These three witnesses were at the time collaborators of Schulz in Graz and have an exact insight into his activity there. They have known his extraordinary friendliness and his popularity, not only with all officials, employees and workers at an agency, but also among wide circles of the population. They confirm that he released on his own initiative the greatest part of those people who had been taken into protective custody by the Austrian National Socialists. No. 83 as Exhibit No. 74. This is the affidavit of Heertha Schmid from Grazzin Austria, the wife of the university professor, Dr. Schmid, who was also in protective custody. She confirms that Schulz freed her husband from this custody. She also confirmed that as long as Schulz was in Graz she had a feeling of security against renewed attacks of the Gestapo. The affiant added a newspaper excerpt from the Graz paper, "Tagespost" of the 2nd of July, 1938, and this excerpt shows among other things that on the occasion of Schulz's farewell from Graz he made a speech in front of representatives of the state and the party in public in which he asks his collaborators to let their heart speak too in their work, whether they are friendly to the cause or not. This was not sentimentality. If one does not feel that there is heart in your work then it would be better not to do that work at all. The service had to be conducted strictly but gallantly.
As the next document I offer on page 246 the Document No. 84 as Exhibit No. 75. This is the affidavit of University Professor Dr. Heinrich Schmid from Graz, the husband of the affiant mentioned above. He states especially that Schulz saved him from a concentration camp after having released him from his protective custody, the concentration camp into which he would no doubt have been sent because of his opinion in favor of the independence of Austria. Above all he states that the conduct of Schulz and his just and humane attitude differed most pleasantly from all the other officers of the Gestapo with whom Schmid, at that time when he was arrested, had come into contact.
On Page 249 Document No. 85 as Exhibit No. 76. This is the affidavit of the pastor, Dr. Kohlbach, from Graz in Austria, who had gotten into protective custody as a well-known Austrian writer and doubtless would have been consigned for years in concentration camps just like many other editors of Catholic publications of Austria if Schulz had not released him together with other clergymen.
On Page 254, Document No. 87 as Exhibit No. 77. This is the affidavit of the then Austrian Minister for Economic Planning and Security of Property, Dr. Peter Krauland from Vienna whom Schulz had likewise liberated from protective custody in Graz. He too confirms that the conduct of Schulz was so pleasantly different from most of the other functionaries that he had written him a letter of gratitude.
itself with the activity of the Defendant Schulz in Reichenberg in the then Sudetenland in 1939, I submit and offer on Page 232 as Exhibit No. 78 Document No. 80. This is the affidavit of the engineer and former criminal counsellor, Hans Hasse, from Hamburg, This witness confirms all statements which Schulz made in the witness stand about his activity in Reichenberg, especially that in the Sudetenland there never was or there was no Jewish question, furthermore, that he appointed two police officials only for the purpose of protecting the property left behind by the fleeing Jews from unauthorized confiscation. Schulz thus had ruthlessly proceeded against the embezzlement of these valuables and he had these perpetrators arrested. Furthermore, that Schulz had understood how to influence other agencies from refraining from thoughtless actions and that he also had won his point with the Gauleiter when he considered measures that had been ordered as incorrect. Through his conduct in the Sudetangau he had no enemies and in public opinion he was respected and popular. of the Defendant Schulz as the director of Group IB in the RSHA and as the commander of the Leader School of the Security Police in BerlinCharlottenburg from 1941 to 1942, as well as the director of Group IA and of the Office I in the RSHA from 1942 to 1944, I submit and offer the following: On Page 200, Document No. 70 as Exhibit No. 79. This is the affidavit of Rudolf Hotzel who confirmed that in the Leader School of the Security Police in Berlin, whose commander Schulz was, the training in the professional subjects took precedent. He further confirms the statements of the Defendant Schulz about his talks in front of the students in the school in which he concerns himself with the concepts; domineering man and super-man. harshness and brutality, goodness and softness; leader and subordinate, He also confirms that Schulz had an unpolitical temperament and was not an eager National Socialist and did not influence the students in this respect.
and VII of the RSHA did not exist, and that an influence on the work of these offices did not exist either, nor was it possible. affidavit of Dr. Hans O'Gilvie, who was a teacher at the police officers' school. He says, among other things, that only good and well-trained teachers were allowed to teach there, that a military training was not given at the school at all, and that schulz relegated the ideological training consciously to a very small and unimportant part of the cause in favor of the professional training. Furthermore, Schulz had granted the teachers academic freedom. Furthermore, he states, as far as the activity of Schulz as chief of Office I in the RSHA is concerned, and as chief of the Personnel Department, he described Schulz as a man with great feeling for justice as opposed to the Chief of Office IV. Mueller, who had a strong dictator's will. the affidavit of the criminal councellor, Dr. Walter Zirpins, who also describes the purely factual activity of Schulz. affidavit of Dr. Paul Dittel, who discusses the exemplary leadership of the Personnel Department in the RSHA by Schulz. defendant, Schulz, in Salzburg, I finally offer and submit on page 198, document Number 69, the Exhibit Number 83. This is the affidavit of the former Brigadier General and Chief of Staff in the Service Commando XVIII in Salzburg, Anton Glasl. He confirms, among other things, that despite existing Fuehrer Orders Schulz had prevented the defense of the city of Salzburg and the blowing up of the bridges. of the architect, Richard Rothboeck, of Salzburg. affidavit of the physician, Dr. Robert Leitinger, from Salzburg.
the affidavit of the secretary, Hildegard Seiringer, from Mondsee in Upoer Austria. has said about the activity in Salzburg, especially about the humane treatment and his care for the prisoners of war and foreign workers and his fair and humane attitude towards the enemy pilots that had been shot down. as Exhibit Number 87. This is the affidavit of Dr. Anton Neumayr from Vienna, who confirms that Schulz had liberated his father, the present mayor of Salzburg, from the Concentration Camp Dachau, and had secured him a position in the Austrian civil service. which I received voluntarily. I could submit a great many more of such affidavits, but I think that the statements already submitted will give the Tribunal a sufficient picture about the personality and the activity of the defendant, Schulz. I may only remark that I shall submit one affidavit of the Jewish Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Noewe, who now lives in New York. The defendant, Schulz, also helped this man, as he did many other people in the year 1936. I only received this affidavit a few days ago from New York, So that for the lack of translation I could not yet submit this affidavit today. This is the end.
THE PRESIDENT: When do you think you may have that ready, Dr. Durchholz?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I shall have it written now and give it to the Translation Section, and it depends on them. As soon as I get it back, I shall submit it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The defendant, Graf, Will be taken to the witness stand.
DR. BELZER: Belzer for Graf. Your Honor, I ask that before the examination of the defendant, Graf, begins that you permit me to call a witness who is present here and who has to return to Munich tomorrow. The witness' name is Schaller.
MR. HOCHWALD: The prosecution has no objection to calling the witness now.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness, Schaller, will be called in the court room and taken to the witness stand.
HEINZ SCHALLER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE DIXON: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat the oath after me: 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)
JUDGE DIXON: You may be seated.
DR. BELZER: Witness, may I first ask you to speak slowly and distinctly into the microphone, not to answer my questions immediately, but to pause a few minutes until the interpreter has translated the question. BY DR. BELZER:
Q When and where were you born?
Q Do you know the defendant, Mathias Graf, and since when?
Q Did you meet the defendant, Graf, in Russia?
Q In what capacity were you in Russia?
Q In what town did you meet the defendant, Graf?
Q How long were you in Stalino?
Q Will you please give the exact dates? of June 1942.
Q With which unit was the defendant, Graf, at that time? merely an assumption on your part?
Q What uniform did Graf wear?
Q Any special insignia?
Q What rank did the defendant, Graf, have at that time? position and activity of the defendant, Graf?
Q How often did you visit Graf at the office?
Q Did you make an appointment with Graf before these visits? in the office of Graf to the effect that Graf was busy with police jobs?
Q Did you accompany Graf on official trips?
A No. It is possible that one trip which we made together was considered an official trip.
Q Where did this trip take you?
factory near Stalino, on a nice spring day.
Q And you inspected this plant together with Herr Graf? Stalino Herr Graf told you anything about the fact that he had been sick previously?
of disease? ailment and for this reason he was in a hospital back home for a longer period of time.
Q Did Graf at this time still complain about a bad state of health? Did you, during your stay in Stalino, observe anything about mass executions.of Jews especially? transporting of Russian workers to Germany?
A No. As far as I remember, even Russians would come up to you and ask you whether one could not help them to get them to Germany. They all wanted to go to Germany.
DR. BELZER: I thank you. I have no further questions to this witness.
PRESIDENT: Does any of the defense counsel desire to cross examine the witness? Mr. Hochwald, you may proceed. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q Herr Schaller, were you a member of the Nazi Party?
Q Never? of this party?
Q How long?
Q What wasyour position in the Hitler Jugend? the Tribunal that you never witnessed any mass execution of Jews. How many Jews were in Stalino in the time when you were there, according to your estimate?
A I don't know. I noticed no distinction between Jews and other Russians. out whether the Jews in Stalino were killed or not, is that correct -is that what I am taking from your testimony?
A Yes. I did not have this possibility. killed in Stalino or not?
MR. HOCHWALD: No further questions, Your Honor.
PRESIDENT: Very well. Have you finished with this witness, please?
DR. BELZER: I don't have any further questions of this witness either.
PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused. The defendant, Graf, Will now be taken to the witness stand. I said that the third time; I hope it takes this time. as follows:
JUDGE DIXON: Defendant, raise your right hand and repeat the oath after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The defendant repeated the oath.)
JUDGE DIXON: You may be seated.
BY DR. HELZER:
Q When were you born and where?
Q What was the profession of your father?
Q Do you have any brothers or sisters? parents' home?
A My father was a liberal during the Weimar Republic. He was a democrat.
Q What was the religious attitude in the parents' house?
Q Will you briefly comment about your childhood and adolescence?
A My mother was Italian by birth. For this reason, I learned both German and Italian when I was young.As a boy already I visited Italy, and these first impressions made me yearn for the faraway countries, which never left me again. My liking for foreign languages is to be ascribed to these circumstances.
Q What schooling did you have? school in Kempten. the beginning of the war. Kempten, my home town. During my two years' apprenticeship I learned English and Portuguese, too. I wanted to go to South America. In 1922 In Went to Brazil.
First of all, I was English correspondent with an import and export firm. Later I was an English-German correspondent, in an export firm -- coffee export firm. By teaching in the evening at a technical high school I managed to get a good knowledge about machine construction. I learned various types of machine construction. I worked in a factory in Dolz. Here I met manufacturers and tradesmen and farmers and got to know the people and the country I made good money for my age and wanted to remain in Brazil. Unfortunately, I received bad reports from home. The firm of my parents had practically lost all its money because of the inflation. My brothers and sisters were still too yound and, therefore, I had to return to help out. In 1925 I entered my parents' plant and used all my strength in order to get the concern going again. After three or four years I succeeded in doing so. In 1932 I wanted to go back to Brazil. Unfortunately, this was not possible because of the restriction on foreign currency. the boycott against German merchandise began in South America, and this was responsible for the fact that German businessmen and technicians were rejected. I had to defer my plans. In 1934 I became independent as a business agent; by hard work and by saving, I managed to found my own business. I sold tractors and refrigadaires. My yearly income amounted to 12,000 marks. Because of my activity in the firm Humbo Dolz in Cologne, I was hoping that I could realize my old plan of emigrating. In June 1939 I was in cologne for this purpose. On the first of January 1940 I was to start a position in Valparaiso, Chile and then the war interfered.
Q. Thank You. I think that suffices. Witness, how and when did you come to the SS?
A. I was an enthusiastic motorist when in 1993 in Kempten the SS motorized unit was formed and that is how I came to this SS unit with some friends.
Q. When did you join the party, the Nazi Party?
A. On the 1st of May 1993.
Q. Did you at any time hold a position in the Party?
A. Never in the party, as a political leader, that is.
Q. From 1993 on did you belong to the SS uninterruptedly?
A. No, in 1936 I left the SS.
Q. Why?
A. I had personal differences with my superior.
Q. Did you rejoin the SS before September 1939?
A. No.
Q. What effect did the outbreak of the war in September 1939 have on you? I mean by this, were you drafted into the army or were you able to continue with your profession?
A. On the 25th of August 1939, I was drafted for a short time to the Army Service Command as a driver. I was Assistant Driver with the motor pool. On the 8th of September 1939, I was released again without having received any military training. I continued with my profession.
Q. How did you get to the SD?
A. In the beginning of January 1940, I received the message that I was drafted into the SD by the Reichsfuehrer SS, as an auxiliary worker for the time of the war, as war emergency worker and that I was to report to the office in Augsburg. There I was told that I was on a war emergency Status and that I had been deferred for service in the SD under the Reichsfuehrer SS, and that my salary would be regulated according to the directives which existed.
Q. Did you try to raise any objections against this drafting?
A. Yes, but it was useless. I was told that I would have to comply with a war emergency call.
Q. Why didn't you want to go to the SD?
A. I only had disadvantages to expect. I was born in the year 1903 and I had not served previously and I did not yet have to expect to be drafted in 1940. My business was intact. I had good allocation of merchandise and as an independent businessman I earned much more than what I was getting in the SD.
Q. Did you, after you were drafted into the SD, get any police or military training?
A. No, in no form. This is not necessary for SD activity.
Q. What was your position and activity in the SD?
A. I was auxiliary employee at the office in Kempten and later I was to take over the SD sector.
Q. Through your war emergency call and your transfer to the SD, were you a memeber of the SD or were you merely a temporary employee of it, for the duration of the war?
A. I was not a member of the SD, but merely a temporary employee for the duration of the war.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal on what this opinion of yours is based?
A. After I was drafted and assigned to the SD the Labor Office in Kempten gave me a service record for my activity in the SD. In this service record from the time of my drafting on, that is the first of March, 1940, the term, "employee of an agency" was listed as my job and furthermore the MOS 25, that is, type of work, that too was listed down in Group B. I was again and again requested to join the organization and I wanted to remain as such.
I had no to position. I was merely an auxiliary employee for the duration of the war.
Q. Did you try, after your objections against this draft were of no avail, to get out of the SD after you had gotten into it?
A. Yes, I tried to get to the General Kommando as an interpreter for English.
Q. Were you successful?
A. No. when the Inspector of the Security Police found out about it, I was transferred to Dueben a few days later.
DR. BELZER: Your Honor, in this connection I would like to submit this document. Document No. 9 in the Document Book Graf on page 23 of the Document Book. This is the correspondence which the Defendant Graf has had at that time with the army District Command. The first letter on page 23 is a letter from the Army Service Command in Kempten of the 25th of February, 1941.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I have just examined the exhibit. This exhibit offered by Dr. Belzer is a typewritten copy. It is the understanding of the prosecution that either the original or a photostatic copy must be submitted as an exhibit. The prosecution is in no position to find out from a typewritten copy anything about the genuiness of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Firstly, Dr. Belzer, what do you mean to show -
DR. BELZER: May I say something to this? I was told in the Defense Center that everything that can be copied by typewriter is not photostated.
Therefore, I was not in a position to submit a photostat here, but I was told in Room 545 that I would have to copy these documents and that I would have to certify them, and then I could submit them.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the original? Where is the original?
DR. BELZER: The original is in my possession.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you have the original and you will proffer that for inspection, certainly the copy will be accepted.
DR. BELZER: Yes, your Honor. Unfortunately, I do not have it with me, but I will bring it this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. BELZER: I repeat then. this is, first of all, a message from the 25th of February 1941, to the Defendant Graf, according to which he is asked to present his birth and christening certificate of him and his family. On the 16th of September 1941, the Draft Board in Kempten told the Defendant Graf that he had to get his release from his office immediately and that he had to confirm his release to the Draft Board. This is a letter of the 16th of April 1941. The next letter is the application of the Defendant Graf of the 18th of April 1941, for the release from the SD. Here I only have the copy and not the original and this circumstance gives me cause to submit the document so that I can ask an additional question of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, by all means. BY DR. BELZER:
Q. Witness, to whom was this application of 18 April 1941 addressed?
A. To the Inspector of Security Police and SD in Munich , who was competent for me personally.
MR. HOCHAWALD: If Your Honor please, I do understand that these three documents mentioned by Mr. Belzer are not as yet evidence. There will be an offer in evidence as soon as Dr. Belzer gets the original, I presume, and the Prosecution reserves the right to object to these three documents as soon as they are formally offerred.
THE PRESIDENT: You will have all three then this afternoon, Doctor?
DR. BELZER: I hope so, but at the latest tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. BELZER: Because I don't know whether I have them at home.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, tomorrow morning will be sufficiently early.
DR. BELZER: Thank you. BY DR. BELZER:
Q. Witness, I shall then come back to your previous statement that you were transferred to Deuben, when the Inspector heard of your attempts to get to the Army. I shall ask you now, did the Inspector of the Security Police and SD in Munich get any knowledge of this application of 18th of April?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a written reply to this application?
A. No, I got no reply, either written nor oral.
Q. In your opinion was the transfer to Dueben the answer to your application for release?
A. Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: When was the transfer to Deuben?
THE WITNESS: On 18 May 1941.
Q. Just one month after you had made the request?
A. Yes, Your Honor. BY DR. BELZER:
Q. Did you try to have the transfer order to Deuben revoked?
A. Yes.
Q. Why and with what success?
A. My wife was sick at the time in Stuttgart Hospital, and had telephoned as soon as I heard about my transfer to have this revoked, because at that point it was not clear whether my wife would survive.
Q. Where you successful?
A. No.
Q. Could you have refused to comply with this order?
A. No, that would have been a military disobedience.
Q. Did you have to expect punishment?
A. Yes, according to the regulations I was under the jurisdiction of the SS and Police as an auxilliary was worker.
Q. What were you told about the purpose of your transfer to Deuben?
A. It was a brief military training.
Q. How long were you in Deuben?
A. Until the 22 June 1941, until we left for Russia.
Q. Didn't you get to Schmiedeberg then?
A. Yes, pardon me. For our concept , Schmiedeberg, Dueden and Pretsch are in a locality close by and they were all the same for us.
Q. What did you do in Dueben or Schmiedeberg?
A. In Dueben we merely waited, and a SD officer who was unknown to me asked me a few questions, and the end of May 1941 I was transferred to Schmiedeberg.
Q. And what happened in Schmiedeberg?
A. In Schmiedeberg we were organized into Einsatzcommandos; were lined up in various formation, State Police, Criminal Police and SD, according to a definite plan the men were assigned from these units and were formed into commandos.
I was sent to Einsatzcommando VI together with a SS sergeant, UIrich Krimminger. We were to handle Department III, Which is SD reports. Krimminger as the analyst and I as his aid.
Q. Do I understand you correctly when I assume that only you and Krimminger as SD men were assigned to this EK-VI?
A. Yes.
Q. How large was the commando, otherwise?
A. I can not tell you exactly but it might have been between onehundred sixty and one-hundred eight men.
Q. Did you receive any police or military training in Dueben or Schmiedeberg?
A. No police training but hardly any military training. In the short time of my stay there we had marching exercises, and we were trained very generally in the use of arms.
Q. Did you receive a uniform in Dueben?
A. Yes, field gray with the SD insignia.
THE PRESIDENT: witness, had you had any military training prior to this?
THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.
Q. What training did you receive in the use of arms here at this school, or rather at this assembly point?
A. First of all we got -- theoretical training. We had to take a part carbines and put them together again by ourselves, and later -we had no weapons before, they only arrived a few days before we left for Russia , we did a few exercises on the range, firing exercises, Most of the men the non-coms of the commandos had had a military training. They were men from the Waffen-SS, from the regular police, and officials of the criminal police, and the Gestapo, who were mostly soldiers who had served for twelve years. There were only a very few men there who had not served previously.
Q. Altogether how long did your military training at this point continue?
A. All told, four weeks.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. BELZER:
Q. What was your rank in the SS?
A. Unterscharfuehrer, which is equivalent to a sergeant in the German Army.
Q. What were you armed with when you left for Russia?
A. Pistol and a carbine
Q. What were you told about the type of your future assignment?
A. Major Hennicke, who was Chief III of Einsatzgruppe C -- B, rather, at the time it was still called "B" , told Krimminger and myself , or rather informed Krimminger and myself about the mission of the experts of Department III. Where and when the assignments were to take place we were not told.
Q. Did you receive either in Dueben or Schmiedeberg any knowledge in any form whatever about the Fuehrer Order, or about the killing of Jews, Communist functionaries, etc.?
A. No.
Q. When did you hear that you were to be assigned in Russia?
A. On the day we left, after the outbreak of the war with Russia.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Belzer, do you think this might be a good point at which to suspend for recess.
DR. BELZER: Yes, I consider it a suitable point.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(Recess)