For example, a flier who had landed in the Salzach was saved from drowning by policemen. Not until the order was announced from other quarters outside of the police and at the same time the rumor became rife that "Terror Fliers" were to be shot, did Schulz immediately call all of his police commanders to him and inform them of the contents of the order and at the same time expressly emphasized that there was not a word of truth in the alleged shooting order. With regard to the non-interference of the Police he announced in unmistakable terms that such conduct could not be reconciled with the profession of a police official, quite apart from the fact that similar conduct shown towards German aviators that had been shot down would undoubtedly cause violent protestations. For this reason Schulz forbade the forwarding of this order, and ordered that fliers who had been shot down be treated correctly and turned over immediately to the competent Wehrmacht authorities. And this happened. again consecrated his entire person to the interests of the people, after he realized that any resistance had become senseless and unjustifiable. All his successful efforts were not achieved without untiring work. Every phase could not be achieved without tenacious efforts, efforts which were based on convictions. Nothing happened which did not entail danger for the individual, since during those very days many persons were shot for alleged cowardness particularly upon the order of Himmler, who even announced his orders in the press and on the radio and himself was too much a coward to take the responsibility for the orders which he issued. he was successful in bringing about the lifting of the blockade around Salzburg, the Volkssturm was used only as constabulary, the explosive charges which had just been brought up were removed from the bridges, the so-called "Bundschuh-Befehl" which meant the committing of fighting and sabotage groups behind enemy lines, was not carried out, and lastly no Werewolf organizations were assigned.
His suggestion, made in the Salzburg government building in the presence of the responsible officials, to surrender the city of Salz burg and the Gau, was rejected. In the so-called "Alpenfestung" (Alpine Fortress) Schulz saw to it that quiet and order were observed.
On the day of surrender the American troops marched successfully into the city without a single sign of disorganization either in the city or Gau of Salzburg. manner because Schulz had been influenced in this direction. influenced his superior and other participating offices in this direction, and had to suffer many a bitter word, also from those very persons, who, contrary to their former attitude, later revealed themselves as the liberators of Salzburg from the miseries of war, and who were then too cowardly, at least for the sake of truth, to give Schulz the credit he deserved. I must admit that I myself was indignant over such conduct. I should like to offer another example here showing the inner greatness of my client, who following my outburst of anger, answered: "Let it go, they're simply human beings. I didn't do this simply to gain recognition." in Salzburg is proved through his own testimony on the witness stand, which even the prosecutor recognized as completely credible (English transcript, p . 1934, German transcript p. 1980) and the credibility of which is again repeated on the occasion of the interrogation of the witness Dr. Wolfgang Laue (English transcript, p. 1929-1933, German transcript 1975-1980) and by the following affidavits:
1.) Testimony of the commanding general Julius Ringel, Schulz Exh. No. 55, Vol II, Doc. No. 50, p . 150-152.
2.) testimony of his Chief of Staff, Brig. Gen. Anton Glasl, Schulz Exhibit No. 83, Vol . III, Doc.
69, p. 198-199.
3.) testimony of the then Gauleiter Dr. G. Adolf Scheel, Schulz Exh. No. 54, Vol I, Doc. No. 25, p. 92-94.
4.) Testimony of Police-Lt. Col Wilhelm Kirchoff, Schulz Exh. No. 56. Vo. II, Doc. No. 51, p. 153-156.
5.) testimony of Lt. Col. Otto Barck, with the commander of the prisoners-of-war, Schulz Exh. No. 57, Vo. II, Doc. No. 52, p. 157-159. humanness, and his exemplary conduct in his profession. Also his resolution and devotion in the interests of the people must be particularly mentioned. Lt. Col. Barck speaks of the "unusual decent thinking" of my client thanks to which the Geneva Convention was able to be defended in the Military Area XVIII against the attacks of high Party offices even after the reorganization of the chain of command in October 1944. He also states that he could not remember ever having seen any conduct on the part of Herr Schulz which could not have been an example for every police officer. attributes as leader and superior officer:
1.) Testimony of Regierungs Assessor Karl Peukert , Schulz Exh. No. 59, Schulz Doc. Vol. II, Doc. No. 54, p. 162-166.
2.) Testimony of Egmont Damm, Schulz Exh. No. 53, Schulz Doc. Vol I, Doc. No. 23, p. 86-88.
3.) Testimony of Hildegard Seiringer, who was drafted by the war emergency act, Schulz Exh. No. 86, Schulz Doc. Vol. III, Doc. No, 75, p. 218-219.
4.) Testimony of Richard Rothboek, Schulz Exh. No. 84, Schulz Doc. Vol. Ill, Doc. No. 81, p. 237-238.
5.) Testimony of Dr. Robert Leitinger, Schulz Exh. No. 85, Schulz Doc. Vol. III, Doc. No. 88, p. 257-259.
following:
1.) witness, Franz Schubert, Schulz Exh. No. 58, Schulz Doc. Vol. II, Doc. No. 53, p. 160-161
2.) Witness, Katharina Froschauer, Schulz Exh. No, 60, Schulz Doc. Vol. II, Doc. No. 55, p. 167-168. most generous manner for political opponents when the duty and the laws of humanity bade him to do so, can be substantiated by the testimony of the present mayor of Salzburg, whom Schulz had liberated from the concentration camp at Dachau: Schulz Exh. No. 61, Schulz Doc. Vol. II, Doc. No. 58, p. 173-174. And in Schulz Exh. No. 87, Schulz Doc. Vol. III, Doc. No. 73, p. 212-213.
"It gives me great satisfaction to render some assistance in return, to the man to whom I possibly owe my father's life by making this truthful statement". End of quotation. However, I do not want to conclude the Salzburg episode without mentioning: If Salzburg is still standing comparatively undamaged, if its people have been spared the horrors of battle, and if Salzburg, already in 1945, was again able to open its gate to the world with its "Salzburg Festivals", this can be ascrib ed to a great extent, as has been proved by the witnesses' testimony, to the untiring efforts on the part of my client. American headquarters in Zell am See, after having made arrangements down to the last detail, to account for his person and principles, which he had upheld, and he did so without prompting, evidently causing surprise by this action. Following his request, he was given permission on 17 May 1945 to go to Salzburg in order to report there. He received a pass, and went to Salzburg without any escort. True to his promise, he immediately reported there. In the afternoon he was arrested. He had to be detained because of the "automatic arrest order", as he was politely informed.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durchholz, I notice in glancing through the rest of your summation that there are various itemizations of proof, which, of course, you can omit in the reading. You might glance through it and see if there is anything else you may omit as you finish up after the recess because you have already exhausted the time which was allotted to you. We will permit you to finish, of course, but please go through and cross out what isn't necessary to read to the Court.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I shall read only the necessary parts and refer to the remainder.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will show be in recess for 15 minutes.
(The hearing reconvened at 1130 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, according to the arrangements which have been made, it was my turn after my colleague, Ulmer, which probably will be this afternoon, to present my final plea, but I heard this morning that my final plea has been translated but has not been reviewed yet. I assume that the Tribunal does not have it as yet. I now would like to ask you to find out-
PRESIDENT: We do not have it?
THE MARSHAL: No, Sir.
PRESIDENT: The answer is "No".
DR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, in that case I would like to ask you when I should start to present my final plea so that the Tribunal can make further arrangements, and who is to continue after Dr. Ulmer.
PRESIDENT: W ell, Dr. Durchholz, we understand that Blobel's plea is ready, Sandberger, Seibert, Steimle. There are many ready, according to this list which I received. Yes, we have Steimle, we have Biberstein, Six.
DR. SCHWARZ: Then I may assume that I have to wait for the time being for presenting my final plea until the English translation is on hand.
PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Durchholz for Schulz. Your Honor, of the rest of my final plea I shall read such part as will take about 10 minutes. The fifth part I shall not read at all, but I shall continue on page 53, the sixth part. The fifth part contains only a list of exhibit numbers to which I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention. Thus I have submitted my client's professional career from 1923 - 1945 in the shortest possible manner, and I will now deal with count III of the indictment, in which my client is accused of having been a member, after 1 September 1939, of those organizations which have been declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal, and pursuant to para graph 1 (d) of article II of Control Council Law No. 10.
In count IIIA he is accused of having been a member of the SS, and in count III C of having been a member of Department IV of the Reich Security Main Office. Being equally applicable to both counts, I would like to mention in advance that my client was not in a position to resign from the SS or the Security Police on 1 September 1939, as the war laws prohibited this action. I believe I need not comment on this any further, as these points were thoroughly discussed and explained both by all the defendants on the witness stand, and also by my colleagues. In this case of my client, however, it must be added that at the time in question, he did not receive any orders with criminal contents, nor did he issue any. On the contrary, he could convince himself that in his position he was able to eliminate much hardship, and to prevent many measures, especially by party circles, tending to extremes and intolerance. He could not anticipate, though, the happenings that developed in the course of the war. Yet the Russia Einsatz proves that in this instance he cut adrift from those happenings, which he did not deem reconcilable with his opinions and his conscience. As member of Department I, however, he has been a part to any of the actions with which he is charged, nor participated in the planning or execution; he was not even informed about them. Allow me to mention just a few items of those orders concerning the sorting out of prisoners of war, the night - and fog decree, the bullet (Kugel) -decree, the mass killings of Jews in Auschwitz, Maidanek, and Treblinka; Schulz, for the first time, learns about these through the Nuernberg trials. Treblimka, Maidanek, Belsen, and many other places mentioned in this trial, were not known to him even by name until now. However, in the case of my client it should not be necessary to go into details, as his proven attitude and his official positions excluded the possibility to commit any criminal acts, or to have participated in them in any way whatsoever.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I shall omit point 2, and will not read it. It contains general legal explanations concerning Count III. I am referring to my written statements and to the statements which my colleagues, Aschenauer and Gawlik, have made on that count before me. I continue on page 56 under figure 3. Applying those principles, I now return to the defendant SCHULZ concerning count III A regarding membership in the SS. The SS special formation Security Service (SD) is not a part of the regular SS. On 20 April 1935 the defendant SCHULZ was, without ever having filled in the prescribed application form, taken over by this formation as SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer, according to his official rank as an officer - he was a police captain at that time. He never saw active service in the regular SS. By his consecutive promotion as officer and official, he was also promoted in the SS. In order to show, too, that his advancements were by no means outstanding, I submit some of his promotion data. On 1 September 1931 SCHULZ was promoted 1st Lieutenant (SCHULZ-Exhibit No. 2). On 1 February 1934 he became a captain (SCHULZ-Exhibit No. 3). His next promotion took place on 1 March 1938. On that date, he is simultaneously transferred from the ordinary police to the Security Police. As this force did not have officer ranks at that time, he was not promoted to major, but appointed Regierungsrat. On 1 July 1940 he was promoted Oberregierungsrat. At the end of 1940, when the Security Police receives officer ranks within its own organization, SCHULZ returns to his officer's career, and on 1 December 1940, he becomes lieut,-colonel according to his official rank of Oberregierungsrat, senior government counsillor. This conversion does not constitute a promotion. At the beginning of 1941 he is promoted to colonel (SCHULZ-Exhibit No. 10). His promotion to brigadier general follows after approximately 2 years at the end of October 1942. I am unable to submit a document for this, as SCHULZ did not have it returned with his papers. As all the last original documents are missing, my client assumes that they are still in the possession of the CIC.
When he was interrogated in Oberursel by Herr 1st Lieut. GUTMANN, they were still complete. This was his last promotion. It took place - not counting his army service - after 20 years of uninterrupted service in the police force. SCHULTZ was then 43 years old. The SS promotions coincide with these other promotions. An exception is his promotion to SS-Oberfuehrer on 9 November 1941, because there was no equivalent officer rank for this position. This promotion constitutes an intermediary stage, which cannot be actually called a promotion, as it did not involve any pay raise, because SCHULZ was not paid as an SS-officer but as a police officer. These facts, too, prove that this promotion was an absolutely regular one. This promotion therefore, which had to take place between the official rank of colonel and brigadier general, is nothing exceptional. This is proved by, 1st, the defendant's regular career, 2nd his testimony on the witness stand (English transcript, p. 1111 - 1112). German transcript p. 1128 - 1129) , and in connection with this the testimony of the defendant BLUME on the witness stand (Engl. transcript p. 1925 - 1926, German transcript, p. 1972 - 1973), and 3rd my explanations on p. 667 - 69 in the trial brief. For SCHULZ and the other officers in the Security Police the simultaneous promotions in the SS were a compelling necessity, as the uniform of the Security Police was the same as that of the Waffen-SS with police drab cloth. If the promotions in the SS had not taken place, therefore, the officers would not have been able at all to wear their rank insignia. Thos points mentioned by me above are actually all that connected the defendant with the SS.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Reich Security Main Office. Here I can be quite brief. in April 1940 (SCHULZ-Exhibit No. 7), SCHULZ leaves Department IV, to which he belonged automatically till then as official in charge of the Bremen and Reichenberg State Police branches, and from then on till the surrender he is a member of Department I. As an inspector he neither has the right to give orders, nor does he have any executive powers. In this connection I refer to my client's testimony on the witness stand, as well as to the testimony by the witness BREDER concerning the work and tasks of the inspector.
On 1 March 1941 he joins Department I for good. He becomes Group Leader I B (schools and education), and commander of the training center for future National Socialist leaders (Fuehrerschule), which also belonged to Department I. At the end of June 1942 he becomes the officer in charge of Group I A (personnel) in Department I. mains there until he assumes his duties as inspector in Salzburg on 1 May 1941. What has been said about his Hamburg activities, also applies to his Salzburg work, as it is the same official position. In this case, too, he did not have any authorization to give orders nor executive powers, (in this connection I am referring to the testimony made by the witness PEUKERT in SCHULZ Exhibit No. 59), with the exception of the last 14 days, during which time he was additionally appointed SS and Police leader. influence, as he did in Salzburg, and, in the interest of the people concerned, was able to accomplish so much, this achievement should be emphasized so much more. Reich Security Main Office Department I has not been declared a criminal organization. Besides, the prosecution - as mentioned before - has Court No. II, Case No. IX.
expressly stated that they are prepared to admit that the defendant, while in the Reich Security Main Office, after his return from Russia and in his position of inspector of the Security Police and the Security Service in Salzburg, did not commit any acts, nor have any knowledge of such, which would make him guilty in the sense of count III of the indictment. Deducting the actual marching days and the journey, this covers approximately 4 weeks. Just 4 weeks out of a man's career of almost 25 years, of a man's unblemished work, a man whose personality in his life and activities lies before us like an open book not containing any secrets, who is equally respected by friend and foe. The tragedy which occurs during this short space of time is full of conflicts and tensions, from which he attempts to escape and succeeds in doing so, however, only withdrawing after severely struggling with his conscience as he has no means to check the course of events. Even if mistakes have been made, in spite of all the efforts, the overwhelming compulsion must be duly taken into account. His intention to avoid the deplorable effects of the mandatory Fuehrer order cannot be denied. Can he be blamed for not only having done the best he could in his position, but actually having accomplished it? Nobody can demand more than what the defendant has actually done. It frequently happens, however, that the point is missed, if the question of guilt is solely determined by external matters, as the decisive factors result from the person's struggle with his conscience; it is possible to speak both with words and with deeds. If in spite of all efforts, mistakes have been found, I would like to use the words which the witness BREDER used at the end of his testimony. I quote: "I cannot find any other explanation but that by thoughtfully weighing the extent of guilt and destiny in this man's case, the deliberations can only ascribe this guilt to his destiny."
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
which proved that my client could not be induced by anything to leave his unblemished, clear, and straight path. also applies to count III, and I request the count to decide accordingly, i.e.: reasonable doubt that he was the accomplice to crimes committed by the organizations and groups, which have been declared criminal, and of which he was a member. No judgment can be passed, however, if there is only a suspicion. Therefore, he is not guilty in the sense of count III of the indictment. fidavits that have been submitted. An official of the Bremen branch office says in SCHULZ-Exh. No. 17, I quote; "If all the superiors of the Gestapo would have been like him, the Gestapo would not have been declared a criminal organization." - End of quotation. Another official says in SCHULZ-Exh. No. 15, I quote:
"During my 21 years of service in the police force I never came to appreciate and respect a superior as much as just Herr SCHULZ." End of quotation. I have already quoted the statement made by Kriminal Rat HASSE, who was in Reichenberg, and who calls him the teach of his life. Regierungsrat GOTTWAID from Department I, says in SCHULZ-Exh. No. 51, I quote: "Both as official and officer SCHULZ had qualities which I have really rarely found to such an outstanding extent in any of my superiors, during decades in the service." - End of quotation.
INTERPRETER: There is a confusion in the figures contained in the document, Lour Honor.
PRESIDENT: Our copy seems to be in order, what is the difficulty?
INTERPRETER: Our copy doesn't contain the same as the defense counsel, and quite different figures are given.
PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Durchholz, look at the English copy.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I have it here.
PRESIDENT: Oh, you have it there.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, I find that this one quotation is not contained in the English copy. There must have been a mistake. I shall omit it and continue at the next point, so that we can get on.
PRESIDENT: If you desire, you may submit that on a separate piece of paper to the Tribunal.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I shall hand this addition in to the Tribunal when I get it.
PRESIDENT: Very well.
A woman employee from Salzburg says in SCHULZ-Exh. No. 86, I quote: "Herr SCHULZ's attitude towards the old established Austrian population was so considerate that one could only wish to have many more such noble, valuable, and idealistic people in that country." End of quotation. Many other witnesses confirm this. His kindness and readiness to help, his humane feelings and chivalry are always the crux of all those testimonies. Wherever he was, he did his duty as a shining example, always acting in the conviction that by his influence he was able to prevent or alleviate distress and disaster. He went his own way. He recognized the falsehoods and opposed them by his actions. He was not interested to be known as or called a man of the "resistance", although this privilege has been given many Germans purely on account of their thoughts or occasional statements, without any actions. He only wants to be judged by what he really did. His actions, however, prove his convictions. And this without interruption from 1923 up to the surrender. He never had any other aims but to serve his country and all humanity. In conclusion I would like to request the Court to examine thoroughly the affidavits given by his former political opponents, all of whom are now in leading and highest positions, and to weigh, to ponder, and to consider accordingly.
I personally, however, would appreciate if by the Court's decision the defendant's attitude is eventually recognized not as "meekness", but Court No. II, Case No. IX.
as an unswerving and determined will to achieve the good.
Mr. President, your Honors, in concluding this plea I want to mention the phrase which the American officer, who interrogated my client in Salzburg, used at the close; I quote: "If all people had acted as you did, things would be different in Germany, I daresay!" End of quotation.
PRESIDENT: Proceed, Dr. Ulmer.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, in the name of all the defense counsel, I would like to say something. Until now we have not yet received a copy of the final plea of the defendant Ohlendorf. The colleagues who want to submit their final pleas after me would be very grateful if the Tribunal would assist them in getting them copies of this final plea of Ohlendorf, because then they would be able to cross cut some passages from their final pleas, but they can only do that if they have in their possession their copies of Ohlendorf's plea.
PRESIDENT: Will the Secretary General interest himself in what has just been said by Dr. Durchholz, to see to it that defense counsel receive copies of the Ohlendorf summation inGerman? Very well.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Thank you.
PRESIDENT: Dr. Ulmer.
DR. ULMER. Ulmer for Six. Your Honor, I would like to read my supplement to the final plea first, which says that I shall omit several passages from my final plea which has become necessary because two documents were withdrawn by me. "The final plea of the undersigned for the defendant Six was already submitted to Military Tribunal Number II before the conclusion of the presentation of documents on 2 February 1948. Since the Documents 59 and 66--Exhibits 59 and 66 were not submitted, it is not necessary that they be quoted in the final plea. Therefore, the following will not be stated on page 18, line 8, starting from "and from his wife"; page 12, "and 59"; lines 13, 14, and I quote, "and of Six's wife"; line 16, "the two female witnesses"; page 18 and page 19, the quotation from Document Number 59 of Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Six's wife; page 22, paragraph 6, including quotation from Document Number 66. 1.) As Defense Counsel for the defendant SIX I may be permitted to state Consequently I do not have to analyze the defendant SIX' respon citizen's duty of obedience towards the state, which is a general Court No. II, Case No. IX.
divine commandments. But when testifying in his own case, the suicide.
In his case it was sheer luck that he had been assigned guilty of violating the devine laws.
And this then leaves no 2.) In my opening statement I announced that I would prove on behalf NEBE and his staff; that SIX was the leader of the Moscow ad Court No. II, Case No. IX.
of the Einsatzgruppen; that SIX was a pure scientist and had be fice VII in the SD after 1 September 1939; that SIX, by his member Tribunal; that, due to his always explicitly stated opinion on prevented by HEYDRICH's death; that, owing to these views of his, action for the combatting of partisans; that, after HEYDRICH's Court No. II, Case No. IX.
in 1943; that SIX, in full knowledge of his responsibility for the 3.) These proofs have been established by the interrogation of the rupted chain of affidavits.
They have been critically exploited submitted by the Prosecution.
In addition to all the documents permitted to make the following three statements, namely:
a) Documents have been presented by me which are the testimonials
b) On the other hand, there are the documents on which the indict by third persons -, are not directly original.
They would Court No. II, Case No. IX.
c) A further subject of the proceedings was the hearing of a the allegations of the Prosecution as to the defendant's command.
He never received the Fuehrer-order so important for this trial.
He did not execute it, nor order its execu purely scientific task of securing archives and files.
It had separate from and independent of Einsatzgruppe B. Because of Kommando.
He merely helped to secure files in Smolensk.
his recall from the Russian area generally. Had the defendant with the tasks of the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos; Court No. II, Case No. IX.
contact with such a range of tasks. of the defendant SIX is that of a man of science. His development shows a man with an academic background who, after having finished his studies, applied himself to the profession of a University lecturer and remained bound to this calling, conscious of his aims. His fields of research concerned journalism and studies on foreign countries and his academic goal was the establishment of an institute on foreign countries after the Anglo-Saxon pattern of "Political Science". As a University professor he was consistent in demanding and insisting upon freedom of teaching and research as against the doctrinaire efforts of National Socialims. was the underlying cause for the newly created SD seeking in 1935 the cooperation of this young, but already well-known, press expert for the establishment of a press department. Realizing the possibility thus offered for his scientific university work of evaluating the vast material of the whole world press available in the SD, SIX accepted this task and established a press-and literature department within the SD. Thus the University Professor SIX had become an SD member. Also in the future, the scientific goal preceded the political. He continued to be a full-time University professor; it was only in off-time hours and in an honorary capacity that he was an SD-leader. of defendant Dr. SIX's scientific standing and exclusively scientific activity, but from the symbiosis of science and SD, it wants to represent him as a typical National Socialist doctrinaire.