On the other hand, the "Security Service" of the Reich Fuehrer-SS is an SS-formation without any task and activity, without any sub-division, which, as shown above, did not only comprise the SS-members of the sentenced Amt III, IV, VI and VII, but also comprised Amt I, II and V of the RsHA and other police units.
The defendant only belonged to the groups "Gestapo and SD", which are declared to be criminal, but he never belonged to any of the SS-groups which are declared criminal.
I refer to the IMT verdict; it declares on page 113 of the published text in its conclusion:
"The Security Service of the Reich Fuehrer-SS, (generally known as the SD), will be dealt with in the tribunal's verdict on the Gestapo and the SD."
longed to the general SS, which Dr. Braune never did, and on account of which he, therefore, cannot be sentenced. Concerning SD. The IMT isolates the Security Service of the Reich Fuehrer-SS" from the Group "SS", and, as is shown at another point, by which the IMT understands Amt III, VI and VII of the RsHA; the defendant only belonged to the Security Service of the Reich Fuehrer-SS until April 1939, when he was released from his activity with the SD and was ordered to the Secret State Police. The defendant cannot be sentenced for this time which lies before 1 September 1939. After this date, the defendant did not belong either in an official or honorary capacity to Amt III, VI or VII of the RsHA or to my of their sub-divisions, neither did he have any functions in them, nor was he active in them. As from April 1939 onward he only were the SS-uniform with the SD-insignia, concerning the SS he neither had any function nor did he carry out any activity, he did not have to perform any SS-service, neither did he have any knowledge of the activity of the SS-groups, declared criminal here, nor of that of Amt III, VI and VII of the RsHA.
war, this was only effected in sub-divisions of Amt IV of the RsHA, the. Secret State Police. takes there, which the Tribunal shall omit, then.
Should the Tribunal be of a different opinion, then Dr. Braune cannot be sentenced on account of an other reason. The IMT declared:
"During the war members of the Security Police and of the SD have lead to severe sentences."
Nevertheless the IMT arrived at a sentence on the following basis:
"However, the fact remains, that all members of the Security as civil servants."
With this the IMT did not at all want to exclude the admissibility of a counter proof concerning the voluntariness, cooperation or knowledge of the individual members of the groups concerned. The IMT itself has referred to the "recognized principles of law" and has especially expressed, that "a criminal guilt is an individual guilt, and mass punishments are to be avoided."
The Chief Prosecutor of the IMT, Jackson, declared (Official transcript page 5176) concerning the individual member of the organizations:
"Nothing hinders him from denying, that he joined voluntarily, or from proving that he acted under compulsion.
He can prove that by deceit and by wile he was made to join."
"The membership which the statute and the law of the Control Council Law declare to be criminal, means, of course, a real membership according to a decision of the member's own free will. It is necessary that the member joined the organization fully cognizant and voluntary.
which a person has become victim, were never considered as a crime of the victim; neither is it intended to achieve such an unfair result now." all further proceedings:
"In this trial the individual defendant can state everything in which he was."
(Declaration of Chief Prosecutor Jackson, dated 14 December 1945.)
Braune received the completely concrete assurance, that he did not need to undertake any function or activity in the State police, he became a merely formal, that is, not a genuine member of the State Police, He remained exclusively active in the SD, in the legal and administrative department. Security Police and Braune was ordered to the State Police in Muenster. That this was effected against his will and under compulsion is proved by the fact, that with all means at his disposal Braune defended himself against this transfer and when he was not able to prevent it, he practically did not do any service in Muenster. no activity of Dr. Braune's in the State Police exists. He intended thus to force his dismissal. He did not succeed in doing so, for, in contradiction to the supposition of the IMT that he was not exposed to any other pressure before 1939 than to the danger of losing his position as a civil servant, kt has been proved, that Heydrich already openly declared in 1937:
"Nobody will be released from the Sipo, with the exception if we do not like him any more; in this case, however, the way goes via the concentration camp."
Therefore, in Koblenz the defendant did not chose any more the way to force his release from the Stapo, as it had proven to be foolish - but he tried it in that way, that with his farmer superior, Ohlendorf, he tried to arrange for a re-transfer to the SD.
And this way seemed to work. that he could count on his re-transfer to the SD in Berlin.
He had even already been asked to start on his removal. Heydrich had agreed. The defendant cannot be reproached, that in view of this fact he was awaiting further developments and did not undertake any further steps.
Contrary to all expectations, Dr. Best, Heydrich's deputy, succeeded in frustrating Braune's call to Berlin and in forcing Braune to remain in the Stapo. situation as quoted in the IMT-verdict had arisen. joining an organization which had been declared criminal, or of a voluntary staying in same. formally. His superiors used this formal membership to order him to work. He did not remain with the Stapo in order to keep his position as a civil servant, but he wanted to be dismissed from this very position as a civil servant, and he did everything in order to lose this position as a civil servant, Shortly before the outbreak of war he was fully entitled to suppose, that he had succeeded in doing so. not any guilt of his. Already by reason of this fact Dr. Braune cannot be sentenced on account of his membership in the Secret State Police. motive for sentencing him is lacking.
Apparently the Prosecution proceeded from the fact, that Braune's activity in the East was a criminal one in the program of Amt IV of the RsHA.
In his plea Dr. Aschenauer has exhaustively proved that this was not the case. I may refer to this. arising from orders (Befehlsnotstand) and of the special circumstances which lead to his behavior, the defendant's activity in the East was not a criminal one. can be drawn from the assignment in the East, apart from the fact that he never belonged to Amt IV. concerning the criminal activity of the defendant in the program of Amt IV or only for the knowledge concerning such a criminal activity. have to be valid, that "he, (the defendant), according to the Anglo-Saxon and the British secret law is entitled to be considered non-guilty as long as his guilt had not been conclusively proven in a way excluding any well founded doubts."
Military Tribunal No. II recognized this principle also in the proceedings against Oswald Pohl et all when acquitting SS-Standartenfuehrer Scheide, who belonged to the SS from 1930 to 1945.
There it says:
"The defendant admits membership in the SS, an organization deon these points. To save time of the Tribunal, I am not emitting pages 61 to 64. It is just a short sketch of the testimony of the defendant based on the testimony of his character by certain witnesses, Dr. Baessler, the witness Friedrich Sipmann and Dr. Guenther, a Protestant Minister, who has been living in Norway for forty years, and I shall proceed on page 64.
THE PRESIDENT: They will all be read, of course, these pages which you omit.
DR, MAYER: In 1930/1931, Dr, Braune becomes a National-Socialist. Openly in the witness-box he gave the reasons for this stop: Spiritual distress and concern for the helplessness and factionism among his people, for class-war and class-hatred, for the ethical and moral disintegrationin Germany was one of the reasons, another was his desire openly to advocate unity and the bond among all Germans and finally his last reason was his recognition of the threatening danger from Bolshevism (Court Transcript page 3055 to 3056).
Are these motives to be condemned?
2) In 1934 Braune becomes SD man. tion of any criticism, with the ever-increasing tendency to create yes-men and to silence the free and open expression of a man's opinion is the first reason for this step, and the other reason is the possibility of bringing to the attention of the leadership shortcomings, dangers, unfavorable developments and mismanagement. ciation for criminal purposes?
I think Ohlendorf's examination and final plea clearly prove that these men of the SD intended and did at that time. Was it a crime that Dr. Braune by dedicating himself to these aims of the SD exposed himself so much that he had to make way before stronger forces and that his superiors transfered him to police work, a job he did not turn down but which did not suit his make-up and interests. Braune did everything within his power to be sent back to his former SD work which he recognized as a suitable and necessary one. I have explained that it was not his fault if his efforts in this direction remained fruitless.
Deceit and pressure brought him to police work. Can this be called voluntary association which even IMT considers a pre-requisite for punish able membership in a criminal organization?
3) From the last mentioned step, his way led him to assignment in the East. I need not repeat the events which led to it and which special circumstances determined his actions. for mankind, and a corrupted mind, as the Prosecution would have us believe. that "Death was their tool and life their toy"? seriousness and dignity of this proceedings and that it helps us to come closer to the actual events as a primary condition for a just verdict. in Odessa is a proof of neither hatred nor of contempt of mankind similarly not of the intention to exterminate ethnical groups. This conduct proves, better than all fine speeches, his personal attitude to these events in the East. opportunity to devote himself to task of cultural and academic policy of German students. His peen and courageous statements in numerous speeches and on the occasion of conferences, his intercession on behalf of French and Norwegian students, his extensive assistance and support of the thousands of foreign students prove that he himself tried to combine theory and practice, preachings and conduct. They contradict the Prosecution's unproved assertions of contempt and hatred of mankind, self-professed superior, beings and similar charges.
4). The development of war caused Braune's transfer to Norway. What during the last phase of war under the most difficult conditions appeared as Braune's attitude, is the best proof for the motive or his conduct. Hatred and contempt for other peoples do not prompt a person to realease hundreds of prisoners to oppose a despot of the caliber of Reich Commissioner Terboven, to use pressure to obtain numerous Fuehrer decisions against him and thus to save human lives and valuable property.
different idea of What a Commander of the Security police would be like and that they had been surprised to find a human being who gave them the feeling that he meant well and whom they had to like and to trust although he was their enemy.
But more significant than anything else for Braune's conduct in Norway is the Norwegian judicial authorities quashing of the proceedings against him.
Thus we see that the picture which I have drawn of Dr. Braune's character on the basis of the numerous personal testimonials agrees with his conduct in all situations in which Dr. Braune could act on his own initiative and realize his personal opinions. Are we not to judge the motives for his conduct in the East in accordance with this general picture? victions when passionately rejecting every allegation of low and criminal instincts as driving power of his conduct, and why I still consider my client innocent in spite of all actual events which he never attempted to conceal, to deny or to distort. Even in the witness-stand Dr. Braune has remained true to himself. Straight forward honest end upright, he has given an account of himself, always endeavoring to give the Tribunal as complete and truthful a picture as possible with regard to his ideas and conduct, that the Defendant was acting under the pressure of his hateful, inexorable position and yet of the deduction that his guilt derives from the fact that he entered the party and the SD. Objective weighing of his motives which determined his course does not allow of the following charge. the SD no assignment to the East.
Wherever Dr. Braune worked whatever he did never did he reveal a motive of which he ought to be ashamed, which he could not confess openly and freely and which must cause him any feeling of criminal guilt. I am convinced that the Tribunal will not fail to consider this when pronouncing judgment upon my client. I described the events which have brought my client into the dock. tances which led to these events. acted and finally I have tried to give the Tribunal a picture of the Defendant's character and of the motives for his conduct. All this will make it clear that, fully conscious of my obligation to serve justice and to make truth prevail, there is but one thing for me to do and that is to plead that Dr. Braune he declared innocent of the charges under count I and II of the indictment as well as of the charge of membership in an organization which has been declared criminal.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed Dr. Belzer.
DR. BELZER: Dr, Belzer for the defendant Matthias Graf.
Your Honors and Gentlemen of the Tribunal ! arraigned before this Tribunal my client, the defendant Matthais Graf, charging him with having committed crimes against humanity and war crimes, as well as with having been a member of criminal organizations. To prove the commission of the crimes charged, the Prosecution, in a series of documentary books, has presented more than 200 individual documents. Matthias Graf, it is first contended in the indictment that Fraf had been an officer of Einsatzkommando 6 of Einsatzgruppe C. In producing the particular evidence, the Prosecution restricted itself to establish that the defendant Matthias Graf at the times specified in some of the documents, when Einsatzkommando 6 was carrying out executions, was a member of that Kommando.
Alone from this membership does the Prosecution infer that the defendant Graf shared responsibility for the executions carried out by Einsatzkommando C 6. Such an argumentation can scarcely satisfy any law of procedure of any modern constitutional State all over the world. ly referred to it - every defendant has to be considered innocent as long as his guilt has not been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
To furnish this proof, is the task of the Prosecution. The obligation to furnish proof covers all the essential components of the crime charged, including criminal intent. It is never the business of the defendant to prove his innocence. In this connection I explicitly refer to the corresponding expositions in Wharton's "Evidence in Criminal Cases", Volume 1. The fact of the defendant Matthias Graf havinb been a member of Einsatzkommando C 6 alone cannot be valued as "prima facie evidence". But even assuming a case of "prima facie", any obligation on the part of the defendant Graf to furnish proof could not go further than to provoke a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. This being premised, it is now my task to comment on the result of the evidence in the case Graf. I. Counts I and II of the Indictment. thing about the form in which the defendant Graf is said to have become guilty of committing the crimes as stated. The name of Graf has not appeared in even nine of the reports of events which have been presented as evidence. Nowhere has it become discernible that the defendant Graf was connected with the executions which were carried out by Einsatzkommando C 6, Thus there is no legal basis for a conviction of the defendant Graf under counts I and II of the indictment, but, on the other hand, the defense has nevertheless proved' beyond any doubt that there was actually no connection between the defendant Fraf and the crimes which are the subject of this trial, In detail I have to say the following:
1.) Then the Einsatzkommando C 6, in strength of between 160 and 180 men, was formed in Schmiedeberg, the SS-Unterscharfuehrer Grimminger was assigned to this commando as export III, which means as the SD Intelligence officer, and the Defendant Graf was assigned to this Grimminger as a co-worker, Grimminger and Graf were instructed on their future tasks in the Einsatzkommando by the SD specialist in the staff of the Einsatzgruppe G, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Karl Hennicke. Hennicke expressly instructed the experts Grimminger and Graf, that they would have to deal only with the tasks of intelligence work and that any other activity was out of the question. Grimminger already died in early July 1941 in Lemberg, the first garrison of EK 6 on the russian territory. Graf was then the only SD - reporter of EK 6 at first. Upon his request, Graf was given an assistant later on because he could not cope alone with all the work which cropped up in his department. of SD export until, late July/early August 1942, except for some interruptions to which we shall have to come back later. From that date until ho was finally recalled in October 1942, Graf was only statistically a member of EK 6. In effect, he had been assigned during this time to the Commander of the Sipo and the SD in Stalino and had to assist there in the organization of a department III. then Leader III of Einsatzgruppe C, Graf, during the entire period of his membership in EK 6, exclusively worked as the SD-expert III, which means in making SD-reports. discussed so often that I need not discuss it any furhter. With regard to the details of Graf's activity it is sufficient to refer to his statements which he made as witness on his own behalf in direct examination.
ly by the evidence - is, that the Defendant Graf during his attachment to the Einsatzkommando 6, or even during his assignment with other offices was never engaged in executive matters. The Defendant Graf did not, have anything to do with political investigations of any kind, nor was he ever present at trials of arrested persons or at executions. Considering the conditions prevailing at the Einsatzkommando 6, SD specialist Graf could without any trouble stand completely aloof from executive affairs and confine himself to his own sphere of activity. transport to Germany was never one of the duties of the Einsatzgruppen, and the Defendant Graf had even less to do with it. The defendant Graf had just as little to do with the segregation of Russian Prisoners of war in the Camps. Kommando. The attempt to entrust him at the time of his assignment as commander of the Security Police and the SD in Stalino with the leadership of a Kommando came to nothing because of the firm refusal of the Defendant. Unterscharfuehrer. Apart from a few men of the Waffen-SS, assigned to the EK 6, Graf had the lowest rank in the entire kommando. After perhaps one year he was promoted to Scharfuehrer and after a few months shortly before his recall from the East the defendant Graf became Oberscharfuehrer. These ranks hold by him very exclusively noncommissioned officers' rank. At no time during his assignment was Graf an officer.
ted which could entitle the Prosecution to include the defendant Graf in such assertions as:
"All defendants, as officers or members of the staff of one or several Einsatzgruppen, or their subordinate units, committed murder, atrocities and other inhumane actions" or:
"The defendants were commanders and officers of special SS-Groups, etc.", or:
"Each man in the prisoner's dock occupied a responsible position or a command in a liquidation unit. Each of them presumed the right to decide about the fate of human beings and death was the intended consequence of his power and of the contempt with which he was filled this trial - as far as the person of the defendant Graf is concerned then it is the following premise contained in the Opening Statement: "We shall demonstrate in this trial that the rank and position of these defendants carried in themselves the authority and the duty to exercise control over their subordinates." is this : Neither by virtue of his rank nor by his position had the defendant Graf power over life and death of people; he could neither order nor carry out nor prevent shootings. nor instigator, nor abettor; he neither gave his approval for the commission of the crime in question, nor was he connected with any persons or agencies a iming to carry out those crimes. ed in the charge were committed. The Fuehrer decree which formed the basis for the shootings by the Einsatzgruppen of Jews, Commissars and Gypsies was not conveyed to the defendant Graf during his service with t he Einsatzkommando 6. Fuehrer Decree was only issued to the Group and Kommando Leaders, not to the sub-leaders and men.
Nor was the order passed on to the men and sub-leaders of Einsatzkommando 6 during the assignment. Not even during his visit to Einsatzkommando 6 in Kriwoj-Rog did Himmler speak of it to the men as he did when visiting Einsatzgruppe D. satzkommando 6 carried out arrests, interrogations and shootings. The defendant Graf credibly asserted that he never learned of the fact that shootings were carried out without previous. legal proceedings or that persons such as Jews, Commissars, etc, were shot only because they were Jews or Commissars, The fact that the defendant Graf actually thought that no conviction or execution took place in Einsatzkommando 6 without legal proceedings and without proof of guilt according to the generally valid laws of war can not become more evident than it does by the testimony of the female witness Reimers on 8 January 1948. Frau Reimers described how Graf once conceled a crying Ukrainian woman, whose husband had been reported and arrested on suspicion of sabotage, in the most kindly manner and assured the woman that her husband would surely return after the investigation if he were innocent.
May it please the Tribunal; defendant Graf's human behavior in this situation is not the behavior of a man who knew of the Fuehrer Decree or who even suspected that people were shot without trial and without proof of guilt. Nor does a man act that way who, to use the words of the Prosecution, presumed the right to decide the fate of people and who considers death to be the intended result of the power and contempt he was filled with. No man acts that way who does not have the deepest respect for life and liberty of another man and who does not have the most profound human compassions for the plight of his fellowmen.
Truth is not clad in golden resplendent raiment. It frequently bears the likeness of unlikelihood, It is more difficult to defend than a lie. It is not surprising therefore that the statements of the defendant Graf meet with scepticism and disbelief when they concern purely internal processes and when no testimonies or documents support the defendant. defendant that it is hard to believe that despite his comparatively long service with EK 6 and the daily contact with other members of the Kommando he had not observed anything of the mass shootings carried out by EK 6. A scrupulous and unbiased inquiry into the entire situation, however, cannot but lead to the conclusion that a doubt in the correctness of the defendant's statements does not appear justified from whatever angle one may look at it. almost 11/2 years. against this statement it must be pointed out that Graf served in EK 6 in Russia from the end of July 1941 till the end of July 1942, that is approximately 13 months. In the period between the end of July 1942 and the middle of October 1942, Graf was with the commander of the Security Police and the SD in Stalino. From the 13 months of Graf's service in EK 6 we must deduct, furthermore, his assignment to liaison leader Heyer, approximately from 20 July 1941, that is altogether about 5 weeks. Furthermore, we must deduct Graf's furlough from 20 December 1941 till 28 January 1942, which makes another 5 weeks, and finally, Graf's illness and subsequent sick-leave from end of Larch 1942 till about middle of June 1942, that is approximately 3 months. Thus, Graf's effective total service with Einsatzkommando 6, after a deduction of at least 5 months off the total of 13 months, shrinks to about 8 months. And during these 8 months his time was so taken up with the tasks in his sphere of work as not to leave him any time to bother about the affairs of other sections. As regards the assumption that the defendant Graf talked with other members of the Kommando about the occurrences in EK 6, it must be pointed out, in the first place, that apart from the assignment in Stalino, EK 6 was almost all the time on the move in an easterly direction, with only short stops at any one placed.
ful that its sections could be put up in different billets according to their sphere of work. It must not be overlooked that Kommando 6 was never billeted in any one place as a closed body, but always split up into 3 to 4 sub-kommandos. The sub-kommandos were in different places, often 200 and even more kilometers apart. All these facts go to prove that Graf could contact only a small proportion of the Kommando members, Those among them whom Graf met and who had anything to do with the executions were not too communicative and even less so in front of the defendant Graf.
The reason for this fact is to be found in the nature of things. From all the defendants and witnesses who somehow knew of the events, we have learned here in the witness stand, that the execution of the Fuehrer Decree caused a tremendous emotional strain to all the participants. It may be presumed as certain that those people felt the need to unburden their mind occasionally, in order to ease their spiritual trouble through a conversation with comrades who were in the same position. out it is equally certain, that all these people were very secretive toward outsiders, who had nothing to do with the executive, and who were not at all to be considered as full members, but, like the reporter Graf, so-called "paper soldiers." All this, one must consider in order to understand that Graf's claim, that he did not hear anything about mass executions of Jews, etc. by the Kommando during the period of his membership in EK 6, is entirely credible. the Prosecution, insofar they contain references by the activity of EK 6. The defendant Graf, who had nothing to do either with the shootings or with the reports relating to them, is not able to give any relevant information about the statements made in the documents about the activities of EK 6. We have repeatedly heard from other defendants, who had a certain amount of insight, that extreme caution was to be observed in regard to these reports. In this connection I want to point out myself the following facts which particularly struck me when perusing the documents. In the Report of Events of 6 March 1942 - it is Prosecution Doc, NO-3240, Exh. 80, in Doc. Book II C it is reported that the village of Gorlovka had been cleared of Jews by the EK 6. In two Reports of Events dated 10 April 1942, Doc. Book III A, Prosecution Doc. NO-3256, and 20 March 1942, Doc. Book III A, Prosecution Doc. NO-3234, Gorlovka is quoted as garrison of the SK 4b for the same period during which the EK 6. is said to have become operative there. Something must be wrong here. In the Report of Events of 25 February 1942, Prosecution Doc.
NO-3340, Exh. No. 22, Doc. Book I, after naming the EK 6, there is a report on actions in Dnjeprpetrovsk, which are said to have been carried out in January and February. But the EK 6 was no longer in that town and in that area since 12 November 1941. In this connection I refer to the Report of Events of 14 January 1942, in Doc. Book I, Prosecution Doc. NO-3279, Prosecution Exh. No. 21, and to the Report of Events of 16 January 1942, Prosecution Doc. NO-3405, Exh. No. 42, Doc. Book II A. In both documents, Stalino, more than 300 kilometers east of Dnjeprepetrovsk, is quoted as garrison of the EK 6 for the period in question, a fact which confirms the statement of defendant Graf. Hence, there is not much to be derived from the Reports of Events. These documents cannot be construed as evidence against the credibility of defendant Graf, all the lees so, because, according to the statement of witness Hart -the Kommando Chief of EK 6, Sturmbannfuehrer Mohr, ordered executions to be carried out only after detailed examinations of the facts. In this connection I also want to refer to the affidavit of Friedrich Moeller, submitted by me. prising that defendant Graf should not have even once have come to see a mass execution in the course of one of his journeys. In reply to this, the fact must be emphasized that in general these executions were carried out in remote places and, as far as possible, to the exclusion of the public. Therefore it would have been quite a coincidence if defendant Graf on his way had just chanced to meet an execution. If an event, which in itself is possible, could only have happened by chance, one may not assume that its actual happening was probable. The defendant Graf denies that he ever has been even witness of an execution. There is no shadow of a counter-evidence to this fact.
are not apt to create any justified doubt in the credibility of defendant Graf. It is the result of evidence that Graf neither can be considered as principal nor as accessory in the imputed crimes nor had any knowledge of the fact that these crimes were being committed. must essentially result from the evidence. 1 September 1939, of organizations which have been declared to be criminal by the International Military Tribunal and by paragraph 1 (d) of Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, namely the SD and the SS. securing of required manpower for tasks of special state and political importance (Emergency Service Regulation) of 15 October 1938, the defendant Graf was drafted for emergency service by the Landrat in Kempten who had jurisdiction over the defendant's place of residence, and was assigned to the SD-Aussenstelle in Kempten on a war supplementary status. The defendant Graf objected unsuccessfully to this drafting for emergency service at the SD section in Augsburg. later on he tried again and again to get away from the SD. When he was bold enough eventually to apply to the Wehrmacht direct to get enlisted, the only result was his transfer to Dueben and from there his assignment for Einsatzkommando 6 in Russia. Upon his return from the East the defendant was appointed in the late fall of 1942 as Deputy Chief of the SD branch in Kempten. In 1944 Graf took over the SD branch Kaufbeuren as Deputy Chief, Even after his return from his assignment in Russia he never gave up his endeavors to get released from the SD, but they proved until the end of the war just as unsuccessful, as they had been at the time he went to Dueben. Graf refused all invitations from his chiefs to join the SD organization.
Under his liability for emergency service Graf had been attached to the SD as a temporary employee during the war, and there was no change in his relations to the SD until the end of the war. It follows from these facts that Graf has never become a member of the SD. The defendant Graf was nothing else but an ordinary civil servant in the SD, and not a voluntary one at that, but compelled by an act of government authority. For this reason alone the defendant Graf cannot be classed as belonging to the SD organization which was declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal. I quote from the IMT judgment:
"The Security Police and the SD was a voluntary organization."
"The fact remains, however, that all members of the Security Police and SD joined the organization voluntarily under no other sanction than the desire to retain their positions as officials." never apply to the case of defendant Graf.
In Doc. Book V C the Prosecution has presented a legal expert's opinion as Doc. No. 5814, Exh. No. 212, declaring that the Emergency Service Decree of 15 October 1940 with its subsidiary regulations would not offer a legal basis for call-ups to the SS or the SD.
This expert's opinion expounds the private views of a judge pertaining to questions which do not come up for decision at all in this Tribunal, while disregarding altogether all questions under discussion in this trial. the basis of the Emergency Regulations concerning liability of service, anyone had ever been called up for the SD, and in particular whether the Defendant Graf was detached to the SD in this manners. This question has been clearly answered. And even if the opinion, cited, had been correct, this could in no way have sweetened the pill of bitterness that the Defendant Graf had to swallow, namely that of the actual notification for liability of emergency service and his later transfer to EK 6. That notifications concerning liability for emergency service for the SD were sent out, generally, by the competent authorities, according to the official notice of 8 July 1939, and that there hardly existed a possibility to wangle one's way out, e.g. to neglect to comply with the order, is clearly demonstrated by the affidavit of the former Government Councillor Dr. Holz submitted by Counsel for the Defense on behalf of the Defendant Radetzky.