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.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
refutable on the strength of the facts. While no difficulties resulted for Professor SIX during his scientific activity, continued controversies developed both between him and the SD and particularly its leaders, which began already shortly after his joining. In 1938 his relationship to the chief of the Reich Main Security Office, HEYDRICH, had aggravated in such a way that the latter denounced him as being intellectual, soft and in the sense of the SD, not efficient enough, and after numerous clashes finally, in 1939, he removed him from his office as departmental chief in the Reich Main Security Service. SIX, on his side, already then repeatedly demanded his discharge from the SD, which HEYDRICH, however, constantly refused, pointing out that it was he alone who would decide when and under which circumstances an SS-Officer was allowed to leave the SD. already shows that the University Professor SIX did not sacrifice his scientific work to National Socialist tendencies and power politics of the SD. The defendant, however, did not give up his scientifically liberal and tolerant line acquired already during his University student days, or changed it for the support of National Socialist doctrines or pseudoscientific ideologies. He remained a man of science also in the SD, without indulging in adulation towards the SD leadership, which was the very reason why he got into difficulties with HEYDRICH and did not come in any way close to HIMMLER. He never made verbal reports to the latter and did not see him but four or five times at the most, as he stated himself as a witness during his cross-examination - Page 1466 of the German record - and as it was confirmed in the affidavits by GROTHMANN and SUCHANEK - documents of the defense 19 and 20, Exhibit No. 19 and 20.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
1 September 1939, continued to be in the SD merely in a compulsory way, as an unimportant member, without any office and influence, removed from the function hitherto held by him, and in HEYDRICH's personal disfavor. Only as late as at the beginning of November 1939 HEYDRICH reassigned him to the SD for a special scientific job, commissioning him to set up the Office for "Ideology and Scientific Research" - Office VII -. This task the defendant SIX completed, not on a political basis, but as a professor beholden to scientific principles, calling into existence, just as he would have done in his main sphere of activity, the universities, an office organized on strictly scientific lines and staffed with suitable experts. This was achieved by the consolidation into one whole of press, archive, library and research sections. As chief of this office VII SIX regarded historical research strictly limited to history of Arts and Sciences, to cultural history and history of foreign countries, as his main sphere of work. Publications which appeared as results of the research conducted under his supervision are evidence of the strictly scientific objectives of the Office and of the scientific elaboration of the themes, free of and remote from any politics and propaganda. Document No. L-185, presented by the prosecution in its Doc. Bock V-B, under Exh. No. 239, which contains the plan for the distribution of work in the RSHA, dated 1 March 1941, has already been commented on by the quotation. in the written pleas of the defense, of a substantial number of defense documents. That document actually refers to the defendant Dr. SIX as Chief of Office VII, although owing to his having been assigned to the Waffen SS from May 1940 to 1942 to the exclusion of any other activity, he could not actually have filled that position. The fact is, however, Court No. II, Case No. IX.
that just the section "Free masonry and Jewry" in group VII B is vacant.
Now there can be but little doubt that a chief, efficient operation of that section.
The prosecution docu ment in Doc.
Book V B No. L 219, Exh. No. 240, contains the 1943.
It shows that SIX had been replaced by Dr. DITTEL as Office Chief VII.
Only at this juncture the section "Free masonry and Jewry" which until then, under SIX's management, is being subdivided into two separate sections, VII b I "Free masonry" and VII b II "Jewry" and placed under section chiefs.
for reasons of time. On the other hand, numerous affidavits prove that during SIX's tenure of office questions concerning RSHA that was a special assignment of Office VII.
During the Court No. II, Case No. IX.
It has been proved in the course of these proceedings that SIX had not been consulted during the conference in Pretsch in connection with the formation of the Einsatzgruppen, and that the Fuehrer order, so indispensable for this procedure, had not been transmitted to him for guidance, either at the issuance of the order for the formation of an "Archiv-Kommando", later on named "Vorkommando Moscow" by SIX himself, or after its formation. This order, however, was a necessary instruction for the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos, and it was actually issued to them, viz. to all their leaders. "Vorkommando Moscow", then, was just another archives commission like those which had previously been set up for Paris, Brussels, the Hague, Oslo, Athens and Belgrade. It has become clearly evident during this tril that before, during and after the time when SIX headed this "Vorkommando Moscow", there existed considerable tension and even discrepancies of a nature most dangerous to SIX in the relations between him and HEYDRICH, and furthermore that wherever, in the pursuit of his task, he came into contact with NEBE, the chief of the Einsatzgruppe operating in the same area, there existed permanent dissension, disagreement and tension between the two of them as well. While Vorkommando Moscow was headed by SIX, there was no collaboration with the chief of Einsatzgruppa B, NEBE, but only independent operating side-by-side, a pulling in opposite directions and mutual frustration. From the very fact of the low strength of Vorkommando Moscow, numbering about 20 - 25 men, and its being staffed specially with scientists, interpreters and men familiar with the topography of Moscow, there emerges the contrast to the Einsatzkommandos which were organized quite differently in regard to personnel, strength and experience, that is, on the principles applying in the Security Police and the SD. The fact, however, Court No. II, Case No. IX.
that Professor SIX himself, Office Chief VII of RSHA, viz., a leader ranking equally with the head of Einsatzgruppe B, the Office Chief V NEBE, was appointed as leader of so small a unit as Vorkommando Moscow goes to prove that the Vorkommando was not just operating as a sub-unit of Einsatggruppe B engaged on some special task for the latter, but that there existed an independent and important sphere of work for Professor SIX and his Vorkommando Moscow. The "Reports of Events" mentioning the Vorkommando, which the prosecution presented as the only evidence intended to prove the alleged guilt of the defendant SIX in the sense of Counts I, 7 T and U of the indictment are devoid of any conclusive probative value. Most of these "Reports of Events" just feature harmless statements regarding the locations of Vorkommando Moscow and are, therefore, quite irrelevant so far as the contention of the prosecution is concerned. They do prove, however, that the statements of the defendant in regard to the objectives of the Vorkommando, its composition and its tasks are correct. Reports of Events No's 44 and 67 commenting on the safeguarding by the Vorkommando Moscow of material found in the House of the Soviets in Smolensk and the checking of 740 persons by the Vorkommando Moscow contain nothing aggravating for the defendant either; they rather bear out that the special Kommando (Vorkommando Moskau) was employed for tasks entirely different from those of the Einsatzkommandos. They, too, prove that its assignment was technically limited to the safeguarding of archives and that it was specially staffed with scientists and interpreters. But even the fact that Report of Events No. 73 of 4 September 1941 states that the Group Staff and VKM had shot a total of 144 persons between 22 July and 20 August, and that the VKM had shot 46 persons, among them 38 Jewish intellectuals, did not enable the prosecution to prove conclusively that the Court No. II, Case No. IX.
defendant SIX actually did commit the crimes laid to his charge in counts I and II of the indictment. The counter-evidence presented by the defense, however, is conclusive; the defendant's own statements and the submitted affidavits, furthermore the depositions of the co-defendants BLUME and KLINGELHOEFER, the analysis of these "Report of Events" and the counterproofs submitted by me in the written pleas. Once more I wish to summarize the results of the counter-evidence submitted by the defense in the solemn statement that the defendant, as leader of Vorkommando Moscow, never employed it in any activities ether than those in keeping with its assigned task, that is, the preparation and execution of pure safeguarding tacks in connection with archives, files and other documentary sources. The defense has demonstrated beyond doubt and proved by a wealth of documentary evidence that the VKM under the command of the defendant was a special Kommando independent of Einsatzgruppe B and quite different from the Einsatzkommandos in regard to nature and assignment. If the Report of Events No. 73 seems to give a different impression as far as the latter point is concerned, namely, that the combined quotation of Group Staff and VKM proves, that there existed a connection and a status of subordination, it is an assumption which also has bean refuted conclusively by the evidence of the Defense and by the analysis of the evidence submitted in the written briefs. Since, however, the incriminating Documents of the Prosecution, contained in Document Book V B, and the exonerating Documents of the Defense, contained in Document Book IV and supplements A and B have not been taken into consideration as yet in the written briefs, it is necessary to look into the matter of the incriminating Document of the Prosecution No. 5855, Exhibit No, 241, with particular reference to the counter-evidence Documents of the Defense, No. 62 and No. 68 Court No. II, Case No. IX.
in Document Book IV with supplement A and B. The Document of the Prosecution in question seems to incriminate the Defendant, and to refute his claim of defense, that the VKM was under his direction, separate from and independent of the Einsatzgruppe B. It is a receipt, given on 31 August 1941 to the witness Frau Veronika VETTER, who was interrogated in person, a receipt which shows the title of the issuing authority; "VKM of the Einsatzgruppe B - Security police and the SD" -. This heading had to be used, after the Defendant SIX had been relieved of his leading position of the VKM and had returned to Berlin. The Chief of the Einsatzgruppe B, NEBE, had placed the VKM under his command and that of his staff. The former member of the VKM Dr. Horst MAHNKE has stated the following under oath with regard to the matter at hand, confirming the statements of the Defendant, namely: In Defense-Document No. 62, Page 7/8, I quote: "The Heading "Vorkommando Moscow of the Einsatzgruppe B Security Police and the SD" can be explained as follows: After the departure of Professor SIX from Smolensk on 20 August 1941, the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe B, NEBE, carried out his previous attempts to get the VKM under his command in that manner, that he placed the Commando, which was left without a leader, under his own supervision and gave the order, that documents of the Commando were to be issued with this heading. This order was in force, until the Obersturmbannfuehrer KOERTING, who was sent by the Reich Security Main Office to Smolensk, took the Vorkommando Moscow over as an independent commando. This happened about the beginning of September 1941. Thereupon NEBE formed his own "Special Commando Moscow" of the Einsatzgruppe B, that was to carry out the special tasks of the Einsatzgruppe in Moscow."
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
In view of the fact, that the Defendant Dr. SIX had effected his release from the leadership of the VKM and his return to Berlin, the additional Reports of Events No. 92, 108 and 125 submitted by the Prosecution as incriminating Documents, charging the VKM with criminal activities, are no longer to be considered as incriminating Documents against the Defendant SIX, since they record alleged events, which took place at a later date. The evidence produced by the Defense, that the Defendant Dr. SIX was in fact relieved of his command of the VKM on 20 August 1941 and returned on this day to Berlin, has been proved conclusively, but it is necessary in this respect to elaborate on the statement of the witness VETTER before the court during the cross examination on 16 January 1948.
DR. ULMER: If you desire, Your Honor, this would be a suitable occasion for a recess.
THE PRESIDENTS: Very well. The Tribunal will be in recess until one forty-five.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 6 February 1948).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. ULMER for the defendant Six: May I now proceed.
3) Veronika Vetter, who submitted the Defense Document No. 11, Exhibit No. 11, has declared in her statement which she made under oath before the Defense Counsel, that, after the entry of the German troops in Smolensk,she had gone with her 12 month old child to the German office, which was directed by Professor Six and located in the large Police building in Smolensk, where she herself had been working six hours daily, and that she had left there on 20 August 1941 and returned to Germany. She stated further, that, knowing Professor Six and his closest co-workers Dr. Mahnke and Dr. Augsburg, she could not imagine, that they had been engaged at that time in the shooting of indigenous persons in Russia, but that she knows to the contrary that Herr Six and his associates had been very popular with the population in Smolensk. During her cross examination as witness, Frau Vetter in person has made statements, which are in contradiction to the dates, concerning the time she has spent together with Six in Smolensk, and which constitute a revocation of the sworn statement she made before the Defense, and in order to substantiate the correctness of the new dates she referred to the entries in her diary of that period, which she still had in her possession. First of all, it must be pointed out that, even though the witness has retracted her statement concerning the dates, which she had signed and which had been dictated in her presence, she has not turned from a witness for the Defense into a witness for the Prosecution. The witness tried of course to reconstruct, with the help of her diary, that she had come to Six and seen him in his office in Smolensk at the earliest and for the first time on 23 August 1941 and that his departure from Smolensk for Berlin could have taken place after 31 August only, but she did not incriminate him in any way during the cross-examination with regard to the Prosecution-counts I, 7 T and U, laid to his charge as former leader of the VKM.
Also in the witness box, she remained a witness for the Defense with regard to those incriminating facts, cited in the indictment against the Defendant Six. She testified, that - although she was present every day in the office building and residing in Smolensk - she never has observed any criminal acts committed by Six or carried out by the VKM and that she could not imagine that Six would have participated in such acts. To substantiate this opinion, she gave an excellent description of Six's personality and that of his closest associates Dr. Mahnke and Dr. Augsburg, whereby she did not conceal the fact, that she was an opponent to National-Socialism as well as Communism, which had robbed her of her husband. tements. However, she is in no way witness for dates, also not in connection with the argumentation of the Prosecution against the Defendant. The witness has made two different statements regarding the time interval of her presence with the Defendant in Smolensk and his departure from there. In her affidavit of 14 September 1947 she affirmed that after the entry of the Germans into Smolensk, she had gone to the German office which was located in the large police building, in order co make inquiries regarding her husband who had been carried off by the Russians, and that on this occasion she met Six. She affirmed, moreover, that Six had not remained chief of this office - it was the Vorkommando Moscow (VKM) - for long, but that he left it on 20 August 1941 and returned back to Germany. In the witness-stand she stated that the appeared for the first time at the VKM on 23 August 1941, and that she had seen Six for the first time on that occasion; that the latter was present there for some time to follow - for a brief time, to be sure - but certainly yet on 31 August 1941, until he returned to Berlin.