A. No, no, it was our effort to revoke the entire order because not only the relatives were meant among the innocent people, but also the Jews themselves.
Q. What date was this?
A. On the 15th or 16th of September.
Q. '44?
A. Yes, 44. I remember this date because on the Sunday which was the 17th of September the great parachute jump of the Allied troops in Arnheim and on the lower Rhine took place. That was in our area.
Q. Who issued the order in the first place?
A. As far as I was informed later, this order came from the Higher SS and Police Leader and came down via the inspector to the State Police Offices.
Q. All right, now, you were telling us about the message. You told us about the original teletype message and then Nosske's reply, and in his reply he repeated the message and then, as you told us, he objected to the execution of the order for humane reasons and pointed out that it would mean the execution of innocent people. All right, now proceed with what else was in the message.
A. Upon this teletyped message which Nosske addressed to the RSHA, the Office Chief IV sent a teletype reply. In this message --
Q. Well, now, you have given us the text of Nosske's message as far as you recall it; is that right?
A. Yes. But what I mentioned now, that is still Mueller's teletype message.
Q. This is the reply to Nosske now?
A. Yes, this is what I was just going to give you.
Q. Very well.
A. This teletype message from the RSHA read as follows: "It is incomprehensible to me that such measures could even be considered.
there. Should the Jews in that area represent a danger, they are to be employed as labor in Central Germany."
Q. By this time there had been instituted an order suspending the execution of Jews, hadn't there? By September 1944, Himmler himself had ordered a suspension of execution of Jews, hadn't he?
A. I do not know that.
Q. Well, do you know when it was finally decided not to execute any more Jews?
A. I have not been informed about this. THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Hoffmann. QUESTIONS BY DR. HOFFMAN (continued):
Q. May I immediately after this ask who was the highest bearer of command or authority at that time in this area Duesseldorf?
A. The State Police was organically under the command of the RSHA. The inspector, as such, had supervising rights, but, in my opinion, he had no objective right of issuing directives. Outside of this inspector, there was the Higher SS and Police Leader who, normally speaking, had no influence on the work of the State Police.
Q But was it different now? various commands were changed there, I do not know. by the competent Higher SS and Police Leader?
Q Then I will ask you witness, couldn't Noske refuse to carry out this order on his own part? In the area of the State Police Dusseldorf the Jews were not collected in one place. Thus Noske by this had already resufsed to carry out the order by not complying with the first directive which said that all these people were to be gathered together in one building, whereas the State Police Office in Cologne had already assembled all these people in an old fortress. is that right? right? and what do you know about it? Please tell that to the Tribunal. Noske had been relieved of his office, that his successor was already on the way, and that he himself had been recalled to Berlin and he had not even been permitted to hand over the old job to his successor as that is usually customary. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Witness, do you remember the message sent by Mueller? Do you recall the text of that message?
A RSHA sent the following measures, "It is incomprehensible to me that such measures could he considered there. Should the Jews in that area represent a danger they are merely (and this merely was underlined) to be sent to Central Germany for work."
Q The RSHA then supported Noske's position? an order as incomprehensible.
Q They supported Noske's position? which they approved of?
A Perhaps I may continue with the report about Noske's dismissal.
Q No, but answer that question. If the RSHA supported Noske why did they permit him to be penalized?
A I do not know the reason. I merely know that when Noske returned from Berlin he came to see me and asked me for copies of these top secret matters and he told me that because of too lax, too soft, an attitude in the treatment of the Jewish question he had been dismissed from his job and that a proceeding was to be started against him before a Higher SS and Police Court.
Q Was he tried? DR. HOFFMAN:
Q Your Honor, may I just say something?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. HOFFMAN: In my case in chief the Higher SS and Police Leader will appear in an affidavit and he, namely thelatter, was angry at Noske and now tried to start proceedings against Noske because of military disobedience, which we have in the do cuments, But, the witness cannot give you this information and I merely want to say this so that it would be logical.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Very well. Did you hear about these proceedings against Noske, instituted by higher SS and Police Leader?
Q Well wouldn't you have been interested in what happened to Noske after this rather serious incident?
A Noske was immediately transferred into the field. He was no longer in Duesseldorf and, therefore, I did not hear anything about how the matter progressedafterwards.
Q Did you know Noske very well?
A Noske was my superiorfor about one year. Noske came from western Germany and knew the mentality of the western German population. I personally had to write reports about the religious life and this whole church program was rather a delicate problem in western German. Therefore, I had to negotiate with Noske very often.
Q Would you say that he was soft in his treatment of the Jews? with Noske.
Q Proceed, Dr. Hoffman. BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q Why didn't you talk with Noske about Jewish problems? the time when Noske was there there was hardly any Jewish question to be handled. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Well, as a matter of fact now, witness, there weren't many Jews in that area, were there, in Duesseldorf there weren't many Jews? that in 1944 there were still one thousand Jews in approved mixed marriages.
Q Well, they were mostly part Jews?
spouses in an approved mixed marriage and the children of these families those were mixed off-springs of the 1st degree. with an Aryan didn't exist in any appreciable number there?
Q So that thisquestion wasn't only a Jewish question, it was also a German question to a great extent? upon which spouse was Jewish, and at least half German children, didn't it?
Q Proceed, Dr. Hoffmann.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Hoffman. BY DR. HOFFMANN: Police job in Duesseldorf, was he completely dismissed?
A Yes, that's definite. Berlin and his dismissal? to Berlin because it said that his successor was already on the way.
Q Then it was very shortly afterwards? to Berlin and he never returned to his job. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Who signed the telegram of dismissal?
Q Well, you were interested in the episode, wouldn't you want to know who it was that fired him?
A Noske didn't tell me.
Q How was it you saw all these telegrams and didn't see the most important of all? Here is someone you were working with, suddenly he is dismissed, is about to go away, and you don't see the telegram although you see all the other telegrams? Berlin arrived, When I came to the office Noske was already on his way to Berlin.
Q And had taken the telegram with him?
Q Wasn't a copy of the teletype there? have already said that. when Noske came from Berlin he asked me for copies of these top secret matters and on that occasion he told me that he had been dismissed because of too lax conduct as far as the Jewish question was concerned.
Q Well, did he tell you who it was that dismissed him?
A No, he didn't tell me that. that here you are interested in this episode of a grave nature. You see the telegram which arrived giving the order, you see the complaint, you see the reply to the complaint, you even tell us about words which are underlined in the telegram, then comes the explosion at the end with the dismissal of your own superior. You don't know who dismissed him, you don't know whom he saw, you never saw the message. It sounds a little incomprehensible. doesn't it? the office and Noske was no longer my superior and I had no cause to ask for any details.
Q Did he come to the office?
BY THE PRESIDENT: (continued)
Q And you gave him all these telegrams? that had dismissed him?
Q And you weren't curious enough to say to a man who had been your boss for a year, "I am very sorry, Dr. Noske, that this happened to you. That they dismissed you, Who was it who did this dirty deed?" You didn't think of mentioning that to him? matter of course that the Chief of Office (Office I) had charge of him as far as disciplinary measures was concerned so my questions would have been superfluous. him, is that right? revoked this order upon the teletype of Noske. Yes, he had approved of Noske's conduct and for this rest, as he told me, Noske was dismissed from the Job because of too lax treatment of the Jewish question, He told me personally.
Q And he didn't mention any name who it was that told him that he had been too lax?
Q And you didn't ask him "Who was it who told you you were too lax"?
A That was a matter of course. We took it for granted that Office I handled these matters.
Q Well, Office I is an abstract designation. The whole office didn't tell him this. One individual spoke. Who was the individual who spoke.
A Noske did not tell me and I didn't ask him for it, either.
BY DR. HOFFMANN:
ould like to ask you: the fact that Noske was no longer in his position was known to you, too? English authorities? about the Noske incident. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q What did the successor to Noske do which Noske hadn't done? later from the RSHA to the effect that those Jews who were fit to work were to be sent to Central Germany to work in the OT; that those who were not fit to work, and the Jewesses, were to be sent to Berlin where they would be housed in Jewish families and that is how the problem found its solution. and homes that were capable of housing other people?
A I told you what the teletype message contained. What the conditions were in Berlin I do not know. BY DR. HOFFMAN:
Q But, Noske was no longer there in the State Police Office was he? because that happened soon after the teletype came. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Well then he did remain in the office after he was dismissed? Very well.
BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q Witness, let's get this quite clear. Now, Noske sent a teletype to the RSHA, is that right?
Q Then the RSHA sent back a teletype?
A Yes. And that was the one from Mueller.
Q And when did the dismissal come off?
Q Were there three months, three days or what?
A I cannot give you any period of time. I don't remember any more. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Well now just a moment. You can't dismiss a very reasonable question like that. When Dr. Hoffmann asked three months or three days you can tell us approximately the period of time. If you can't tell us that then one might question whether you remember anything about it. Certainly you would know how quicly came the order of dismissal of the man for whom you worked for a year. You certainly didn't have much love for him if you could forget him that quickly. Now, how seen did this message from the RSHA indicating what should be done with these half Jews that the order come through dismissing Noske? the dismissal of Noske perhaps happened at the end of October, but I must say that with reservations because I do not remember the exact time Noskewas dismissed. went by? been dismissed for something else, couldn't it?
Q So that you don't know why he was dismissed?
A I merely know what Noske told me personally. I did not see the teletype message. I wasn't present when Noske talked with the officials in Berlin. Therefore I don't know what the reasons were.
Q Proceed, Dr. Hoffmann. BY DR. HOFFMAN:
THE PRESIDENT: All right, Dr. Hoffman.
Any other defense counsel desire to examine? Apparently not. BY MR. WALTON: were an SS Major? about which you testified? the State Police on temporary duty. I was paid by the SD and my personal files were with the SD. reporter on church questions, is that correct?
A Yes, that's correct. appoint you as a reporter on church questions? Were you a member of the Ministry? from SD Sector Duesseldorf No, I was not a member of the ministry. and practice in life prior to the time you were in Duesseldrof? Before I started working for the SD Sector Dusseldorf? I was active in church affairs. And, because I am an expert on Catholic and protestant matters the SD Sector employed me as a correspondent on church questions on a full time basis.
matters. Were you a member of any church prior to the time you joined the SD? sister of my Mother whose sons were Catholic clergymen I was also familiar with the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic church.
active in Duesseldorf as an expert on church matters? these Jews or people married to Jewish spouses and their children came through some time in September of 1944, did it not? fact that all the Gestapo members knew approximately where the German troops were defending the borders of the Reich at that particular time? the push from the area of Aachen into the territory left of the Rhine was imminent.
Q And that was generally known in Duesseldorf? Office, that if this pusch came it would be very rapid, didn't you?
A I can't pass any judgment on this. within a very few days, if not hours, Allied troops would be in Duesseldorf, didn't you?
Q But it was a possibility, wasn't it?
A But we didn't believe it. Duesseldorf very rapidly there would be little if any tine to act on this code word if it came through, didn't you?
A We didn't even think about that. We only had one thought in mind and Nosske too -- to prevent the carrying out of this order. his objection, according to your own testimony, a break-through of the Allied troops occurred, didn't it?
broke through from Aachen. I do not remember. tion, the reason that you fixed the time when Nosske filed his objection to this order was that on the Sunday following--which was the 19th of September 1944--the break-through of the Allied troops occurred. Didn't you say that on direct examination? that the Allied parachute jump, took place near Arnheim, and on the Lower Rhine. back to Berlin? sent to Berlin, the reply came from Mueller, which I have already given twice.
Q Now, isn't it a fact, Witness, that at this time it actually was more dangerous to carry out an order of this nature than to disobey it? Isn't that true?
A I didn't understand the meaning of this question. I ask you whether or not, at this particular time about which you are testifying now--the 15th, the 16th, or the 17th of September--was it not more dangerous to carry out an order of this nature than it was to disobey it. at such a time?
A I wouldn't know any reason why the carrying out of this order should have been dangerous. Dusseldorf was only occupied on the 27th of April 1945. kilometers, were the Allied troops?
of Aachen, and then came the area on the left of the Rhine, then came the Rhine which we still considered an impregnable frontier.
Q How far was that, in kilometers, from Duesseldorf? Cologne to Aachen I think there are forty or fifty kilometers, so that altogether approximately one hundred kilometers. order at first. Did he give any reasons why he was excited? he was very excited. Jews present at this time?
A The inspector asked me this question. He asked me whether the Jews represented a danger in the area near the front and I answered this question with "no" to the inspector. And the inspector then asked me, "What should we do with these people?" and I told him we should leave them in their homes.
Q Then you don't believe that it is right to kill Jews if no military necessity exists, do you?
Q You stated that Nosske one day was no longer there. What was the name of his successor?
A Haenschke. Senior Government Councillor Haenschke was his successor. when Nosske came and asked you to get copies of them; is that correct? matter which came from the inspector, then of the teletype which Nosske himself sent to Berlin, and then of the reply message which Mueller sent. Nosske asked me for copies of these matters, pointing out that he needed these for a proceeding which the investigating officer with the SS and Police Court had started against him.
any other secret or top secret telegrams? get?
A Very few. Perhaps three or four. telegrams? the words that were underlined, in these particular telegrams that came to Nosske? against him because he was to lax in his handling of the Jewish question, I feared that I would become involved myself in this proceeding and therefore I was so interested in this matter; and why I kept the text of these teletype in mind. Furthermore, the content of this teletype was so extraordinary, something so unprecedented and so important, that no man who has read it could ever forget it. Stapo Office in Duesseldorf, of these telegrams? from the inspector as well as all these teletype messages. Yes, I registered them. your activities were confined to church matters?
AAs I have already said, I belonged to the Department 2-B. This department 2-B included, among other things, the Jewish Department. The Jewish Department, as such, however no longer existed after the middle of 1944, and the expert for this department had been given other jobs. I personally was still there with three officers and one auxiliary employee.
And, looking at it objectively thus, 2-B was competent for this question.
Q Who was the chief of Office 1 of RSHA when Nosske was recalled? Do you know his name?
A I think that was Erlinger, but I cannot be sure. I don't know whether it is true, but that is my opinion. of office in Duesseldorf? either one of you two?
Q Did Nosske ever tell you any of his experiences in the east? Duesseldorf? from one rank to another?
AAs far as I know -- well, I don't remember. I hardly think so.
Q. And during the time in Duesseldorf, during your official and personal connections with Nosske, you grew to like him very much, didn't you?
A. Yes, I liked Nosske as my superior very much.
Q. And you are still friendly toward him, are you not?
A. He never gave me cause to feel anything else. And furthermore, I am personally grateful to him that at the time he did what he could in order to prevent the carrying out of this order; because I must admit today that if Nosske hadn't developed such initiative at the time and had taken upon himself to handle this matter, then no one in the State Police Agency in Duesseldorf area would be alive any more today.
Q. You state, then, that you like Nosske very much from your personal and official contacts with him and you further state that you still are friendly toward him, do you not?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't quite understand the witness' answer to your immediately preceding question -- that if Nosske hadn't done a certain thing, that of a certain group no one would be alive today.
MR. WALTON: He stated, Your Honor, as I got it, that he was very grateful to him and one of the reasons that he was very grateful to him was that in his opinion in the way that he acted in the matter of these Jews being the correct way; otherwise there would be no one alive in that Staop Stelle today. That is the way I understood the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Who would not be alive?
MR. WALTON: No one in that office would be alive today.
THE PRESIDENT: Of his office?
MR. WALTON: Yes, of Nosske's and his office.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't understand the sequence there. They weren't half-Jews in his office?
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I agree with Mr. Walton the witness is of the opinion that he is grateful to him that he showed the correct way, because otherwise--as the witness says--no one of the State Police COURT II CASE IX Agency would be alive any more because probably today they would have been convicted in Dachau.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, is your gratitude only because it saved you and not the lives of these innocent people?
THE WITNESS: If he had not saved the lives of these innocent people, then our lives would have been forfeited.
THE PRESIDENT: You weren't concerned so much with saving the lives of these innocent people as with protecting yourself from some possible later conviction.
THE WITNESS: No. I now speak of today's situation, from the prospective today. At the time when this order was imminent, the prospective was quite different from the one today.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Mr. Walton. BY MR. WALTON:
Q. Well, since you have a chance to reflect on it, do you not think that was the entire motive behind Nosske's attitude there in Duesseldorf in connection with these Jews--in order that he might later save his own life?
A. No, neither Nosske nor I had these thoughts. That was completely out of the question. At that time we still did not enterain such thoughts and the considerations which Nosske had were merely directed toward the innocence of these people, and they were purely human feelings which caused him to do this.
Q. How do you know what Nosske thought?
A. Nosske discussed it with me. He said it was impossible to carry out such an order.
Q. But you said on direct examination that you never discussed Jewish questions with the exception of this one.
A. Yes.
Q. Now you are testifying as to Nosske's attitude in general toward Jews.
A. You just came to talk about this special case and what caused COURT II CASE IX Nosske to conduct himself in this way at that time, and his conduct after the order is what I was talking about.
