I never understand this until now; through the documents I found out the real state of affairs. I was explained at that time when I left, that from now on I would be transferred to the Fuehrungshauptamt (leadership main office), but really nothing happened. I, myself, from the very day of my leaving this office, heard nothing about it any more. The validity stamp on the SS membership cards, it was only valid for about three months, then a new stamp had to be entered. I never received any more, and I never requested it. I had no contact whatsoever except through one questionnaire which I was sent, I believe, in 1944 for me to fill out--a personnel questionnaire. I never sent it back. This becomes evident from my SS personnel files. They show that the old personnel questionnaire of 1937 is contained, but this new questionnaire is not contained. Therefore, practically, if I may call it that, a la suite, I was carried on the files of the Reich Security Main Office as a member of the SS, as it becomes evident from these documents now.
Q. Did you ever serve in the General SS?
A. No. I was never a member of the General SS, and I never did any General SS Service or any other SS Service, as for instance, Sturm service, as we had been used to from the motorized SA or the NSKK (the motorized units of the SS). Not a single member of the RSHA or the SD ever did any service.
DR. RIEDIGER: Actually, Your Honor, I have no more questions, but I would like to correct the affidavit, that is, the translation of the affidavit of the Witness of Volume III C.
PRESIDENT: Tell us in what particular.
DR. RIEDIGER: It is page 54, German: I don't know the English at the moment.
MR. HOCHWALD: It is page 35 of Document Book III C.
DR. RIEDIGER: Exhibit 140, No. 4567. There on a number of cocasions "parteitraeger" is mentioned ("official"). This does not correspond to the actual statement of the witness.
PRESIDENT: What page of the original, Dr. Riediger?
DR. RIEDIGER: It is page 71 in my book.
RESIDENT: No. What page of the documents, original -- the original documents is divided into many pages.
MR. HOCHWALD: It is page 18 of the original, Your Honor.
PRESIDENT: All right, proceed.
DR. RIEDIGER: There are a number of other mistakes in the translation which, however, are not as irritating. This is a mistake here which is of some consequence. I would like this to be noted in the record.
PRESIDENT: Please repeat it. I didn't catch it at first because I didn't have the page.
DR. RIEDIGER: The wording is page 40.
MR. HOCHWALD: From the top, para. 4, on page 43.
PRESIDENT: Now please, just a minute, we are confusing this. Dr. Riediger, refer to the page in the original document, and then read it the way it appears now and the way you believe it should appear.
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honor, it is page 18 of the original, page 43 of the English document book, second para from the top, and signed as para 4. There are some paragraphs mentioned in the other page before that.
PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps Mr. Hochwald, you can assist Dr. Riediger by your reading from the original and then determining from Dr. Riediger wherein he claims there is an error in the translation from the German.
MR. HOCHWALD: If I understand Dr. Riediger correctly, Your Honor, he does not claim that it is an error in the translation but he claims that when the document was transcribed from the handwriting of the witness into the mimeographed copy here, a mistake was made in the German.
PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, then tell us what that error is.
MR. HOCHWALD: He claims that instead of the word "parteitraeger" which means party officials, which appears in the mimeographed copy, the witness wrote himself the word "pertepetraeger", which would mean an officer, an officer who was permitted to wear a strap on his sword, and this strap means "pertepetraeger". "Pertepetraeger" would then be an officer. As far as I can see from the English, that is not a very big difference, as the English says, "Occasionally officer or authorized persons also attended the executions." It is not said in the translation, which very likely was made from the photostat of the original, that there were party officials present.
PRESIDENT: Very well. That explanation will appear in the transcript. Now, what is next, Dr. Riediger?
DR RIEDIGER: The others are negligent matters which I do not have to mention.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Does any defense counsel desire to cross-examine the witness? If not, Mr. Hochwald will proceed with the cross-examination. questions put to you?
THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon, Your Honor, if I have answered the questions today and yesterday slightly haltingly. It is no bad intention. I sometimes do not find the right words. I think it is mainly due to a state of exhaustion and I thought I had overcome it, but it is due to some kind of disease, which I had from 1946 until 1947. I was in the hospital then and I was in a complete state of exhaustion after I had broken down.
THE PRESIDENT: I would suggest that when a question is put to you, you make certain that you understand it thoroughly and then respond and you take just asmuch time as you believe is necessary to understand with a full comprehension of what you are saying.
THE WITNESS: Thank you. BY MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD:
Q. May it please the Tribunal; Dr. Haensch, we can just start where your counsel left off about your membership in the NSDAP and the SS and the SD. Is it correct that you joined -- is it correct that you joined the NSDAP in 1931?
A. That is correct.
Q. And the SS in 1935?
A. No, I have already mentioned that I joined the SS on the 1st of May 1936.
Q. 1936?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever swear the oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler?
that moment when I became amember of the SS, the SS oath became equally valid. Personally, I cannot remember now whether I swore a personal oath, by making the oath itself, or whether it was so automatic and regarded as my transfer altogether was automatic, my transfer into the SS, but that, of course, is negligent and of minor importance. Of course, the oath wasjust asvalid for me asit was for others.
Q You felt you were bound to this oath?
Q When actually did you first contact with SD take place?
AAs I have already said. my first contact with the SD was into Doebeln in connection with this dispute which I mentioned, after the consequences had made themselves felt. Until that point, I had perhaps, shall we say anonymous contact, because I had not known that the report was meant for the SD, but I was told that it was for the SS. That again is of negligent importance.
Q. So, if I am correct, you had your first contact with the SD after you were dismissed from your position in Doebeln. That was in autumn, 1935, is that correct?
A. No, both these statements are not quite correct. Just a moment, may I ask you to ask the first part of this question again. I have already forgotten.
Q. Did you not state that your first contact with the SD took place after you had been dismissed from Doebeln?
A This first question is not quite correct, Mr. Prosecutor. No, not after I had been released, a ccording to my memory, because then I was for some time -- I don't know whether it was eight or fourteen day -I was released before the first measures. On the same day the Kroisleiter, (District Leader), came and at that time immediately after my first contact, I would say, my onlightenment concerning the SD cam about; my report to the SD.
Doebeln, making this report, you had never had any contact with the SD. That is right? here at great length about the facts, how it came about that you joined the SD and consequently the SS. In your affidavit, which is Document Book III-C on page 47, German 80, Document 4567, Prosecution Exhibit 140, you said that you were forced to join the SD and the SS. You have amended this statement by testifying that you received an officer from the SD which you accepted as you had no opportunity to get a job in Civil Service, is that correct?
Q Mr. Prosecution, I think a number of questions are contained in this one question that you have just asked. First of all say that I had stated in some place that I had been forced to join the SS and the SD. Is that what you mean? I never and in no place said that I was forced to join. I don't know what point you mean.
Q On page 46 of the English. I do think it is on page 80 of the German.
Q You will find the sentence, "My activity there, involuntarily, became of decisive importance in my further professional career and this in a negative sense in as far as I was prevented for years from my endeavors of becoming active in the service of the general state administration, and was forced to judicial activity within the SD and the SS." Possibly; I do only want to make it clear; is it correct that you received an offer from the SD and accepted this offer?
A I answered this, Your Honor, but I must clarify this. There must be a mistake in the translation in the English text. Apparently it says, as I hear from you now that I had been forced, because it says, in the original document, I quote, "My activity there" -- that is, in Doebeln -- "became of major importance eventually for my further professional career and was" -- and here it should not say "war" but "zwar."
There is a letter left out. "It was of minor significance in so far as for years I had made attempts to take up activity within the service of the State Administration and I was prevented and automatically" -- It doesn't say "forced", "zwangslaufig" ("Zwangslaufig" is "automatically") and again there is a mistake, "juristiarisch" (legal activity) within the SD and therefore the SS."
Q May I then ask you whether the word "zwangsweise" means -- or whether you intended to say that you were forced to enter the SD?
A No, it does not say "zwangsweise." It means "zwangslaufig." "zwangslaufig" does not mean that I was forced to join the SD, personally, in any way, but the ill conditions, as such, the fact that I had no job as an excluded Party member, I could not find any corresponding activity. This automatically meant that I accepted the offer of the SD to do work with them in some legal activity, as a legal counsel. correct?
A Nobody forced me. I joined voluntarily. I took over this activity voluntarily in this department. Psychologically, of course, I was in a sort of forced position. Otherwise, of course, I would have chosen another activity; the activity in the General Administration which I had been offered, for which I had been put down on the waiting list, and I was waiting to be called, and, as I had been put down on the list in Dresden, the District Leader, the (Gauleiter), of course, was In the position to cross all my plans, and, now, of course...... the Tribunal all this which you have just said now in your direct examination. I do think it will be easier for you and for all of usif you just answer the question and give information only, information you did not volunteer for your direct examination.
Q How was it with your entrance into the SS? Your entrance into the SS was a voluntary one too, is that correct?
A Well, this I may perhaps explain. The real state of affairs was that it really came about automatically. Again even now it says -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he has stated, Mr. Hochwald -
THE WITNESS:You want to know whether I voluntarily joined the SS, well, in any way I was not forced, -
THE PRESIDENT: The witness stated when he joined the SD voluntarily, he became a member of the SS automatically. The joining of the SD carried with it whatever naturally followed, so, therefore, when he joined the SD, he automatically, and, therefore, voluntarily joined the SS because that followed.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: The only question I wanted to ask; I wanted to ask the witness in this connection, whether this joining of the SS was the automatic result of his membership in the SD. Nothing else.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) is that correct that your transfer to the SS was the automatic result of your membership in the SD?
A Yes, I want to correct one thing, though, Mr. Prosecutor, that it carried it with it -- but I do not want you to conclude that the 1st of August I actually joined the SS. I joined in 1936 on the 1st of August not in 1935, because I see from the expressions used here, that it is all somewhat strange.
Q Witness, you were asked by the Tribunal -- I beg the Tribunal's pardon for touching this point again -- you had testified that even before the war you tried to be released from the SD, is that correct?
Q. For this reason, you made frequent applications, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. What exactly were the contents of these applications?
A. The content of these applications, Mr. Prosecutor, were nothing but my request to give me now the opportunity, as I had originally intended, to be transferred into the interior administration of the State.
Q. So, I am then correct in assuming that these applications were applications for transfer in the internal administration, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. But you actually never made an application to be released from the SD just for the reason that you were unwilling to do the job in the SD. Is it not clear from your statement, Dr. Haensch, that you just wanted to make a better choice, but that, as you did not get the position in the Civil Service you just stayed in the SD, is that right?
A. I don't understand your question. There are too many questions again contained there.
Q. It is very simple. Did you ever make an application to be released from the SD, just released from the SD, as you did not want to be a member of this organization?
A. I did not ever see anything detrimental concerning the SD. I had no cause to threw dirt at the SD.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hockwald, that answers your question. It is a sort of round about way. You asked him whether he ever sought to leave the SD. He says he saw no reason to leave the SD. That means that he never tried to leave the SD.
Q. (By Mr. Herlick-Hockwald) So you were not actually under military orders to stay in the SD. You would have been able to leave this organization if you would have requested to do so?
A. But, Mr. Prosecutor, you can see it from the fact that my requests were constantly refused that I could not do what I wanted to. I was, after all, a member of this machinery and this organization of the RSHA and therefore, also, of he SD and the Security Police and SD.
Of course I was subordinated to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD. If you want to call that military power; the word "military" I don't know what to do with. Of course, I was in a sort of position-
Q. Witness, may I interrupt you? May I interrupt you for a minute? Would it have been possible for you between 1936 and 1939 to leave the SD, be released from the SD or will you tell the Tribunal that at the moment you joined the SD you must -- you had to stay in the SD all your life? That is what I am asking you.
A. Well, Mr. Prosecutor, then, of course, I must say that I would not have had this possibility. Even if the Chief of the SD had approved my leaving the service, I myself could not have left on my own initiative. That was the forced position that I was in. I can say that here: it worried me very much mentally.
Q. Was that during the war or before the war, Dr. Haensch?
A. We have talked now about the time before the war.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal that membership in the SD and the SS before the war was involuntary and that anybody who once joined one of these organizations could never leave it any more. Will you tell me that? Are you going to tell that to the Tribunal? Please make your answer clear. It is a very case question to answer.
A. If you see anything involuntary in this, then, of course, this corresponds to the fact, and, of course, now all the directives and regulations were valid for me that were valid for all the other members, and now, of course, as I say, I was not free any longer. I could not take my own fate into my hands, as I would have liked to do, but, as I always constantly-
Q. You don't understand. This is not the question. The question is whether you would have been able to make an application for a release from the SD and whether there was an actual order or decree which made it impossible for somebody to ask for a release and to be . released from one of the two organizations in which you were from 1936.
You do not answer my question. I think there is only one question. Was there an order or a decree existing in Germany that a person who once joined the SS or the SD could never be released any more? Can you anser that?
A. No, I do not know of an order or a decree to this effect or, at least, not in that shape. The following directives were valid.....
THE PRESIDENT: You have answered the question. Mr. Hochwald, when your question have been answered, ask another question because -
Q. (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) So there was no decree or order, was there?
A. Well, there was a decree to the following effect; that I would like to mention. This was really valid in connection with the SS members. A man who had been transferred to the SS, and, in my case, that would have been to the SD, he, -- I don't remember after how long. I think perhaps one year -- he could leave for reasons of health. Only there were three or four points. I think it was for health, reasons of health, if physicians confirmed it. Then there was also automatic exclusion resulting from any actions, and there was one other point, but I don't remember clearly. These were the regulations which, of course, were also valid for the SS and SD. I never saw these matters as complicated as you put them, Mr. Prosecutor. I have tried to achieve some kind of professional satisfaction, but that was not possible, because it was refused. I myself was not free, therefore in any full power of decision.
Q. I don't want to press this point. You have said about -
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, I think the witness made it very clear that he never desired to leave the SD, except to get a better job. Now, if he never desired to leave, then it is evident that he was satisfied to stay.
MR. HORLICK*HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal understands the testimony of the witness in that way. I am perfectly satisfied, but the witness, of course, has just said "no" again in contradiction to that which he has said ten months ago, that he was never free, so he tries obviously to give the impression that he was involuntarily a member of this criminal organization.
If he states here -- and that is what I am asking him all the time -- he remained in these two organization voluntarily, I do think there should be no further line of questioning on this point, but it is very hard, I am sorry to say, to follow his explanations, although he, is a lawyer, he does not know the difference between legal force and inner force, force which is the wish for a better job, a better position, and he mixes it up in a way, I don't understand really, so may I ask one last question?
organizations - the SD and the SS, voluntarily. Will you answer this question with yes or no, please?
THE PRESIDENT: The trouble is -
THE WITNESS: I can only answer it in the affirmative. I could not leave the organization.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Mr. Hochwald, you put two questions in your last proposition. Did you join, and did you remain.
MR. HOCHWALD: Yes, sir, I did.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, those are two questions.
MR. HOCHWALD: I said, did you join ... that seems to be -
THE PRESIDENT: You joined voluntarily. That's clear, isn't it?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now that is disposed of. Don't ask that question again. And the next question - we are able to recuperate in the next fifteen minutes from what has proceeded.
( A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I must ask your pardon if I come with a special request -- I beg that the witness Schreyer be interrogated....
THE PRESIDENT: Your request is granted without even your putting it. Yes. We will hear this witness, even though we have to break into the cross examination - so that the witness, as we understand, can get away as she would like to, this afternoon. Very well.
DR. RIEDIGER: Thank you.