A. The order was given by the local commander in Smolensk, who was the local commander at this town.
Q. Was he in a position to give yousuch an order?
A. The local commander did not pass on this order to me; that he made all these rules which he had to set up for his area as the commander of the town.
Q. To whom exactly did he give the order?
A. He gave this order to a detachment leader, whom I had put at his disposal for investigation at Smolensk.
Q. Was this sub-command leader responsible to you, or to the local commander?
A. He was subordinate of myself who was appointed by me to carry out the task for the Wehrmacht.
Q. Alright, did you ever receive orders to kill insane people.
A. I cannot remember having received an order to execute insane people.
Q. Did you ever kill insane -- I don't mean that you killed them, but under your command were there insane people executed?
A. I do not know of such a case.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal whether a Gestapo Leitstell is an office of the Gestapo?
A. I don't think I understand this question?
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal whether a Gestapo Leitstelle is a Gestapo Office?
A. A Gestapo Leitstelle is an official agency, yes.
Q.An office of the Gestapo, I asked.
A. A state police Leitstelle is an agency of the state police for one particular district of administration.
Q. May I rephrase my question? Does the Gestapo Leitstelle belong to the officesof the Gestapo?
A. Certainly.
Q. And a Gestapo Aussenstelle?
A. That is a subsidiary office of the Gestapo main office.
Q. A subsidiary office of the Gestapo, is it not?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. Commandos and officers of such offices were members of the Gestapo, were they not?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. You told the Tribunal further what an inspecteur of the Security Police and the SD is. Is it not true that all Gestapo offices were under the supervision of either the Commander-in-Chief or the Inspecteur of the Security Police and the SD?
A. I don't think I understood your question correctly.
Q. Is it not true that all Gestapo offices of a certain area were under the supervision of the Commander in Chief or of the Inspecteur of the Security Police and the SD?
A. This was a different organization. Within the Reich territory itself there were the inspectors, so-called. The inspectors had no executive power. In the occupied territories, however, there were kommanders of the police and the SD, the executive power of whom was a much larger one, although, of course, they were tied to the orders of the central office, that is the RSHA, the Reich Security Main Office.
Q. But wasthe inspecteur of the Security Police and the SD a member of the Gestapo, a Gestapo officer?
A. That depended, Mr. Prosecutor. They were taken from all three departments of the Security Service of the SD. There were inspecteurs who were taken from the State Police; inspecteurs who came from the SD; and also inspecteurs who came from the Criminal Police, but in their capacity as inspecteurs they were taken from their former activities within the other department and were subordinated immediately to the Chief of the Security Police.
I think this answers your question, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. That was perfectly correct. So it is possible that somebody can be supervising the Gestapo without being a member of it. Will you tell that to the Tribunal?
A. Yes, I mean the word "supervision" is perhaps not quite the right word here, If you mean the inspecteur, his task, at least within this department, wasto take care that all things were carried out in an orderly manner without that the inspecteur as such was not certified to give any orders for the carrying out of these tasks.
Q. No activities whatsoever, no executive activities whatsoever?
A. The inspecteur had no executive power.
Q. Who made the reports which were sent from Einsatzkommando V to Einsatzgruppe C?
A. They were drafted by the subkommanders.
Q. Did the subkommanders direct and send them to Einsatzgruppe C?
A. Not in every case. As a rule they were sent via the Einsatzkommando. These reports were not only drafted and made but by the subkommanders but even by individual collaborators.
Q. So it is true then that you received these reports, did you not?
A. Yes, I think I can say that.
Q. Did you read these reports before they were sent on?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. Did you receive copies of the reports which were made by Einsatzgruppe C to the RSHA ?
A. No, I didn't receive such reports. I did not even receive copies from my own Einsatzkommando, because our Einsatzkommando had about three or four typewriters only, and basically only original reports were passed on.
Q. How then did you receive knowledge about the reports which were sent from Einsatzgruppe C to the RSHA?
A. Not at all. I never received reports from the Einsatzgruppe to the RSHA.
Q. You testified here in direct that you made a personal report to Rasch concerning the activities of his Staff Leader, Hoffmann. You further testified that Hoffmann was the man who made the reports.
A. Yes, I did so. My report to Dr. Rasxh did not only deal with the activity of Dr. Hoffmann, but with his human attitude which I criticized most vividly in this report. This had nothing to do with his reporting on individual brunches of his activity.
Q. How do you know then that Hoffmann made the reports?
A. I knew that from my discussions which I had with the Einsatzgruppe in Zhitomir. At least three or four times I have visited in Einsatzgruppe in Zhitomir.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal whether the Defendant Rasch did see the reports of Hoffmann before they were sent on?
A. What happens within the Einsatzgruppe itself, I am not able to say.
Q. So you cannot testify to the fact then that these reports were made only by Hoffmann as you stated in your direct examination, is that correct?
A. No, I cannot say that.
Q. Do you know whether it is true or not that Hoffmann and Rasch were on very friendly terms?
A. Generally it was assumed that Hoffmann and Rasch were on very close terms.
Q. What were your own relations to Rasch?
A. They were not of a very friendly nature.
Q. You stated in one of your affidavits which is in evidence that Rasch distinguished himself by extraordinary ruthlessness.
A. I think I used the term, "ruthlessness", but it was more or less in the same line, which I have already mentioned before. He was absolutely cold and void of feeling, and he passed on these very hard orders and severe orders without even trying to explain the necessity of such orders. There were some other points as well which caused me to estimate him, therefore, asan extremely cruel and ruthless man.
Q. Can you tell -- then, the other points?
A. I can only give reasons for this from his general appearance, his general personality. I cannot at the moment remember any individual details, Mr. Prosecutor. you about these terrible orders, but you did not find it ruthless that he carried out these terrible orders, is that correct? Do I understand you correctly?
A. I think that your question was unneccessary, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. You need not answer it.
A. In that case I will not answer it.
Q. When you were recalled from the East and returned to the RSHA did you ever report personally to Streckenbach or Heydrich on the activities of the Einsatzgruppen?
A. Already on the occasion of my first trip to Berlin I reported to Streckenbach explicitly, and after my return I did not omit to give him another detailed description about conditions in Russia. After all it then led also to Hoffmann's dismissal from the Security police as far as the person himself is concerned.
Q. Did you talk to Heydrich about the Hitler order?
A. No, I did not. I had hardly any relation or personal relation to Heydrich. I talked about it to Streckenbach, personally and I asked him to see Heydrich about it. This indeed was difficult. I said to Streckenbach that I would be prepared to report to Heydrich myself because Heydrich had then been appointed Reichprotector in Prague, and only stayed in Berlin for just very few days at a time.
After my return from Russia I never again saw Heydrich in Berlin.
Q. Apart from this information you gave to Streckenbach, did you make an attempt to have the order that all Jews, gypsies and Communists were to be killed withdrawn?
A. I know nothing about gypsies. May I have your question repeated, Mr. Prosecutor?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, you need not specify what the order was each time you mention it. It is the Fuehrer order. I think the Tribunal knows which order it is, and the witness knows, so just say "that order, the Fuehrer order".
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: I am so sorry, Sir.
Q. (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) Did you then make an attempt?
A. It was the purpose of my visit in Berlin, anyhow.
Q. I am sorry. You misunderstood me. I asked you when you were called back from the East.
A. Yes.
Q. It was at the end of September, you say. Did you then afterwards, when you returned, when you were in a quite high position in the RSHA, did you use your influence to do anything to have this order withdrawn?
A. After my return I discussed it with Streckenbach again, and I reported about the events in the East as I had experienced them myself, and although I knew that they were now being stopped, I discussed them in great detail with Dr. Kaltenbrunner at the very beginning, and one of my first requests in 1943 when I became the personnel chief was the request to have a general inspecteur appointed who, independently from all offices, would supervise the offices, mainly within the East in order to find out what was actually happening there. This inspecteur general was refused to me; but I succeeded to have a trustee at my disposal in order to examine and investigate conditions in the East which I no longer was able to survey. Standartenfuehrer Dr. Canaris on my personal request, received this order from Kaltenbrunner, the personal order to make an inspection tour through the Eastern Territories and to report to him without any restraint what so ever what he had seen and heard. This report on the part of Dr. Canaris, which contained many pages and still showed up many shortcomings, was submitted to Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Kaltenbrunner, and on the basis of this report there was an absolute clean-up. about assigning the Security police also with the combat of partisans. At the beginning I succeeded in this to the extent that in my opening speech as Chief of Group I, I could inform the chiefs of all three departments that the soldierly tasks of the security police, which was an unusual kind of task for the police, the playing at soldiers, was to be discontinued, and that with the agreement of Kaltenbrunner the Security Police in the East would only deal with matters of security policy from than on.
Q. Am I correct in assuming that it is your contention that nobody way ever executed by units under your command unless he was found guilty of a very serious crime and of an overt act which endangered the security of the German Army, is that correct?
A. That was my intention yes.
Q. I did not ask whether it was your intention. I asked you whether you state here that nobody else than guilty persons were ever executed by units under you command?
A. According to the reports which are submitted here, I was of the conviction that actually only guilty people were executed.
Q. This procedure was in direct contradiction to the order of Rasch asyou had received it in Zhitomir, is it not?
A. At least it is a very strong limitation asit were . At least after the order of August it was an absolute contradiction, yes.
Q. Did your refusal to carry out this order impair your career in the Gestapo?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I may ask you not to use the word "refusal" because I did not refuse to obey an order. To refuse to obey an order means to tell a superior officer: "I refuse to carry out this order." This I did not do. I, myself, looked for a way out, and I did find a way out. Because of this way out I was not reproached. That is right Whether this way out was ever found out at all, I am not able to say. But that I exercised the greatest restraint, this fact was well known.
Q. Wasit known then to your superiors, at least to a certain extent, that your activities in Russia had been a failure?
A. I must assume so, because as Streckenbach informed me, my discharge was carried out because I was not hard and severe enough.
Q. Who promoted your Oberfulner, Herr Schulz?
A. I presume that this was done on the suggestion of Office I.
Q. Antschef I was Streckenbach?
A. Was Streckenbach, yes.
Q. And it was Himmler who promoted you at the time there, is that not correct?
A. That is correct. Such promotions could only have been done by Himmler.
Q. Why?
A. I am afraid I cannot say that. That was a certain date of promotion, and I was promoted together with a number of other people.
Q. It is a question of memory. I introduce now Document 4957 This will be Prosecution Exhibit 176, Your Honors. Will you turn first to the last page. There are special remarks on the last page, handwritten. Defense counsel will be good enough to hand them out to you. and I will read them. It is obviously a remark made by you, is it not, this handwritten remark?
A. I don't know which remark you are referring to.
Q. The last remark. I will show it to you. It is better to take this. Here is the document. Do you have the document here? Is that your handwriting, Mr. Schulz?
A. Yes, it is my handwriting.
Q. I would like to quote: "From the beginning of 1931 I occupied a particularly confidential position with regard to the SS and also to the Kreis leadership of the NSDAP because of my position then as Referent in the Central Police Office of Bremen (Political police). My entrance into the Party only after 30 January 1933 resulted from the express wish of the then SS-Unit Leader." examination expressly why you did not join the Party earlier and asked you expressly about your reason, that you said that my contention was not correct?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, in this form the statement carries more weight than is actually the case, because such a close relationship was not really the case.
Q. will you look at Page 1 of the Document and now we shall find why you were promoted Senior Colonel? I quote: "I hereby promote you, effective 9 November 1941, to SS-Oberfuehrer because of outstanding service in the Einsatz." Will you tell the Tribunal, Mr. Schulz, whether the words "in the Einsatz" means your activity in the East?
A. That is possible, yes, but I do not think that if merits are talked about here that this only concerns the shootingof people. There were also other tasks, Mr. Prosecutor, which were my own task. The execution of people was an extraordinarily difficult subsidiary task which I carried out with extreme suffering, and I think I have explained that. I have gone into details about it, and God knows I did not take it easy, and I found a way of my own which perhaps not everybody would have found. The merit was in achieving, to secure the rear Army territory, if this has to be pointed out at all, not the shooting and execution of people wasthe merit.
Mr. HORLICK HOCHWALD: Tribunal before you did see the document. Before you had the document before you, you told the Tribunal, "I have not idea why I was promoted."
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
( A recess was taken unti 1345 hours.)
*---* *---* (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, October 21, 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HEIM (Attorney for the Defendant Blobel): Your Honor, I ask that the Defendant Blobel be excused from tomorrow morning's session, since he will have to appear as a witness in his own defense within a few days and so that he can prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Blobel will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow morning.
DR. HEIM: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
Do you desire to present any further questions?
Dr. DURCHHOLZ (Attorney for the Defendant Schulz): Your Honor, I would like to ask a few questions in re-direct.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. BY DR. DURCHHOLD (Attorney for Defendant Schulz):
Q. Witness, I come back to the document previously submitted by the prosecution, NO-4957, Prosecution Exhibit 176. On page 1 of this document, your promotion to SS-Oberfuehrer is made effective as of the 9th of November, 1941. I ask you now, did you keep this secret up to this time for any reason?
A. No secret has been revealed about my person in this document, b ecause the original document listing all my promotions was handed to the CIC when I was arrested in Salzburg in the year 1945. I gave all my papers to the CIC and no document was lacking, not even this one.
Q. Was this promotion a promotion because of favoritism?
A. No, this promotion was no promotion like that. It was not out of order.
Q. Did your seniority warrant this promotion?
A. Yes.
Q. On the next to the last page of this document, it is noted under the 22d of March,1943, that since the beginning of 1931 you held a special relationship of confidence to the SS and NSDAP. Can you explain to me what this relationship of confidence consisted of?
A. This relationship isn't anything special. That I sympathised with the Nazi Party before 1933 I have already said in my examination; that I tried to achieve a relationship of confidence was not only in the interest of the Party but in my own interest,namely, it was through this relationship that it was often possible to prevent conflicts between political opponents and street fights.
Q. At that time did you show any favoritism towards members of the Nazi Party or SS?
A. No, never.
Q. Didn't you in the year 1932 have a Higher SS leader arrested?
A. Yes, even the one I have mentioned as a witness here, that was the SS leader of the SS Unit in Bremen. Shortly before the assumption of power, he was arrested for being suspected in a murder as a s result of a personal investigation on my part and brought into the prison pending trial. Only after the assumption of power, through the new Party agencies, was he released from this prison.
Q. Did you have especially close connections withthe Party? Were you active in propaganda?
A. No.
Q. Did you regularly attend Party meetings?
A. No, I didn't consider then important and visited them very rarely.
Q. Did you have any personal ties with Party leaders?
A. No.
Q. Now I come to another point. Did you consider yourself a camouflaged member of the Party before 1933?
A. No.
Q. Now I come to your activity in the Sudentenland. You were in Reichenberg and in Clmuetz. In cross-examination this morning something unclear seems to have cropped up. One could assume that you had appointed a Commissar in Reichenberg who had the job , by your order, to secure Jewish property. What activity is concerned here?
A. As far as I can remember, I said that when I took this agency over I found great disorder; Party agencies end other authorities had taken some of the property of the refugees and other Jews. They had taken furniture and Office equipment for their own use. This disorder I eliminated and in this I had to put up with great opposition among these agencies.
Q. Thus, you wanted to accomplish that it would be impossible for people who had nothing to do with this to enrich themselves with Jewish property?
A. Yes, that was the reason why I appointed an official; not a Commissar, but an official.
Q. Did you not cause arrests in Reichenberg of such people who on their own enriched themselves with Jewish property ?
A. Yes, several persons.
Q. Were proceedings initiated against these people by your order?
A. Yes, proceedings were started, against them.
Q. On your order?
A. Yes.
Q. Who ordered these confiscations of property, you or other agencies?
A. The confiscation was ordered by the Higher Finance Minister.
Q. Do you remember that after the war broke out with Poland,the then Gauleiter Henlein asked you to take Czechs into protective custody?
A. When war broke out with Poland, Gauleiter Henlein asked me to come and see him and he demanded of me that all leading or even prominent Czechs be taken into protective custody. At that time I told Gauleiter Henlein that the conduct of the Czech minorities, as far as I could see in my three months' activity there, was correct and loyal so that I did not consider such a measure as justified and that I even was afraid to embitter the Czech minority by this measure.
Gauleiter Henlein answered me, "You must admit that I know the Czechs better." Nevertheless I told him that I considered this measure as superfluous and that I would guarantee that no unrest would result. Then I promised him to make up a list of such people who are known to be prominent . On this basis of this promise, Henlein agreed to refrain from the protective custody, if it turned cut that I was right. No arrests were ordered and the Czech inhabitants of the Sudetenland conducted themselves absolutely loyally during the Polish campaign. Not only in this case, but also in all other cases, I have always represented the interests of humanity.
of a search book certain people would have to be arrested, Who ordered this? our duties. It had been prepared by the RSHA. or other people? Thus I mentioned that in this list Police Director Dr. Bender was included too. cause they were Jews or were any other prerequisites necessary? was a Jew. I have already mentioned Dr. Rosenach,as a witness. I worked with him for four years uninterruptedly and in an absolutely friendly manner.
Q Were you competent to send people go a concentration camp?
A I personally had no power of decision about this. The decision lay with the RSHA. heard about excesses on the part of the Party. Were these matters within your competence or were these excesses of other agencies or other authorities? of my competence. As long as I held an official position, not a single human being was mistreated. If this had been the case, I would have severely punished a man who did such a thing.
Q I want to come back briefly to the order of Heydrich. Did you expect that your assignment in Russia would be merely the liquidation of Jews and others who are considered politically unreliable?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durchholz, the witness testified that when he received the order, he did not know that he was going to do and it wasn't until a month later that he ascertained its exact nature.
It seems that we have covered this particular subject.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I merely mentioned it because it came up in cross-examination and one might get the wrong idea from it this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not required to cover the ground which is covered in cross-examination, if you have already addressed yourself to that subject in the direct examination. You are only to pick up what he brought in extra to what you introduced in the direct examination. BY DR. DURCHHOLZ: didn't remember all the events in Russia, especially since one assumed that somehow they kept the events in Russia secret. When did you hear what the Einsatzgruppen did in Russia?
Q I shall formulate it differently. Before the end of the war, did you find out to the full extent what activities the Einsatzgruppen carried out in Russia, as far as the many executions are concerned? about softness was made unjustly. Do you mean to say by that that you were not soft enough in Russia, that, therefore, you carried out all measures which had been ordered without hesitation?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durchholz, the witness very clearly stated that by softness he meant lack of moral fibre. He didn't want it to be confused with good heartedness. He denied being soft, but accepted the attribute of good-heartedness. I think that covered that.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: If this statement was given, I consider this question as answered.
BY DR. DURCHHOLZ:
Q I come back briefly to the events in Lemberg. Witness, did you have anything to do with the arrests of the Jews in Lemberg?
Q Did you not release arrested Jews on that field?
because they were Jews?
THE PRESIDENT: It seems he covered that pretty thoroughly, Dr. Durochholz. He told the whole story. He said investigations were made, and only those who had participated in massacres were executed. BY DR. DURCHHOLZ:
Q I come now to another question. You told us that during the investigation in Lemberg the militia participated. Which militia was this? German or some other? from the Lemberg population -- that is, indigenous personnel.
Q Poles?
Q Didn't the Mayor of Lemberg participate in these investigations?
Q How many Einsatzkommandos were in Lemberg at that time?
A Temporarily there were four Commandos there: Commando 4b, Commando 5, Commando 6, and this Commando from the General Government. Commando 4b was the first one to leave. person give it to your Einsatzkommando?
A The order was given by Brigadier General Dr. Rasch.
Q Were those executions of hostages? out executions only if punishable actions had been determined previously?
THE PRESIDENT: He's covered that ground.
BY DR. DURCHHOLZ: Who gave the order for the executions on the citadel in Shmielnik?
A This question is wrong. Once there was an execution on the citadel in Berditschew.
Q Who gave the order in Shmielnik? by the town commandant. to your commander. Russia, as you have described it, would not have been disadvantageous for your career in the police, for you said that you did not execute the orders such as they should have been executed. Was this known to the Higher agencies?
A This answer I have already confirmed; otherwise, my dismissal would not have come about. to carry out the order?
THE PRESIDENT: I think he's covered that. He stated what it would mean to disobey an order.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I have finished the redirect examination. to examine, I want to make a short statement. I ask that you permit me to call three witnesses so that I may examine them here in Court. These are: Dr. Steiner; Alfred Faust, and Alfred Schwarting. I shall do without the other witnesses.
DR. HOCHWALD: Your Honors, please, it would be helpful if Dr. Durchholz would inform the Tribunal on what subjects these three witnesses are going to testify. Are they character witnesses, or can they testify as to crimes charged in the indictment?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: These three witnesses are to testify as to how the defendant conducted himself in his activity in the Gestapo. As far as the witness Steiner is concerned, he is a representative of the Catholic Church in Austria. In the case of the witness Faust, he is leading Social Democrat in Bremen.
And the witness Schwarting is the person whom the defendant appointed to a void excesses on the part of the police. These points are connected with Count 3 of the indictment -- Membership in a criminal organization.
DR. HOCHWALD: If your Honors please, it seems clear from the Statement of Dr. Durchholz that all of the witnesses are going to testify only on Count 3, and more or less on very similar subjects. It seems to the prosecution sufficient if only one of the witnesses would appear, and the other two give their testimony in the form of an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know whether that would be satisfactory to you, Dr. Durchholz. But we will say this. That if we allow the three witnesses, they will be restricted to what you have indicated will be the subject of their interrogation, and from what you have said it would appear that ten minutes to each witness might be enough in Court.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes. I shall confine myself to very brief questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then these witnesses will be permitted. Are they here now?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: No, they are not here yet. I shall call them when they arrive here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, does that mean that otherwise you have terminated the presentation of the evidence in the case of the defendant Schulz?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. It is unfortunate that the witnesses are not here because we prefer, naturally, that the witnesses testify at the same time that the defendant does. But through no fault of yours the witnesses are not here -- but we do hope that this situation does not repeat itself, and that we can have witnesses here simultaneously with the presentation of the defendant for whom they will testify.