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.
the statements she made on the witness-stand regarding the dates were true, because she referred to her diary entries of that time to support her memory, and to the fact, that she still claimed to know that a statement of confirmation was issued to her by the VKM under the date 31 August 1941 regarding the fate of her husband and signed by Dr. Mahnke, at a time when Six was still office chief in Smolensk, However the witness has proven on the witness-stand, that she has no memory for time and dates, whatsoever. She was not even able to say how much time had elapsed last summer in 1947, between the date on which she was approached for the first time by the wife of Defendant Six for bearing witness, and the 14 September 1947 when the Defense Counsel appeared at her place in Stuttgart to take her sworn statement. She still knew that Dr. Mahnke had told her of the celebration of defendant Six's birthday in Smolensk, but she no longer know when this birthday was to have taken place. It was on 12 August 1941. in a village in the proximity of Smolensk when the had withdrawn with the opening of the bombardment. But in that case she could have returned to Smolensk only between 10 and 15 September 1941 at the earliest, for the first German attack on Smolensk took place on 10 July 1941 and the artillery bombardment lasted from then until 4 August 1941. In this manner, however, the witness could not even have been again in Smolensk on 31 August 1941, when, she already was given the statement of confirmation, the issuing of which, however, obviously presupposes some time for the investigations which she had already previously requested. The witness, however, claims to take the data for her two months stay in the village directly from her diary. Since she wants to quote her return on 23 August 1941 likewise from the diary, she must have quit Smolensk already on the second day of battle, thus almost three weeks before the war approached Smolensk, while she claims to have not pulled out before the bombardment of Smolensk.
But here also her statements regarding the dates made on the witness-stand are fraught with contradictions, for she said at one time, that she had left the city with her child on 27 June, following the arrest of her husband - page 5262 - and later, she declared to the President of the Court, that she had gone into the village only while the city was being bombed - page 5236 - of the German Court Record. These dates do not agree at all, but show a discrepancy of more than two weeks. of the witness, and which was deliberately included by the Defense on 14 September 1947 at the time of the recording of the sworn statement for the illustrating of the time data, did not stand up to a subsequent examination. It concerns the statement which the witness allowed to be recorded in her affidavit, namely, that she was to have returned with her 12 months old child after the entry of the German troops into Smolensk, However, this child, according to the official confirmation by the Burgomaster of Korntal, submitted as Defense document No. 67 in my Document book IV was already 12 months old on 22 April 1941. It is well known that in small children the difference between the ages of 12 and 16 months is very significant and particularly indelible for a mother. However, not even in this respect are the data of witness Vetter correct, even though she expressly points out - as indicated on page 5274 of the Court Record - that one keeps familiar dates, such as marriage and birth in memory, in contrast to unusual events, such as the ones under discussion. Therefore, with respect to witness Vetter, one can only draw the conclusion, that she made the statements on the dates concerned, which are recorded in the affidavit for the Defense without an actual recollection of precise dates on her part. However, it cannot be deduced, that her subsequent information relating to dates must how be accurate, because the fact that the latter are not correct is demonstrable from the remaining evidence on file for this trial on this point. This evidence consists of the clear information relating to dates with respect to the defendant Six's return from Russia to Germany at the date given by the Defendant himself on the witness-stand, namely, the 20 and 21 August 1941, respectively.
To this are added the ascertainments regarding this point, as they are recorded in the sworn statements taken in part before the Defense Counsel, in part, however, also before disinterested, yet officially recognized notary public clerics, of Professor Walz, Exhibit No. 12, Burmester, Exhibit No. 13, Huppenkothen, Exhibit No. 49, Plautz, Exhibit No. 50, Mahnke, Exhibit No. 40, Mueller Exhibit No. 44, and Hilpert, Exhibit No. 45. in my written presentation of the case, as far as the confirmation of the date of the defendant Six's departure from Russia on 20 August 1941 may be gathered from them. The co-defendant Klingelhoefer, as a member of "Vorkommando Moskau" (Advance Command Moscow) of that time, has also affirmed in his statement on the witness-stand - page 3373 of the Court Record that Six left Smolensk on 20 August 1941.
Completely clear and unobjectionable evidence of SIX' renewed presence in Berlin already on 22 August 1941, has been given by the female witness ALANDER who was heard under oath in the witness stand on 22 January 1948. Finally, after hearing the female witness VETTER in cross-examination, in contrast to the dates given by her which could not possibly be correct, statements were asked for and laid down in affdavits, from other persons who at that time had either been together with SIX or met him, namely his two former commando comrades Dr. MAHNKE and Dr. AUGSBURG, his secretary Ilse RICHTER. These affidavits have been included under document No, 63, 68, 60 and 59, in the Document Book IV, resp. Appendix IV B, which latter has been compiled and submitted to the Tribunal after the hearing of female witness VETTER. In order to prove the exclusion of every possible error in these dates given by secretary RICHTER and Frau SIX, an official certificate from the German Red Cross - Klementinenhaus Hannover - has been included as document No. 61 in Document Book IV, which by the official registration of patients of this clinic, confirms the fact referred to by both witnesses as an aid to their memory, namely that defendant had returned to Germany before Frau SIX was taken to the hospital in Hannover on 1 September 1941. Just these assurances show that Frau VETTER must have been mistaken in her statements during cross-examination and that also the reference to the note in her diary is casual (unbehelflich) and incomplete. We will therefore quote the essential part as follows: From Document No. 63 by Dr. AUGSBURG.
" I met Frau Veronika VETTER in the beginning of August 1941 in Smolensk.
Immediately after the shelling of the city had ceased, sity professor and Racial German VETTER .......By order of Prof husband, which took weeks.
......I informed Dr. MAHNKE of this outcome, as Professor SIX had already departed.
...... Of course still had been in Russia at that time."
From Document No. 63 by Dr. MAHNKE.
" With respect to the statements of Frau Veronika VETTER on for Professor SIX, Several officers from the "Reich" Division This birthday party was held on Prof.
SIX' birthday, since Prof.
SIX' regimental comrades had appeared on this very day .
property to Smolensk from her place of evacuation. In my VETTER's statement."
prove that, already during her time of service with the Moscow Vorkommando (VKM) that is after her first meeting with SIX, she has seen herself how another detachment with a higher commander arrived and took quarters on a higher floor of the lateral wing of the police building. These statements are so precise that it can be deduced that this other detachment and its commander can only have been the Group Staff and NEBE.
But according to the Report of Events No. 43 dated 5 August 1941 the staff of Einsatzgruppe B had already arrived at Smolensk at that time, a fact which has also been confirmed by co-defendant KLINGELHOFFER in the witness stand (Transcript p. 3877), by Dr. SIX himself in the witness stand (Transcript p. 1361) and in Defense Document No. 40 by Dr. AUGSBURG. shows that she must have seen and met defendant SIX in Smolensk already during the first days of August. Since she further testified that SIX remained only for a short time, it can be deduced also from her statements during cross-examination that the date for SIX' departure from Smolensk given originally in her affidavit of 14 September 1947 as 20 August 1941, must be correct and that her diary notes, to which she referred for her changed date, were not an aid to her memory but caused a confusion of her memory. Prosecution has not been submitted in evidence. Hence this part of VETTER's statement is completely deprived of any support.
4. But this departure from Russia on 20 August 1941 or Defendant SIX took place upon his own request for release. He has made this request for release because he realized that has Vorkommando Moscow, which had been formed for the task of seizing archives in Moscow, was purposeless because the fall of Moscow could not be expected for the time being. Hence it results that defendant SIX never understood and intended his assignment in Russia to be anything else but practical activity in the sense of the archives tasks and archive commandos of Office VII and that he evaded successfully and to the ultimately possible degree employment in the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos in Russia under the SD service.
5.) It need hardly be mentioned in view of otherwise inadequate evidence produced by the Prosecution that the defendants' promotions as well as the written documents and memoranda referring to them constitute no means of evidence against him concerning his co-operation or accompliceship in the deeds perpetrated by the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos as the Prosecution tries to prove, inasmuch as the relevant counter-argumentations have already, been exhaustively laid down in writing by the defense. I only wish to refer to document No. 4768 Prosecution Doc. Book V B, Exh. 237 which included the letter from the SSOperational Main Office - Commandant of the Waffen-SS of 3 April 1942 addressed to the SS-Personnel Main Office. This document does not permit the slightest conclusion as regards the defendants' employment in the East. This is an act of the RSHA deliberately misleading the Waffen-SS and the Wehrmacht with the object of getting defendant SIX released from military service against his will and of bringing him back under the disciplinary authority of the SD. To this end the Waffen-SS, after the Wehrmacht had already refused his release, was confronted by the RSHA with an allegedly accomplished fact by letting them know that SIX had already been assigned to the East as Commander of the Security Police and the SD, in other words, that he had already departed. This however, does net correspond to the facts. In 1942 SIX was in Berlin and he has never held the position of a Commander of the Security Police and the SD.
On the other hand, this document proves the sort of methods HEYDRICH adopted to enforce the defendant SIX' return to the SD and his release from military service against his will. At the same time the defendants' statement in the witness box is herewith confirmed once more. of defendant SIX's personal records, the Prosecution, on the other hand, would have been sure to detect some document proving the employment of the defendant in the Service of the SD-Einsatzgruppen if this had been defacto the case with the defendant.
7.) The final conclusion:must be drawn, therefore, that he charge against the defendant Dr. SIX with reference to counts I and II of the indictment has been based merely on diverse grounds of suspicion, which in themselves are incoherent and altogether rather feeble, and that the Prosecution in the course of this trial has not been able to substantiate it with evidence strong enough to disperse all doubts. On the other hand, the chain of counter-arguments offered by the defense is absolutely solid and constitutes full proof that the defendant is not in the least incriminated in the sense of counts I and II of the Indictment and that, therefore, the Tribunal must needs come to the decision to declare the defendant not guilty on counts I and II of the indictment.
1.) Concerning Count III of the indictment, the defendants' membership in the criminal organisations of the SS and the SD, I have to debate the point whether, apart from the more membership of these organisations , there existed from the part of the defendant also some sort of cooperation with them in the sense of their criminal actions or a participation in their criminal tendencies. Since the charge contained in counts I and II of the indictment, i.e. defendants' participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos of the SD, is bound to break down also in connection with Count III of the indictment, there remains only to argue, whether his other connections with the SD and the SS constitute a participation in some form or another in the criminal tendencies of these organizations.
The defendant is not guilty per se under count III of the indictment, because on the key-day, 1 September 1939. as ruled according to the verdict of the International Tribunal, the defendant was still a member of the SS and the SD in his capacity as Chief of Amt VII, which, according to the verdict was included in the criminal organizations. As Chief Prosecutor JACKSON in his opening statement before the International Trial conceded to each member, to explicate in a trial his personal relation to the organization so has this also been done in the case of defendant Dr. SIX in this trial.
2.) I stated at the beginning that SIX did not enter the SD as a politician but as a scientist and that his activity was confined to this scientific sphere. His membership in the SS was compulsorily necessitated and was dependant on his membership in the SD. Not until his entry into the SD was the defendant transferred to the SS from the SA to which he had belonged until then. His promotion in rank in the SS was effected in accordance with his duty assignment and activity in the SD. After his final inactivation in the SD the defendant did not become an active member of the SS, but an honorary member; his SS rank which ha was allowed to retain and which was finally raised to Brigadefuehrer was an honorary rank equivalent to his professional rank of ambassador 1 stclass in the Foreign Office. The fact that no SS-assignment of any other kind was the basis of his promotion in the SS is proved by the written service curriculum of the defendant, submitted by the Prosecution in Document Book V B, Document No. 4768. This reveals clearly that the type of duty of the defendant as a member of the SS was always within the sphere of SD duties. During the period of the defendant's membership in the Waffen-SS his activity consisted only of military training and training for war assignments, which does not have the nature of criminal activity within the meaning of the decision of the International Military Tribunal.
3.) The defendant never entered the Allegmeine SS as such. He never joined it as a member but due to his profession he became a member of the SS-Sonderformation SD because he thereby bad the opportunity of being active in the field of science.
In the SD the defendant was in charge of Amt VII as from November 1939. This office was designated as criminal by the International Military Tribunal, but in the reasons for the judgment this designation was not connected with any of the features which mark the SD as criminal.
In other words office VII was not especially blamed for criminal acts committed in the East, for the Nacht and Nebel decree or for the ballet (Kugel) decree, screening measures or other criminal acts mentioned especially in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal. Therefore it must be proved that the defendant SIX was personally involved in crimes committed by the SD. The main point, there fore, with regard to the defendant's criminal guilt, is whether he is guilty in accordance with the prosecution's point III, as a result of his membership in the and merely through having had knowledge of the activities of the Einsatzgruppen, without however having ever had any personal part in these activities; or whether it can be deduced from his general behavior during his SD membership that be put himself, his work and his designs at the disposal of the activities of the SB which have been ascertained as criminal. gruppen in Russia during his own totally different assignment as Chief of the Archivkommando Moskau. His having had a part in the planning of the Einsatzgruppen activity, even only in an ideological way, is therefore completely out of the question. The fact that the defendant did not participate nor wish to participate in the execution, can be ascertained as a result of those proceedings. Consciously, on his own initiative and using all means at his disposal, the defendant extricated himself from his being used in the fast by the SD upon his recognizing the impossibility of fulfilling his scientific assignment and at a time when it was being considered to change his assignment into partisan combat duties within the sphere of tasks of Einsatzgruppe B. It is sufficient here to state these simple facts.