DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I have to do that. The subject of the theory of the prosecution is opposed to the theory of the defense the prosecution contends that this fight was part of a great fight between the races, of extermination of races, while we of the defense hold the opinion that the measures were carried out for security reasons, security reasons which were required in Russian warfare. The documents of the Russian Encyclopedia, the date of the publication is known and also the author. These are official documents and they prove that the German measures had their reasons.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the Russian Encyclopedia, Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: From the Russian Enclopedia of the year 1937. Argunew is the author.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it something comparable to the Brittanica in English, if you are familiar with that work?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is? Is it state sanctioned? I presume it is because everything in Russia is state sanctioned.
DR. ASCHENAUER: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. One reason why we would have difficulty in excluding this, especially so far as the present speaker is concerned, is that I went out pretty far in indicating what would be relevant. I said everything up to the social life of penguins, and this would certainly fall within that rather large circle, so the objection is overruled.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document No. 41 from the Document Book II is offered as Exhibit No. 6. It is to be used as evidence in how far the assumption of the emergency state in the state appears justified Owing to the acts of the Russians in the territory conquered by them, it can be shown clearly for the defendants what would have been the fate of their homeland if these Russian troops, who have committed those crimes, had come into this country.
MR. WALTON: Now, Your Honors, the prosecution objects to Document 41 on the basis of the decision rendered by this Tribunal on the date of October 9, 1947, and in the language of that decision when the same type of evidence was offered wherein, the alleged terror and persecution committed by Russians on Latvians in Latvia, is, as this Tribunal so succinctly stated in that order which I have referred to, and I quote, "an attempt to draw a red herring across the trail". The evidence to be considered at all must have some bearing on the issues drawn by the indictment, I have a copy of the Tribunal's order in my hand if they would like to see it.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, may I reply briefly? This document confirms the opinion of Dr. Maurach.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's find out who Oskar Dankers is. Who is Dankers?
DR. ASCHENAUER: That is General Dankers, the plenipotentiary in Latvia, a competent witness therefore, because he took part in these things.
THE PRESIDENT: The difficulty about this Dr. Aschenauer, is that there is nothing in this affidavit which says that the Jews were responsible for the bloody massacre described in it. It is something that happened between the Bolshevists and the Latvians.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, how could that be used as an argument that the Einsatzgruppe operating in that area had the right to kill Jews?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, this must be seen in the entire psychological connection which I have mentioned. What the Bolshevists did in Lithuania, in Finland, in Latvia and in Estonia, they also did in Eastern Germany after 1945, and those who fought in the East had to expect this, and therefore, the defendants doubtlessly, in view of all the measures taken, the Fuehrer Order, etc., had to consider the war-emergency status of the State which in their opinion caused these cruel measures.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you are in effect telling us. A and B are having a bloody fight. C comes in and kills D. The Bolshevists and the Latvians are fighting. The Germans come in and kill the Jews. How do you connect up these two separate events?
DR. ASCHENAUER: The connection, therefore I said that these documents form an entirety, in the opinion of Dr. Maurach prove in how far the defendants could get the impression that the main bearers of these measures in the East were Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: Are Jews mentioned in this affidavit?
DR. ASCHENAUER: This affidavit mentions the active group of the NKWD, and it is a well known fact that this cannot be denied, as Dr. Maurach also says as a fact that the high leaders of this system unfortunately were Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: It would appear now that your original idea is the better one because if we let Dr. Aschenauer submit what he has to submit then Mr. Walton indicates his objections, then the court will have an opportunity to look them over and render its decision. I think we will save time and perhaps proceed a little more smoothly.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Then no decision is made about 41 yet?
THE PRESIDENT: We won't render any decision now, Dr. Aschenauer. We will let you submit your documents and then Mr. Walton will make his objections.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I now come to the Document Book II-B. The submission of the following documents is done because the attempt of understanding the actions which have taken place in the East and for the action of the defendants is not possible without realizing how for years the problem of Bolshevism was being taught to the German people. In this connection I submit as opinion the Document No. 58 as Exhibit No. 7. I point out that this-
THE PRESIDENT: Where is that, Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: In Document Book II-B.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have that.
DR. ASCHENAUER: B for "Book".
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but I don't see the document number.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Isn't that in the English copy? Just a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: No, we have four documents but they are not numbered.
DR. ASCHENAUER: It is the first document. I quote from it.
THE PRESIDENT: Tell us where it is. According to the index here there are excerpts from Schacht, Hitler and Byrnes.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. ASCHENAUER: And I am quoting an excerpt. It says in this document -
THE PRESIDENT: Indicate which one it is, Dr. Aschenauer, because the documents are not numbered in this book. You give an exhibit number and then we will have it, the document number and the exhibit number.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes. I introduce this document as Document No. 58 and offer it as Exhibit No. 7
THE PRESIDENT: You still haven't told us what it is because there are four here.
Which document?
DR. ASCHENAUER: It is the first document in Document Book II-B.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, it is the first. Then you have told us.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I quote from this document. "As ever Germany is being considered as the focus of the Occident in view of the Bolshevist attacks. In these lines I would only like to give my conviction that this crisis cannot be avoided and will not be avoided, and that Germany has the duty to protect its own existence, in view of this catastrophe, by all means, and to secure it and to protect themselves from it, and that owing to this false situation a number of consequences result which concern the most important tasks which were ever put to our people".
THE PRESIDENT: We didn't find what you were reading. You yet haven't told us who said this.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Who said it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. ASCHENAUER: It says in the index: Memorandum by Adolf Hitler about the task of the Four Year Plan and that is the opinion concerning the Bolshevist problem, an opinion by Hitler which I described as Fuehrer opinion.
MR. WALTON: Your Honors, I think the compiler of the document book is the real person at fault. I seem to have in my document book a preface page and then in the very next document is an excerpt from the newspaper "Voelkischer Beobachter", and so they left the document which Dr. Aschenauer is now speaking about out of the book when they compiled it. All you have, if yours is like mine, is the preface page or the indentification page. You have got nothing that follows it, and, of course, the prosecution will have to object because it is not on notice. I don't know what the contents of it are. That is not Dr. Aschenauer's fault, but it certainly can't be answered.
DR. ASCHENAUR: I am sorry. It was a mistake by the translation department.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, that was causing all the trouble, Dr. Aschenauer. It apparently is not in our book. Let's give it a number anyway. What exhibit number did you give that?
DR. ASCHENAUER: I gave this document the exhibit No. 58, or rather Exhibit No. 7.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, proceed.
DR. ASCHENAUER: The next document I am talking about is the second one in this document book. In the index it says "from the Proclamation of Adolf Hitler of 22 June 1941, Boelkischer Beobachter of 23 June 1941", This document, No. 59, I submit as Exhibit No. 8. I quote: "Thus I still believed to the last moment to have served the peace in this territory, even if thereby I incurred a heavy personal obligation. But in order to get a final solution of these problems and also to obtain enlightenment as to the Russian attitude towards the Reich, as well as under the pressure of the ever increasing mobilization on our eastern frontier, I invited Mr. Molotov to come to Berlin." defendants could h ave received the impression of an aggressive war, or rather whether the defendants had to get the impression that this was a war of defense; to decide, whether this last question was described correctly by the German side, I, want to submit as a supplement the Documents N os. 60 and 61 as Exhibits Nos. 9 and 10. It is a short excerpt from the book by James Byrnes, "Speaking Frankly", in English and German.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Speight asks, is there any evidence that Ohlendorf knew of this declaration by Hitler?
DR. ASCHENAUER: These statements were made at the time on the radio and in the newspapers so that it is without doubt that Ohlendorf knew these statements by Hitler.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, would you state as a fact that Ohlendorf knew of these declarations?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Ohlendorf knew Hitler's proclamation and from this proclamation and others he had to assume that this was a war of defense.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I now submit Document Book No. 3. In this document book the relationship between the Wehrmacht, or the Commander in Chief of the Army with the Einsatzkommandos or the Einsatzkommandos is being clarified. In these document books the question of responsibility and the question of knowledge is being gone into for the heads of the Army concerning those actions which are under judgment here. This question of responsibility and of knowledge is of importance for the problem of the possibility of resistance against the order given.
In this connection, I offer Document No. 50, in the German text page 20 of the Document Book as Exhibit No. 11. This document is to be considered the basic document for the relation between the Army and the Einsatzgruppen. It outlines the responsibility of the Commander in Chief as the person with executive power. I quote:
"If a theatre of operations has been determined, the authority to exercise the executive power within this theatre of operations is without a further order conferred on the Commander in Chief of the Army and on the Army Commanders.
"The Commanders in Chief holding executive power can, effective for the theatre of operations enact regulations having the force of law, institute Special Courts, and give orders to the authorities and offices within whose jurisdiction the theatre of operations is, except the Supreme Reich Authorities, the Highest Prussian State Authorities and the Reichsleitung of the NSDAP. The authority to give orders has priority over the instructions issued by other superior offices."
Document No. 51, which I offer as Exhibit 12, clarifies the subordination relationship in units in the operational territory. I quote:
"The Commander in Chief of the Army or his subordinate agencies are subordinate to the Army in the operational territory of the Army and they are subordinate to the Commander in Chief in tactical questions.
"The offices and troops of other Army units are also under the command of the Commander in Chief in tactical questions.
"The Commander in Chief or the Commander in Chief of the Army, if a state of defense or of war should occur has the right to exercise executive power in the operational territory according to the R*ich Law of Defense."
Document No. 44 I offer as Exhibit No. 13. It is a decree about the carrying out of the war jurisdiction in the area of Barbarossa and about the special measures of the troops. This decree clarifies the question whether civilian persons of enemy nationality could be subject to the competency of the war jurisdiction. It clarifies the question of the Supreme Commander as Supreme legal authority.
Document No. 45 I offer as Exhibit No. 14. In it the common basis for the treatment of political commissars is indicated. I quote from this top secret matter:
"In this war, indulgence and consideration for International Law with respect to those elements is uncalled for. They are a danger to our own security and the speedy pacification of the conquered territories.
"The political commissars are the originators of barbarous and Asiatic methods of fighting. Proceedings, therefore, must be taken against them immediately and directly, with all severity.
"These commissars are not recognized as soldiers; the protection accorded prisoners of war under International Law has no application to them. After screening has been carried out they are to the liquidated.
"Commissars who have been caught in the rear zone of an Army because of suspicious behaviour are to be handed over to the Einsatzgruppe responsible, to the Einsatzkommandos or the Security Police."
Document No. 46 is offered as Exhibit No. 15. The subject of evidence is the same. This document is submitted in order to show how the order was distributed.
Document No. 47 I submit as Exhibit No. 16. I herewith introduce a basic order by the Wehrmacht, which the Wehrmacht thought they could consider justified according to the situation. I quote:
"The troops available for the protection of the Conquered Eastern Territory are adequate in view of the extant of this area only if all resistance is not revenged by legal punishment of the guilty but if the Occupying Power spreads abroad terrir - the only thing likely to rob the population of all desire for insubordination.
"The Commanders concerned, are, with the troops at their disposal, to be made responsible for peace in their areas. Not in the request for further security forces, but in the use of appropriate Draconic measures the commanders must find the means of keeping their security areas in order."
Document No. 48 I offer as Exhibit No. 17. I quote from this order of the Wehrmacht:
"As a matter of principle it must be said that Jews and Gypsies in general represent an element of insecurity and thus a danger to public order and safety. It is the Jewish intellect which has brought about this war and which must be annihilated. The Gypsy, because of his internal and external make-up cannot be a useful member of a people's community. It has been found that the Jewish element participates considerably in the leadership of the bands and that Gypsies in particular are responsible for special atrocities and for the communication systems."
Document No. 49 I offer as Exhibit No. 18. An order by the Wehrmacht reads: "I order the immediate arrest of all Jews and Gypsies as hostages."
Document No. 52 I offer as Exhibit No. 19. I quote from it:
"In the East, this manner of fighting a so-called partisan war, already last winter had led to a considerable decrease of our fighting power, has cost the lives of numerous German soldiers, railroaders, workers of the organization Todt, the Labor Service, and has extremely decreased the performance of transportation for the maintenance of the fighting ability of the troops; it has even disrupted the latter for days. The successful continuation of this type of warfare or even its intensification may possibly lead to a serious crisis at one or the other sector of the front. Many measures against this cruel, as well as treacherous sabotage activity, fail simply because the German Officer and his soldiers have no conception of the extent of the danger they face, and thus they individually do not act against these enemy groups as much as it is necessary to help the most forward front and thereby the entire war effort."
I offer Document No. 53 as Exhibit No. 20. It is submitted on the subject of evidence of what a refusal meant, a refusal to obey an order, or not to obey the order according to the regulations.
That is the end of Document Book III. If we would like to take the recess now, this is suitable for me.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 14 January 1948, at 0930 hours.)
Otto Ohlendorf, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg,
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, you don't happen to have, do you, an English copy of your presentation?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, I am afraid I don't have another English copy.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Well, was there any English copy made at all?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Of course, English translations were made. The Secretary General has distributed English copies here. I received very few.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not mean the document books, I mean the presentation - what you are reading from.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I don't quite get that. Yes, I have it here. It was not translated.
THE PRESIDENT: It wasn't translated. Well, let me put the question very directly. Do you have an English translation of what you are reading to the Tribunal?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: That answers that. All right. Proceed. Thank you.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, yesterday there was an argument with regard to my excerpts with the title "We Are Guerrillas". I have the original in front of me. It is a book with the title "We Are Guerrillas", an account of the work of the Soviet guerrillas behind the Nazi lines. "Soviet War N ews", books No. 3, published by authority of Soviet War News, issued by the Press Department of the Soviet Embassy in London. This book was published by the publishing house Hutchinson and Co., London, New York, and Melbourne. Therefore, it is an official publication which the Soviet Russian Embassy in London.
This book was published by the publishing house Hutchinson and Co., London, New York, and Melbourne. Therefore, it is an official publication which the Soviet Russian Embassy in London published and gave to the English population. In this book several dates are mentioned so that doubtlessly one cannot say that the facts which were stated here are merely hearsay. Perhaps I on my part made a mistake by quoting from the English original which was translated into German and from German it was re-translated into English. Of course, this impression could arise. I beg your pardon for this. I hope I have made up for my mistake by making an excerpt from the English original of the sentences concerned which I shall now submit to the Tribunal in English.
May I now continue with the presentation of my documents. I shall now speak about Document Book I. I offer the Ohlendorf document #1 as Exhibit #21. It is an affidavit by Professor Andreas Preddehl, Kiel, the chief of the Institute of World Economics at the University of Kiel since the spring of 1934. Professor Preddehl confirms that Ohlendorf in the late summer of 1934 at the official request of the Ministry of Culture had to leave the Institute of World Economics, because he was a factor of unrest among the students.
I offer Document #1-A as Exhibit #22. It is an affidavit by Dr. Wilhelm Greiser. He is the administrative expert at the Institute for World Economics in Kiel. Dr. Greiser states that in the year 1934 Ohlendorf was arrested at the suggestion of the NSDAP in Kiel. For several months he was under Police observation. He was tortured with interrogations and examinations and the Reich Ministry of Education also persecuted him and finally as a result of this he was dismissed at Kiel. Dr. Greiser, who according to his statement, was neither a member of the NSDAP nor of any of its formations, also gives a character opinion of Ohlendorf in his affidavit from which I merely want to emphasize that Herr Ohlendorf is described as a loyal personality, full of high ideals, with a positive love for his native land and having true humanitarian feelings.
He had an original great love for science. He entertained elementary respect for scientific freedom, also at the time when in later life he had become a Deputy State Secretary, in the Reich Economic Ministry, where he brought science into contact with the leadership of the State by entrusting special missions to science. Dr. Greiser also explains that Ohlendorf disapproved of the measures against the Jews in the years after the power was taken over and that he rejected the radical racial opinions of the Party. He describes him as an opponent of any deviation from the legal State and of National imperialism. In this connection he also emphasizes the plans of Ohlendorf as an economic politician which show a true world economic attitude.
I offer Document #2 as Exhibit 23. It is an affidavit by Professor Karl Gebhardt who as chief physician at the hospital in Hohenlychen and advisory surgeon of the Waffen SS was in close contact with the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler. The affidavit reveals the intense criticism of Himmler who personally strongly objected to Ohlendorf. The reasons Himmler had for this are described in detail and Gebhardt confirms that Himmler intended to release Ohlendorf between 1942 and 1943, in particular in connection with difficulties which Himmler had with the Reich Commissar Koch because of reports which Ohlendorf had made against Koch. As a discussion partner in Flensburg at the beginning of May 1945 Gebhardt repeats the request of Ohlendorf toward Himmler to dissolve the SS in order to avoid that resistance groups form and to surrender to the Allies.
I offer Document #3 as Exhibit #24. It is an affidavit by Karl Wolff who from 1936 until 1943 was chief Adjutant of Himmler and chief of the personal staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS. In the affidavit it is confirmed that the SD Inland (Sd homeland) even in 1936 was still in its early beginnings and that during that time Ohlendorf organized the economic information service. He describ es as a witness that already in 1937 the critical reports by Ohlendorf who did not compromise became a nuisance for Himmler and that Himmler reproached Ohlendorf not to be loyal enough and also for not being National Socialistic enough in his policy.
Himmler described Ohlendorf as a pessimist, a super Nazi, a knight of the Holy Grail, and that for this reason already in 1937 Ohlendorf was put on the side track.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer: I have seen this phrase "super Nazi" several times. Do you mean by that phrase just what it imports, that he was a Nazi in the superlative sense?
DR. ASCHENAUER: The translation isn't coming through on these earphones.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like some enlightenment on this word "super Nazi". Does it mean what it says - a Nazi in the superlative sense?
DR. ASCHENAUER: It means the following: That it was Ohlendorf's opinion that the practical work in the NSDAP policy had deviated from the original Party program in the course of time and for that reason Himmler described Ohlendorf as being a super Nazi because he held those opinions.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, perhaps it could be translated as exaggerated Nazi.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Very well. It just seems a little extraordinary that Himmler would be complaining because someone was an exaggerated Nazi, that he was more Nazi than he was required to be, that he was more saturated, more enthusiastic about the Nazi ideology. Why would Himmler complain about that?
DR. ASCHENAUER: The situation was something like this, that Himmler was a pure tactician and left the Party program and did not want to see to this and did not want to admit this, and Ohlendorf held the opinion that owing to this deviation the excesses and the deterioration of the National Socialistic State would come about. This is a subjective attitude by Himmler and these explanations are merely to show the difference between Himmler and Ohlendorf.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, proceed.
DR. ASCHENAUER: He confirms that in the spring 1938 Ohlendorf left the SD as a fulltime job. Wolff also confirms that in the fall of 1939 he received instructions from Himmler to inform Ohlendorf that he should leave his service.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, was the Karl Wolff statement sworn to?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It does not appear in the document that you read.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, in the copy which I have in front of me it says, "I, Karl Wolff, General of the Waffen SS", etc., "after it has been pointed out to me -- "
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, we know that, that is there, but then at the end of the affidavit there is no indication that he swore to it before anyone.
DR. ASCHENAUER: The certification is in the original.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. All right, proceed.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Wolff confims that Ohlendorf only visited Himmler very few times, that he never held a confidential position with him or has influenced his decisions and resolutions.
Wolff also confirms that from 1937 on each individual promotion of Ohlendorf encountered with difficulties and could only be effected after overcoming the determined opposition of the Reich Leader of the SS and that he, Wolff, on account of his world economic activities did overcome these difficulties. Apart from that Wolff also gives the reasons of the opposition between Himmler and Ohlendorf.
I offer the Document No. 18 as Exhibit No. 25. It is an affidavit by Luitpold Charlemayer. From 1935 until 1939 he was personal referent in the personal staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS. He confirms in his affidavit the statements by Ohlendorf about his position and work in the SD during the years 1936 to 1939, inclusive, and gives the reasons, which are not in contrast to the actual reasons, for the promotion of Ohlendorf within the SD.
I offer Document No. 5 as Exhibit No. 26. It is an affidavit by Dr. GebhardtKlopfer, the former chief of the legal state department in the party Chancellery. As a referent and later state secretary with Bormann, he makes the statement as the best expert about the relation between Bormann and the party Chancellery, his relation to the SD Inland. He shows that the SD by the party was only legitimized as enemy intelligence service, but that the SD Inland under Ohlendorf did not carry out any enemy intelligence. The special work in the domestic spheres was always denied by the Party and as I quote, "The NSDAP at no time considered it legitimate." Bormann refutes that the SD Inland has done this kind of work and threatens to report the matter to the Fuehrer and prohibits the cooperation of all functionaries of the Party in the Party just a Ley did. Simultaneously Klopfer explains that in spite of this serious rejection of the SD work by Bormann and by a great number of Gau leaders Ohlendorf continued in his work until the end of the war. There are great arguments but Ohlendorf accepts them on his own responsibility because Ohlendorf is trying to make up with the SD Inland for the public criticism and opposition which are prohibited.
I offer Document No. 25 as Exhibit No. 27. It is an affidavit by Dr. Justus Bayer as referent in the SD before 1939 and expert in the Party Chancellery until 1945 who was in constant contact with the work of the SD Inland under Ohlendorf, and as intermediary between the Party Chancellery and Office III. He completes his testimony the statements by Ohlendorf, Dr. Klopfer, etc., about the relation of the SD Inland with the Party and the struggle between Ohlendorf for the independence of the SD Inland and the task of the intelligence service of the SD which he had developed as positive opposition against the excesses of the National Socialist regime. It is revealed particularly clearly in this testimony affidavit that in spite of the prohibition of activity in the SD Ohlendorf makes reports about the Party and he particularly makes reports about the Party itself in the SD and continuously attacks the attempts for power by the Party in the state for self-administration.
I offer Document No. 6 as Exhibit No. 28. This is an affidavit by Hans Fritsche who at the end was chief of the department Radio Transmission, in the Reich Propaganda Ministry. He is one of those receiving reports from the SD Inland, also during the time when Goebbels had prohibited the reporting to the ministries. Fritsche confirms in his statement that the SD reports were concerned with all spheres of life of the state and the people, and in particular were the echo about the statements and the actions of leading men within the people. The echo was formulated clearly and without considerations of anybody. He also saw a lot in Ohlendorf's reports and realized his aims in these reports to make up for the missing criticism. He added, I quote, "As a journalist I had the impression that Ohlendorf and his collaborators acted as mouthpiece of the opposition which otherwise could not become known." Beyond that he stressed the special position of the SD Inland with Ohlendorf within the entire SS and the Reich RSHA and indicates that contrary to the prohibition by Dr. Goebbels he received reports from Ohlendorf by indirect means.
I offer Document No. 7 as Exhibit No. 29 . It is an affidavit by Dore Neumann who was Ohlendorf's secretary from 1937 until 1945. Apart from her character statement, the affidavit says how Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, the Chief of Office IV, tried to get rid of Ohlendorf via the question of anthroposophy. I offer the Document No. 4 as Exhibit No. 30. It is an affidavit by Karl Hedrich who from 1935 to 1944 was deputy chairman of the Party Examination Commission for the Protection of National Socialist Literature, and who in that capacity was constantly in contact with Ohlendorf. Hedrich explains in detail that in Bormann's circle Ohlendorf was considered as unreliable from an ideological point of view, in particular because he protected anthroposophy against the Party. Hedrich knows from his own knowledge that because of Ohlendorf's attitude concerning anthroposophy Bormann wanted to have Ohlendorf removed from his Berlin office and asked Heydrich to have him removed, and that this was the reason why at the beginning of the Russian campaign Heydrich ordered Ohlendorf to go to the Russian front.
character.
I offer Document No. 8 as Exhibit No. 31. It is an affidavit by Dr. Rudolf Hauschka, one of the loading scientists from the circle of the anthroposophists, who, as part of the work against the anthroposophists, together with his collaborators was arrested in June, 1941. Dr. Hauschka had taken up personal relations with Ohlendorf, only after he has heard about the charges against him in Nurnberg, and without being asked to be sent this affidavit which I now submit to the Tribunal. I ask that the character affidavit given in the affidavit be taken note of in its entirety, and I would like to limit myself to emphasize the affidavit by Dr. Hauschka here because after being released from prison he heard, I quote, "that Ohlendorf had been removed". What he means by this is the removal of Ohlendorf from the Office III in Berlin in the year 1941 that because of his approval of and interest in anthroposophy he was sent to the Eastern front as a punishment.
I offer Document No. 9 as Exhibit No. 32. It is an affidavit by Frau Dr. Elisabeth Klein, former chief of the anthroposophic school at Gerswalde in Dresden..Frau Dr. Klein also had been arrested as part of the action against the anthroposophists in the year 1941. The affidavit contains further proof for Ohlendorf's actively tolerant attitude towards other philosophies and his efforts against untrue attacks by the National Socialist State and the Party.
I offer Document No. 10 as Exhibit No. 33. It is an affidavit by Dr. Hans Ehlich who from 1937 until 1945 was a collaborator of Ohlendorf's in the SD Inland and at the end was group chief III-B in the Reich Security Main Office. From his experience throughout many years Ehlich explains that Ohlendorf considered all people of equal human value and therefore rejected the opinion that one people should be superior to any other peoples and should govern them as being in contradition to the laws of life. "Positively", I quote Page 34. "But the aim he tried to was an order of the people's according to which each people was to live and develop according to their own characteristics and possibilities". And according to Dr. Ehlich's testimony Ohlendorf at any time stood up for the principles which he considered right even if this should result in great difficulties with his superiors or other offices.