THE WITNESS: Your Honor, Mr. Wartenberg phrased this , and it is One of the many wordings which I objected to , because Mr. Wartenberg was evidently of the intention to represent my activity in this as supervisory capacity. That is why he chose this wording "I took care", although there was nothing for me to take care of.
THE PRESIDENT: This morning, witness, when you were given the opportunity to enumerate one by one the corrections which you wished to make in the affidavit, you called our attention to "supervise" and so on, but we don't recollect that you corrected this phrase "I took case."
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I do not know at the mount whether I said it or not, but I think that I did say it. If it was not said then it is because so much has been said about these things that I had lost track of it at the moment, but I would be grateful if my explanation would be accepted on this particular point, too.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now you went to substitute for that phrase "I convinced myself", is that right?
THE WITNESS: The text would then have to be re-transposed in the German, but the sense would remain the same. "I convinced myself of the loading, etc. . ."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Now Ohlendorf sent you on this mission, didn't he? self, could be just convinced? in which these matters were carried out.
Q Well, suppose that you were not convinced, what would have happened? in whatever manner I could have. I would then have had to point out the violations against orders to these officers.
Q So that in effect "you took care" of it, didn't you?
A Your Honor, I don't know whether one should interpret it that way.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, do you have any other questions to put to the witness?
DR. KOESSL: No, Sir, I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Dixon calls our attention to a phrase in paragraph 3-B, or perhaps it is 3-C, after discussing the collection of moneys, jewels, and so forth, then we come to a sentence or clause which reads: "To supervise" and of course we understand your explanation of "supervise", "that the execution be completed in the most humane and military manner possible". Now just what did you mean by "humane execution". THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I knew the order Ohlendorf concerning the manner of the actual shooting. There was only way one could call humane under these circumstances, that is, the form of shooting by a military execution squad under the orders of the military officer. This type of execution is what was meant.
Q And that is what you mean by "Humane manner"?
Q In paragraph 6 you said: "I know that was of the greatest importance to Ohlendorf to have the persons who were to be shot killed in the most humane and military manner possible, because otherwise in other methods of killing, the moral strain would have been too great for the execution squad". What were the other methods of killing?
A That is meant purely theoretically, Your Honor. It might mean the execution of individuals by one individual person outside of the military squad, as I have described it.
Q Then in paragraph 5 we find the sentence: "I watched that none of the deposited items were kept by the SS and the ORPO-men who were designated for the collection." Was there danger that some of the SS and ORPO-men might have purloined some of these articles, kept them for their own use?
things were always correctly conducted, but no one can look into the soul of each individual, and that is how this order came to be made to me, to see to it that great care was taken, and if something like that would happen, that this would exclude such occurrances which actually didn't happen, and I never heard anything about it. not their souls?
A Your Honor, I didn't look into the pockets of these people, but from the way in which these things were carried out, there was no doubt for me to say that these things were correctly carried out, that such things didn't happen
Q And if it was done, you didn't catch them at it?
A Your Honor, I don't know what happened when I was not present, think so, however. to participate in petty thievery of this character? matter. field, how you can distinguish between the high honor of not taking a piece of money, or ring, or watch, and the killing of a person who is utterly defenseless? of any property from these victims was prohibited. This was first of all the basic difference. from the Reich, but there is nothing wrong in seeing or in taking these personal belongings from these defenseless people?
to do with these matters, I went to explain that I am convinced without being able to say this just with certainty for everyone, that I do not believe that there was any elements among us who did not consider these things just as sacred for the carrying out of the Fuehrer's Orders, as they could be sacred to human beings.
Q Were you ordered to take the money and valuables? with then. property of those who were to be executed
A I can not say, Your Honor. I do not know whether this was one part of the Fuehrer Order, or whether these were executive regulations pertaining to the Fuehrer Order. handing them back to others legally entitled to them upon the decease of the owner?
A Your Honor, I know of the regulation of the .Reich Security Main Office which referred to these valuables, and this regulation provided that these valuables were to be sent to Berlin to be handed over to the Reich Finance Ministry. Other regulations on which this directive was based are not known to me. I could not say anything about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very Well.
DR. KOESSL: Your Honor, may I ask a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. KOESSL: May I consider the examination of the witness closed, and may I consider with him this evening.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, by all means. Dr. Hoffmann, do you have something to say?
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I have a very short motion to make. The Tribunal will recollect that the defendant Nosske said in the witness stand that in the year of 1944 as the result of his resistance in Duesseldorf he was excluded from the SS. The defendant Nosske haws further informed me that this also brought in its wake his exclusion from the Nazi Party. In order to bring proof of this, I would like to get the personnel file of the defendant Nosske, which is in the Document Center in Berlin, and, I ask the Tribunal to instruct the Secretary General that he obtain this file from the Document Center in Berlin.
MR. WALTON: We have not charged him in the Indictment with membership in the Nazi Party. I don't see where that is material. We charged him with being in a Criminal organization, the Gestapo the SS, and, it may be the SD, I am not sure about that, but we have not charged him with being a member of Nazi party as a criminal act, so I think his request is immaterial.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, if I can gather from Mr. Walton's statement that he does not contest that the defendant Nosske was excluded from the SS in 1944, then, of course, I would not need this card from there, but if he does contest it then I need the card to support my contention.
THE PRESIDENT: If you are willing to admit for the record that if the card were obtained it would show what Dr. Hoffmann said, then there would be no need to get then card.
That is the first thing you must decide. Then after you have decided that either in the affirmative or the negative, then we will go to the next thing.
MR. WALTON: That document including the SS personnel file was here at the beginning of this trial under the protecting wing of one, colonel Neil. The Tribunal at that time ruled that any comparison to be made of the document presented by the Prosecution in its case in chief would be compared at that time, and that would be the only time. They stayed here, and the opportunity originally of scrutining the personnel file when it was here, and now I think it is putting too great a burden on this court to have one of those files returned here for further scrutiny.
THE COURT: Mr. Walton, do you consider it material or immaterial, and are you basing your ob jection on the fact that defense counsel once had the opportunity to obtain this document, and not having availed himself of the opportunity, his time is now passed.
MR. WALTON: If Your Honor decides against my first objection, that it is immaterial, then I base it on the second prong of the objection, that it was here.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, it is correct that the personnel file of the defendant Nosske was submitted here, but the personnel file only showed that a proceeding was ins tituted against him because of military disobedience in the year of 1944, or rather that a proceeding pended against him, but * the personnel file did not show that the defendant Nosske, as he stated in the witness stand, actually was excluded. Why this was not noted down is a question of argumentation, I think, which I can bring in my final pleading, but in Order to support my argument, I would like to have documentary proof, and as a defense counsel I have no way of being admitted to the document center, therefore, I ask the Tribunal for assistance.
THE PRESIDENT: With regard to the materiality of the document asked for, we will say as we have said before, that when a defense counsel believes a certain piece of evidence is material, we are disposed to allow it, and we even went so far as to say that we will permit any evidence of any kind up to the social life of penguins in the Anarctic Zone. And if you can show that even that is relevant, we will permit you to introduce a document so show just how the Penguins live in the Anarctic Zone. So, therefore, we will rule in effect on the materiality, because you say it is material, and, in regard to the second feature, we would never penalize an attorney because he overlooked doing something which in the interest of his client he could have done. Now if you didn't get the document when it was here, that is no reason why you should not have it now, so the Tribunal will direct the Defense Information Center to obtain that document, if it is obtainable so that you may use it in the defense of your client.
Anything further?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30 O'clock.
THE MARHSAL: The Tribunal is now in recess until 0930 hours, 7 January 1948.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 7 January 1948) A. Musmanno, Presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Graf will be taken to the witness stand.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Durchholz for Schulz. Schulz before the defendant Graf enters the witness stand. I need the exhibits for my trial brief which I shall submit shortly to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well, you may proceed.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: So that the names and numbers in my documents appear correctly in the transcript, I would like to give the interpreters and the court reporters a written copy of my document list here. to the Tribunal when I submitted Document Books I and II on the 17th of November, 1947. This index is on Page 2448 in the English transcript and in the German transcript on Page 2500. In Document Book III too, in the English as well as in the German text, the page numbers are the same.
I now submit and offer: which refer to the activity of the defendant Schulz as a police official and police officer in Bremen during the years 1923 to 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you kindly suspend just for a moment until we receive our copies of the document? We didn't know, of course, that you were going to read this.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I have one English copy. If the Tribunal would like to have this copy I will hand it to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We are getting copies for the entire Tribunal. ready to present because we are now approaching the termination of the trial and we don't want any congestion in the translation and reproduction divisions. We would also suggest -- all the defense counsel are not here but you might pass the word around -- that there is no reason why they couldn't begin on the preparation of their final arguments.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: May I repeat briefly that as far as Point II of my index is concerned, I will submit documents which refer to the activity of the defendant Schulz as a police official and police officer in Bremen during the years 1923 to 1939. On page 190 as Exhibit No. 63, Document No. 65. This is the affidavit of the Police Inspector, Otto Kay. On Page 192 as Exhibit No. 64 the Document No. 66.
THE PRESIDENT: With which book are you now dealing?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Document Book III, your Honor, Document books 1 and 2 have already been submitted by me.
THE PRESIDENT: Suppose you start at the beginning again.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: As the next document in Book III on page 190 I submit Document No. 65 as Exhibit No. 63. This is the affidavit of the Police Inspector, Otto Kay.
On Page 192 I submit Document No. 66 as Exhibit No. 64. This is the affidavit of the Secretary for Criminal Affairs, Richard Ruehe. On Page 194 I submit Document No. 67 as Exhibit No. 65. This is the affidavit of the Superior Secretary for Criminal Affairs, Wilhelm Parchmann. On Page 214 I submit Document No. 74 as Exhibit No. 66. This is the affidavit of the Higher Secretary for Criminal Affairs, Emil Kroeger. On Page 222 I submit Document No. 77 as Exhibit No. 67.
This is the affidavit of the Police Inspector, Fritz Schmidt. On page 225 I submit Document No. 78 as Exhibit No. 68. This is the affidavit of the Senior Secretary, Senior Police Secretary, Willy Aland. On Page 229 as Exhibit No. 69 I submit Document No. 79. This is the affidavit of the Police Inspector Heinrich Herrlein. All these witnesses were formerly subordinates or collaborators of the defendant Schulz in Bremen. All of them confirm, as can be gathered from the documents I submitted earlier, that the defendant Schulz never had any political attitudes but was always impartial in fulfilling his duties as a police official, that as far as questions of protective custody were concerned which he had to deal with, he always conducted himself humanely and that he took special care of people in protective custody and their families, further, that he never was anti-Semitic, rather that he always showed a tolerant attitude. the Document No. 86 as Exhibit No. 70. This is the affidavit of the present director of the city food office in Bremen, Heinrich Sebbes. This witness, who had been in protective custody in 1993 because of communist leanings and against whom very serious charges were raised for this same reason, confirmed that he had become acquainted with the defendant Schulz as a decent and just man who respected the limits of humanity. He also confirmed that Schulz in this, his humane attitude, spared many another person a sad fate and had managed to get many people out of concentration camps. of the defendant Schulz in Graz in the year 1938, I submit and offer on Page 188 Document 64 as Exhibit No. 71. This is the affidavit of the Police Counsellor Josef Frank from Millstadt on a lake in Austria. On Page 203 Document No. 71 as Exhibit No. 72. This is the affidavit of Dr. Paul Hillinger from St. Martin in Austria. On Page 239, Document No. 82 as Exhibit No. 73. This is the affidavit of Wilhelm Weinzierl from Graz in Austria.
These three witnesses were at the time collaborators of Schulz in Graz and have an exact insight into his activity there. They have known his extraordinary friendliness and his popularity, not only with all officials, employees and workers at an agency, but also among wide circles of the population. They confirm that he released on his own initiative the greatest part of those people who had been taken into protective custody by the Austrian National Socialists. No. 83 as Exhibit No. 74. This is the affidavit of Heertha Schmid from Grazzin Austria, the wife of the university professor, Dr. Schmid, who was also in protective custody. She confirms that Schulz freed her husband from this custody. She also confirmed that as long as Schulz was in Graz she had a feeling of security against renewed attacks of the Gestapo. The affiant added a newspaper excerpt from the Graz paper, "Tagespost" of the 2nd of July, 1938, and this excerpt shows among other things that on the occasion of Schulz's farewell from Graz he made a speech in front of representatives of the state and the party in public in which he asks his collaborators to let their heart speak too in their work, whether they are friendly to the cause or not. This was not sentimentality. If one does not feel that there is heart in your work then it would be better not to do that work at all. The service had to be conducted strictly but gallantly.
As the next document I offer on page 246 the Document No. 84 as Exhibit No. 75. This is the affidavit of University Professor Dr. Heinrich Schmid from Graz, the husband of the affiant mentioned above. He states especially that Schulz saved him from a concentration camp after having released him from his protective custody, the concentration camp into which he would no doubt have been sent because of his opinion in favor of the independence of Austria. Above all he states that the conduct of Schulz and his just and humane attitude differed most pleasantly from all the other officers of the Gestapo with whom Schmid, at that time when he was arrested, had come into contact.
On Page 249 Document No. 85 as Exhibit No. 76. This is the affidavit of the pastor, Dr. Kohlbach, from Graz in Austria, who had gotten into protective custody as a well-known Austrian writer and doubtless would have been consigned for years in concentration camps just like many other editors of Catholic publications of Austria if Schulz had not released him together with other clergymen.
On Page 254, Document No. 87 as Exhibit No. 77. This is the affidavit of the then Austrian Minister for Economic Planning and Security of Property, Dr. Peter Krauland from Vienna whom Schulz had likewise liberated from protective custody in Graz. He too confirms that the conduct of Schulz was so pleasantly different from most of the other functionaries that he had written him a letter of gratitude.
itself with the activity of the Defendant Schulz in Reichenberg in the then Sudetenland in 1939, I submit and offer on Page 232 as Exhibit No. 78 Document No. 80. This is the affidavit of the engineer and former criminal counsellor, Hans Hasse, from Hamburg, This witness confirms all statements which Schulz made in the witness stand about his activity in Reichenberg, especially that in the Sudetenland there never was or there was no Jewish question, furthermore, that he appointed two police officials only for the purpose of protecting the property left behind by the fleeing Jews from unauthorized confiscation. Schulz thus had ruthlessly proceeded against the embezzlement of these valuables and he had these perpetrators arrested. Furthermore, that Schulz had understood how to influence other agencies from refraining from thoughtless actions and that he also had won his point with the Gauleiter when he considered measures that had been ordered as incorrect. Through his conduct in the Sudetangau he had no enemies and in public opinion he was respected and popular. of the Defendant Schulz as the director of Group IB in the RSHA and as the commander of the Leader School of the Security Police in BerlinCharlottenburg from 1941 to 1942, as well as the director of Group IA and of the Office I in the RSHA from 1942 to 1944, I submit and offer the following: On Page 200, Document No. 70 as Exhibit No. 79. This is the affidavit of Rudolf Hotzel who confirmed that in the Leader School of the Security Police in Berlin, whose commander Schulz was, the training in the professional subjects took precedent. He further confirms the statements of the Defendant Schulz about his talks in front of the students in the school in which he concerns himself with the concepts; domineering man and super-man. harshness and brutality, goodness and softness; leader and subordinate, He also confirms that Schulz had an unpolitical temperament and was not an eager National Socialist and did not influence the students in this respect.
and VII of the RSHA did not exist, and that an influence on the work of these offices did not exist either, nor was it possible. affidavit of Dr. Hans O'Gilvie, who was a teacher at the police officers' school. He says, among other things, that only good and well-trained teachers were allowed to teach there, that a military training was not given at the school at all, and that schulz relegated the ideological training consciously to a very small and unimportant part of the cause in favor of the professional training. Furthermore, Schulz had granted the teachers academic freedom. Furthermore, he states, as far as the activity of Schulz as chief of Office I in the RSHA is concerned, and as chief of the Personnel Department, he described Schulz as a man with great feeling for justice as opposed to the Chief of Office IV. Mueller, who had a strong dictator's will. the affidavit of the criminal councellor, Dr. Walter Zirpins, who also describes the purely factual activity of Schulz. affidavit of Dr. Paul Dittel, who discusses the exemplary leadership of the Personnel Department in the RSHA by Schulz. defendant, Schulz, in Salzburg, I finally offer and submit on page 198, document Number 69, the Exhibit Number 83. This is the affidavit of the former Brigadier General and Chief of Staff in the Service Commando XVIII in Salzburg, Anton Glasl. He confirms, among other things, that despite existing Fuehrer Orders Schulz had prevented the defense of the city of Salzburg and the blowing up of the bridges. of the architect, Richard Rothboeck, of Salzburg. affidavit of the physician, Dr. Robert Leitinger, from Salzburg.
the affidavit of the secretary, Hildegard Seiringer, from Mondsee in Upoer Austria. has said about the activity in Salzburg, especially about the humane treatment and his care for the prisoners of war and foreign workers and his fair and humane attitude towards the enemy pilots that had been shot down. as Exhibit Number 87. This is the affidavit of Dr. Anton Neumayr from Vienna, who confirms that Schulz had liberated his father, the present mayor of Salzburg, from the Concentration Camp Dachau, and had secured him a position in the Austrian civil service. which I received voluntarily. I could submit a great many more of such affidavits, but I think that the statements already submitted will give the Tribunal a sufficient picture about the personality and the activity of the defendant, Schulz. I may only remark that I shall submit one affidavit of the Jewish Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Noewe, who now lives in New York. The defendant, Schulz, also helped this man, as he did many other people in the year 1936. I only received this affidavit a few days ago from New York, So that for the lack of translation I could not yet submit this affidavit today. This is the end.
THE PRESIDENT: When do you think you may have that ready, Dr. Durchholz?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I shall have it written now and give it to the Translation Section, and it depends on them. As soon as I get it back, I shall submit it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The defendant, Graf, Will be taken to the witness stand.
DR. BELZER: Belzer for Graf. Your Honor, I ask that before the examination of the defendant, Graf, begins that you permit me to call a witness who is present here and who has to return to Munich tomorrow. The witness' name is Schaller.
MR. HOCHWALD: The prosecution has no objection to calling the witness now.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness, Schaller, will be called in the court room and taken to the witness stand.
HEINZ SCHALLER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE DIXON: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat the oath after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
JUDGE DIXON: You may be seated.
DR. BELZER: Witness, may I first ask you to speak slowly and distinctly into the microphone, not to answer my questions immediately, but to pause a few minutes until the interpreter has translated the question. BY DR. BELZER:
Q When and where were you born?
Q Do you know the defendant, Mathias Graf, and since when?
Q Did you meet the defendant, Graf, in Russia?
Q In what capacity were you in Russia?
Q In what town did you meet the defendant, Graf?
Q How long were you in Stalino?
Q Will you please give the exact dates? of June 1942.
Q With which unit was the defendant, Graf, at that time? merely an assumption on your part?
Q What uniform did Graf wear?
Q Any special insignia?
Q What rank did the defendant, Graf, have at that time? position and activity of the defendant, Graf?
Q How often did you visit Graf at the office?
Q Did you make an appointment with Graf before these visits? in the office of Graf to the effect that Graf was busy with police jobs?
Q Did you accompany Graf on official trips?
A No. It is possible that one trip which we made together was considered an official trip.
Q Where did this trip take you?
factory near Stalino, on a nice spring day.
Q And you inspected this plant together with Herr Graf? Stalino Herr Graf told you anything about the fact that he had been sick previously?
of disease? ailment and for this reason he was in a hospital back home for a longer period of time.
Q Did Graf at this time still complain about a bad state of health? Did you, during your stay in Stalino, observe anything about mass executions.of Jews especially? transporting of Russian workers to Germany?
A No. As far as I remember, even Russians would come up to you and ask you whether one could not help them to get them to Germany. They all wanted to go to Germany.
DR. BELZER: I thank you. I have no further questions to this witness.
PRESIDENT: Does any of the defense counsel desire to cross examine the witness? Mr. Hochwald, you may proceed. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q Herr Schaller, were you a member of the Nazi Party?
Q Never? of this party?
Q How long?
Q What wasyour position in the Hitler Jugend? the Tribunal that you never witnessed any mass execution of Jews. How many Jews were in Stalino in the time when you were there, according to your estimate?
A I don't know. I noticed no distinction between Jews and other Russians. out whether the Jews in Stalino were killed or not, is that correct -is that what I am taking from your testimony?
A Yes. I did not have this possibility. killed in Stalino or not?
MR. HOCHWALD: No further questions, Your Honor.
PRESIDENT: Very well. Have you finished with this witness, please?
DR. BELZER: I don't have any further questions of this witness either.
PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused. The defendant, Graf, Will now be taken to the witness stand. I said that the third time; I hope it takes this time. as follows:
JUDGE DIXON: Defendant, raise your right hand and repeat the oath after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The defendant repeated the oath.)
JUDGE DIXON: You may be seated.