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.
His opinion of peoples became the basis of Ohlendorf's entire SD work against other National Socialist efforts. Elich gives a number of examples for this, most of all from the occupied territories and concerning the treatment of foreign workers in Germany. Elich also testified, and I quote, that, "It is known to me that in consequence of this concept Ohlendorf proposed to Heydrich about 1940 for submission to the Reichsfuehrer SS, that the Jews should be given a status of a minority, according to which they should be treated as a recognized racial minority." Elich also is witness of the measures and threats by Himmler towards Office II and Ohlendorf resulting from the report by Ohlendorf against the power politic of Koch in the Ukraine.
I offer Document No. 11 as Exhibit No. 34. It is an affidavit by Dr. Hans Roessner, referant and department chief for cultural questions in the SD Inland from 1940 until 1945. During his time of service under Ohlendorf he Roesner experienced strong criticism, from him, but Roessner wanted to give this affidavit to the Tribunal particularly in view of the charges raised against Ohlendorf. I ask the Tribunal to make special use of this affidavit in particular because it is the most extensive report about the actual activity of Ohlendorf as a political human being. Just as an indication I would like to mention that Roessner testified that in the SD, in spite of threats by Himmler, Ley and Bormann, Ohlendorf continued in positive opposition against the National Socialist leadership which expressed itself in a negative way, and I quote. "In any case Ohlendorf still was the strongest exponent and a driving mental power against any misdevelopments and excesses, as the state, the Party and the cheifs of the Wehrmacht are being reproached with now."
I continue to quote. "Ohlendorf in countless SD-reports signed by him addressed to the authorities of the Reich, in discussions, conferences, addresses before party functionaries, SS-Fuehrer and Officers of the Wehrmacht wholeheartedly took a clear stand against appearances of despotism in cultural life, As one example of many, I cite a lecture of Ohlendorf's which I, too, heard which he gave perhaps in February 1944 at the Wartburg before all Educational Directors of the Party and its organizations." I continue to quote. "In this lecture and others, the basic thought of Ohlendorf's was, "that man could dare, wholeheartedly, to oppose the highest powerpolitic ain and signs of corruption and publicly espouse the cause of cleanliness and healthiness in the economic and cultural life." Roessner also gives many individual examples from all domestic spheres which Ohlendorf testified in his opinions, in word, writing and deed, including his fight against Fascism which caused official complaints by the Ambassador Alfieri with Himmler.
Roessner rather then draws the human conclusion, and I quote, "There are few examples, I think, that the closer collaborators, without exception, and as can be proven, now will stand by the side of their former office chief, not because they obeyed this orders or because they had sworn to a common party dogma, but because they still today recognize the pure will of Ohlendorf, and his spiritual independence even now. A deeper recognition Ohlendorf already found before 1945, in that groups of people who increased from year to year, people of all professions and social positions came to him and his collaborators in the SD Inland, in order to openly tell him about their desires, their criticisms and their worries. Party membership or political attitude was never mentioned on this occasion. These people, scientist, artists, teachers, men and women came sponstaneous and voluntarily to Ohlendorf and to the SD because there they found the only means of exercising criticism and their fuctual or position. Here Ohlendorf and the SD gained great confidence in particular from the population who were not party members.
Dr. Roessner finally describes the situation of Ohlendorf which appears tragic to him, athat in spite of this situation because of the constantly growing mistrust and the increasing objection by the highest authorities as a spiritual originator of an opposition and an alleged defeatism, he was reproached and threatened for this. According to the description of an actual loneliness of Ohlendorf, in the framework of the national socialist regime, he repeats a statement by Himmler made during the last few days in lay 1945 which reads something like this, and I quote, "If I had heard your opinion earlier and recognized it, many things would certainly have developped differently." Roessner adds, I quote, "This remark expresses more than general observations concerning the importance and tragedy of Ohlendorf."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, where did this conversation take place in the last days of May?
DR. ASCHENAUER: The discussion took place in Flensburg. Ohlendorf testified this in the witness stand as well, and this is a confirmation for Ohlendorf's testimony.
PRESIDENT: Well, when did Himmler commit suicide?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Himmler committed suicide, I believe on 22 May '45
THE PRESIDENT: In June?
DR. ASCHENAUER: June.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't realize it was so late. I thought it was shortly after the termination of the war.
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, about two months after the end of the war.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, very well.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I offer Document Number 35. It is an affidavit by Dr. Erhard Maeding, chief of the Department constitution and administration in Office III, SD inland in the year 1944. Maeding worked on obtaining news and information concerning administrative reform questions in particular and owing to his activity in this field, he states that this is clear in particular, that the SD Inaldn did not consider it to be their task to secure a certain form of state and administration in the state, but he describes the actual task which Ohlendorf considered to be the task of the SD, and I quote: "From discussions it could be seen that Herr Ohlendorf was deeply worried about the inner misdevelopment of the German state life in the previously mentioned and in other connections. His attitude was not based on technical considerations of usefulness, and not because these organizational experiments were unsuccessful, but they were founded on clear social philosophical and ethical convictions. The state life could not be organized as a formidable legislative and compulsion apparatus, but the administrative tasks were to be shared to a last extent by many spheres of life, locality, profession, or otherwise according to who were to act independently in the administration. This social basic opinion of a community which was to be made of as many individuals and independent existences and units as possible which were to form Fin elastic society penetrated his attitude, his concept of state. The community life was to be built up on a structure of cooperative living, the central administration was to be limited very strictly.
The thought of a total administrative mechanism was rejected by Herr Ohlendorf in the same manner as any dogmatization of political, thoughts or even the monopolizing of political initiative and authorizations of professional party functionaries.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, now do you think that it is necessary to go into Such detail in each of these affidavits? We now have a pretty good picture of just what these affidavits intend to demonstrate, and don't you think that if you summarized in a sentence or two what each affidavit is attempting to establish, that your purpose would be fulfilled?
DR. ASCHENAUER: I shall try to be brief, your Honor. I offer Document Number 13 as Exhibit Number 36. It is an affidavit by Dr. Helmut Seydel, a former legal referent in Office III of the SD Inland, and describes the attitude of Ohlendorf towards the national socialist justice authorities.
I offer Document Number 17 as Exhibit Number 37. It is the affidavit by Dr. Heinrich Malz, who from 1940 until 1944 was chief of the legal department in Office III. Dr. Malz testifies to the same tasks as mentioned in Document Number 13. He describes the fight for the development, and for the maintenance of the legal state. I stress in this statement Ohlendorf' s initiative, in the legal field, according to which Ohlendorf repeatedly tried for an independent legal procedure with regard to the way in which protective custody which was to be enforced as part of the legal police.
I offer Document Number 14 as Exhibit Number 38. It is an affidavit by Dr. Sigrid Barlen, another female collaborator of Ohlendorf in the cultural department which is to be evaluated particularly as a character testimony.
I offer Document Number 15 as Exhibit Number 39. It is the affidavit by Dr. Franz Hayler, who at the end was state secretary in the Reich Economic Ministry, from 1938 until 1943, he was chief of the Reich Group III, trade, and in both positions he was the immediate superior of the defendant Ohlendorf. In this affidavit Dr. Hayler confirm the professional activity by Ohlendorf as given before.
I offer the Document Number 16 as Exhibit Number 40. It is an affidavit by Dr. Gustav Schlotterer, who at the end was Ministerial Director in the Reich Ministry of Economics.
Schlotterer also offered his affidavit on his own initiative, although he had personal differences with Ohlendorf in the Reich Ministry of Economics and Ohlendorf was known as his opponent. Schlotterer states that tolerance and expert knowledge were the basis of the personnel policy of Ohlendorf.
I offer Document Number 19 as Exhibit 41. It is the affidavit by Walter Solbeens Ministerial counciller in the Reich Ministry of Economics. The statements by Solbeens complete the statements by Dr. Hayler and Schlotterer about the attitude and the work of Ohlendorf in the Reich Ministry for Economics. I quote briefly from Solbeens' statements, "It could be found that we as experts for the first time had a support with regard to attempts by the SS, the party and the DAF, the German workers' front who tried to exercise influence in the economic sphere."
I offer Document Number 20 as Exhibit Number 43. This is an affidavit by Dr. Elmer Michel, who at the end was Ministerial Director in the Ministry of Economics. This statement by an opponent of the party also completes the statements made by Dr. Hayler. He explains that Ohlendorf rejected any party political prejudices and, therefore, very soon in a number questions was in direct opposition to the party, in particular to the DAF, the German labor, front, and without fear always stuck up for his point of view even towards the highest party authorities.
I offer Document Number 21 as Exhibit Number 43. This is an affidavit by Dr. Josef Duetsch, manager of the economic group, retail trade, who was in official contact with Ohlendorf from 1937 until 1945. He also testifies, and I quote "It was particularly recognized that Ohlendorf, always stood up for his opinions which often opposed the usual tendencies of the Third Reich toward everybody." It also says, "In 1940 in a protest meeting which was called by the member of the committee of the trade organizations. Ohlendorf attacked Dr. Ley's policy in a manner which was not at all customary in the Third Reich." These are two affidavits given by two workers from his home community and which are a certificate for his character showing the opinion of people in his home town, before the taking over of the power in 1933 by Hitler and afterwards until 1945, and the giving reputation he had in his home town.
I offer the Document Number 26 as Exhibit Number 47. this Document Book I A. I offer this Document Number 26 as Exhibit Number 47. This is an affidavit by Horst Webendorfer. He also offered to give his affidavit without being asked to do so. And he describes in particular the fight offer Lay against Ohlendorf, and that Ley asks Himmler to get rid of Ohlendorf.
I offer the Document Number 27 as Exhibit Number 48. It is an affidavit by Dr. Hans Roessner. Dr. Roessner testifies here about Ohlendorf' s political fight for freedom of the individual and he talks about an episode which is of importance for this, namely, the attempt of Ohlendorf-through many years, to try from the bottom to attain that the party bureaucra cy and the government of the party chancellery be destroyed. This was the attempt of getting the help of the leaders of the Hitler Youth in order to attain this aim.
I offer Document Number 28 as Exhibit Number 49. This is an affidavit by the Reich Minister Dr. Hans Lammers, the chief of the Reich Chancellery. The prosecution brought up the question whether the defendant, Ohlendorff, did not have the opportunity to complain to the fuehrer and supreme commander of the Wehrmacht about the general order of killing in the Eastern campaign. Lammers testifies, giving individual reasons that Ohlendorf's position was neither high enough nor it was that technically possible for him to get a personal audience with the fuehrer because of this position.
I offer Document Number 29 as Exhibit Number 50. It is an affidavit by Werner Lorenz, the former chief of the VOMI. Lorenz states that because of his activity as chief of Einsatzgruppe D in Russia in October 1941, Ohlendorf was on his suggestion spontaneously promoted to SS oberfuehrer. The reason for the promotion was the work done by Ohlendorf in the ethnic German resettlement territory in Transuistria for which the ethnic German resettlement office was competent.
I offer the Document Number 30 as Exhibit Number 51. This is an affidavit by Dr. Erich von der Heyde from the time of his activity in the economical staff of the OKW. He testifies that Ohlendorf in the fall of 1934 held a lecture to the economi staff in the OKW caused great surprise which because of the open criticism of the economic policy of the Reich of the policy of the NSDAP in general and especially of Speer, Ley, and Bormann.
I think I made a mistake in the year, it is 1944.
I offer Document Number 31, as Exhibit Number 52. It is another statement by Dr. Erich von der Heyde from the time when he was in contact with Ohlendorf as an employee of the I.G. Farben and simultaneously as honorary collaborator in the economic intelligence service in the SD. Heyde testifies that in the years 1939 and 1940 Ohlendorf repeatedly supported applications for emigration for Jewish employees of the I.G. Farben with the Gostapo, although he neither knew the Jews concerned, nor did he have any interest in them.
I offer Document Number 32 as Exhibit Number 53. This is an affidavit by Rudolf Fumy from 1938 to 1945. His affidavit of the document submitted by the prosecution attacks the credibility. According to his affidavit, the reports of events and the details therein do not give the exact happening in the East, and can only to a very limited extent be considered as a verbal repetition of th original reports.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I offer Document No. 33 as Exhibit No. 54. This is a personal letter of the Reichsfuehrer SS to the SS Brigadefuehrer Ohlendorf of 31 October 1943. I have submitted this letter as one of the pieces of evidence to show the relation between the Reichsfuehrer SS and Ohlendorf.
I offer Document No. 34 as Exhibit No. 55. This is a letter of thanks of the Tartar Committee of the District of Simferopol of 2 July 1942. In this letter there is expressed among other things, and I quote: "The Tartars in the Crimea were so oppressed and enslaved during the Bolshevist regime that they had lost almost all their Tartar ethnic characteristics.
"The firm foundation of our love and confidence in the German people is the result of your thorough and unselfish work.
"The Tartar people appreciate and will never forget your services."
I offer Document No. 35 as Exhibit No. 56. It is a letter by the Defendant Ohlendorf to his then fiancee at the time of February 1934. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of this entire letter.
I offer Document No. 36 as Exhibit No. 57. It is a correspondence with Professor Dr. Otto Donner, who is now living in America. He also shows the active tolerance towards non-natuinal socialists, when they were oppressed by official offices of the Reich and were presecuted by other agencies.
I offer Document No. 37 as Exhibit No. 58. This is an excerpt from the minutes of the session of the INT, page 1869 and 1870 of the interrogation of Dicter Wisliceny of 3 January 1946. I submit this examination as evidence for the fact that the so-called final solution of the Jewish question, that is, the extermination of the Jews as Jews in Europe was expressed only in the letter by Himmler of April 1943 to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, and the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps The testimony is a confirmation of the further examination of the Defendant Ohlendorf who states that the Fuehrer Order for the Russian Campaign originated independently from the so-called final solution of the Jewich question.
Shall I go to Document Book No. 4 before the recess, Your Honor?