I talked to Eichmann on this matter; just why the se facts were not made known to the department was one of the questions I asked him. He rejected my question and said that he was acting only on the basis of superior autherity. occupied territories, were there not? he had special delegates, yes. the various services of the Gestapo? Eichmann's, I cannot give you any exact information from my own background, Eichmann formerly was a part of the Secret State Police system.
Q So he was one of the elements of department No. 4, wasn't he? he had a very strong activity of his own and I emphasize that this may be traced largely back to the fact that he did not rise from the ranks of the police.
Q You were kept constantly posted on Eichmann's delegates in the various occupied territories, were you not? these people deported, didn't they? and the people in the occupied territories who collaborated, were they not?
Q What were the functions of office No. 2 of the RSHA? economic questions from the beginning up until, I believe, 1944. It also dealt with the question of the interning of foreigners.
1 Aug A LJG 13-3 executives and not administrative officers, were they not? informed as to what happened in the executive branch? questions. 2-D?
A Two-D? If I am not mistaken, it was jurisdiction. been submitted as PS-501, US-288. According to this document, the tasks assigned, which were intended to exterminate populations in the eastern territories, especially Jews, were supplied by this department No. 2, which was well-aware, according to this document, of the extermination which was proposed. It was at first that their administrative and executive branches were separated. office No. 2 is concerned, this is a technical expert branch. As far as the contents are concerned, it deals with special motor vehicles, which was the special province of this branch. It is directed to the Central office in Berlin and it obviously dealt with the readiness of motor vehicles. a very special kind of vehicles were destined for carrying out ox termination? you could draw that conclusion from the contents.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Monneray, I think the document speaks for itself.
M. MONNERAY: Yes, sir. BY M. MONNERAY:
1 Aug A LJG 13-4 activity in the Gestapo, that the direction of the State asked you to accomplish tasks contrary to what you would call police duties? us which were in contradiction to our political activities, during my period of activity in Berlin as well as later in Denmark, I had these feelings regarding certain questions; but in this connection, I must remark that looked at these questions only from the point of view of a police official and could only judge them and define my attitude on that basis. It was unknown to me what had caused the leadership to make the decisions which were transmitted to us.
Q. You did not consider, then, as criminal, for instance, the order to exterminate certain categories of Soviet prisoners ?
A. I must say quite frankly that I could not understand any order like that at all. For police reasons we could not express this declaration at all. these orders, didn't they ?
A. I cannot tell you that from my own experience.
M. MONNERAY: I have no further questions.
DR. MERKEL: A few brief questions, Mr. President. BY DR. MERKEL:
Q. Dealing with the membership of the organizations which were assimilated into the Gestapo were they incorporated into the SS or was it only an external measure ?
A. I did not perform any formal service with the SS nor the SD or with anyone after my formal entry into the SS in 1939. camps into which people were to be taken mentioned ?
A. I believe I recall that, yes, but I cannot tell you exactly.
Q. Who carried out the arrests against people who were still at liberty after the protective custody decree was issued ?
A. Either from the officials of the STAPO or from the regular police or Ortspolice.
Q. Who accompanied the trainleads of internees, into the concentration camps ?
A. As far as I -remember, this transportation was handled by the regular members of the police who accompanied the transports. This was in accordance with regular schedules in the entire Reich area.
Q. Did you or your office know about the true conditions existing in concentration camps, the actual conditions ?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by "regular schedules"? Do you mean special transports or do you mean ordinary trains ? WITNESS: There were special cars for prisoners which had been used, by the police and were used for the transportation of regular prisoner and regular internees. These cars were attached to regular trains and express trains and the internees were transported in these trains. There was no special transportation. By DR. MARKED:
Q. Were the concentration camps under the jurisdiction of the Gestapo ?
A. No. Concentration camps were under the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camas at Oranienburg, and as far as I know, this Inspectorate was under the Inspectorate and Administrative office in the SS Chief Office.
Q. The document just submitted by the Prosecution, 2521-PS, speaks for itself, does it not, by the fact that the return across is the SS Wirtschaft Verwaltungs Hauptamt in Oranienburg and it is addressed to the commander of all Concentration Camps ?
A. Yes.
Q. Did, you know about the destruction of' Jews at Auschwitz ?
A. No, only after the capitulation did I hear about these things.
Q. Did you know that the activities of Eichmann had a direct connection with the destruction of Jews at Auschwitz ?
A. as long as I was in office, and before the capitulation, I had not heard anything about problems of that nature.
Q. When was the first time that you had reliable knowledge about these things ?
A. After the capitulation:
DR. Marked: I have no further questions to put to the witness. BY JUSTICE BIDDLE:
Q. witness, you spoke of a decree under which the Gestapo were permitted to use third degree methods in Denmark, right ?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that decree in writing ?
A. That was a written decree of the head of the Security licence of the SD.
Q. And was it signed ?
A. Yes.
Q. Who signed it ?
A. As far as I recall, the first decree was signed by-Heydrich and the second one on behalf of Mueller, and I cannot tell you...
Q. What was the date of the first decree ?
A. I believe it dates from 1937.
Q. what month ?
A. That I cannot tell you at this time.
Q. What was the ate of the second decree ?
A. 1942.
Q. Did you see both decrees yourself ?
A. Yes.
Q. what was in the first decree ?
A. The contents of the first decree were that in the further combatting of organizations inimical to the Reich, if no other means were at their disposal, that the persons involved would be able to be beaten with a stick for a certain number of times. After a certain number, a physician had to be called in. This directive could not be used in extraction a confession in the case of any one individual. The approval, therefore, had to be had from the head of the Security Police and. SD.
Q. Wait a minute. Was the decree limited to any particular territory or did it cover all the occupied territories ?
A. The decree of 1937 applied to the Reich Territory and I believe it applied to the activities of the SIPO in these regions. where It was stationed but I cannot tell you of any limitations Q. were there any other methods of third degree which were allowed as well as beatings in that first decree ?
A. No. After the second decree, only measures approved were measures which were more moderate than blows by sticks. Standing at interrogations, for instance, or exercises which would tire them - measures like that, but don't recall any others.
Q. You remembered one of them - standing up, for instance. What was the provision of the decree with respect to standing up during, the interrogation
A. I personally never attended an interrogation like that.
Q. I didn't ask you that. I said, what was the provision with respect to standing up ?
A. It said that only these methods could be used; that the person involved could not sit down but had to stand.
Q. And how long were the interrogations ?
A. It doesn't mention the length...
Q. I said, how long were the interrogations ? How long were they, actually ?
A. Well, under the circumstances, very long, because only in that way was the provision to stand up a severe measure.
Q. Was the number of stroked that could be used mentioned in the decree ? did it say how many times a man could be struck with a stick ?
A. As far as I recall, this measure would be applied only once to the same individual. That is, it could not be repeated and the number of blows, in my opinion, was set down in the decree.
Q. And then the doctor was called ?
A. No, I believe it was this way. If a large number of blows was prescribed from the beginning then the physician had to be present from the beginning.
Q. And what was the number of blows that was to be permitted, do you remember that ?
A. As far as I recall, twenty, but I cannot tell you that with certainty.
Q. And both decrees covered all of the German Reich, including the occupied territories, is that ture ?
A. Yes.
Q. And the decrees were effective in France, as well as in Denmark, isn't that true ?
A. Yes. Later on, the second decree, with the approval of the Chief of the Security Police, that power was delegated to the commanders and that was in the year of 1942.
Q. So that after that, the commanders could order beatings with out going to the head of the Security Police ?
A. Yes, at the beginning of 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR. MARKED: Mr. President, I should like to clarify one small point which was brought out just now by the high Tribunal in examining the witness I believe there is a small misunderstanding which I would like to clarify. ask the witness whether he meant the commanders of the Security Police or the Befehlshaber. These are two different people.
THE WITNESS: As far as I recall, the commanders - the Befehlshaber.
THE PRESIDENT: That's all. Thank you very much.
LT. CMDR. HARRIS: If the Tribunal please, I would like to put one question to this witness, following the questioning of the Tribunal,. I believe that the witness testified that in this second decree there was no provision for beatings. BY LT. COMMANDER HARRIS:
Q. Did I understand you to say that, Mr. Witness?
A. No, I said beatings - and from now on further measures which were measures rather than actual blows.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought when I took it down, that he said there were milder methods in the second decree, standing up and tiring methods.
LT. CMDR HARRIS: Yes, sir; that is what I understood but I now gather that the witness admits that under both decrees, beatings were authorized and that is all that I wish to establish.
DR. MARKED: Mr. President, I have no further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: What is it you want, Colonel Carev?
COLONEL CAREV: The Soviet Prosecution will request the permission of the Tribunal to present a few documents with regard to the activity of the Gestapo.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
COLONEL CAREV: First of all, I want to submit to the Tribunal a document. No. 268 which consists of the excerpts regarding the hostages which were done away with by the Gestapo in Yugoslavia. Out of there I shall quote just two sentences; at the end of paragraph 1 in their document it bears the Allowing sentence: "The shootings took place at the decision and command of the Gestapo and the SD." The second sentence at the end of the second page, point B, states: "When shootings and interrogations took place, the following victims fall." I omit here several sentences and merely draw the attention Tribunal to the fact that 337 persons were shot in the year 1942 alone and over a thousand by the SD. The first group by the command of the Gestapo and the second by the commend of the SD. One I submit here is USSR Exhibit 465, which is the notification issued by the German police about destroying a number of villages in Slovenia and of shooting all the male populations of those villages for helping the partisans.
I draw the Tribunal's attention just to these sentences against "On the 20th of July 1042, the village Krosnik as well as three other villages were destroyed and the male population shot. All the male population were shot and others were deported. This was done because the population helped the partisans and was in constant communication with these who conducted activities against the German Reich."
One more sentence of the document: quoting: "Out of all the measures taken by the Gestapo here, a number of civilians had to be shot as hostages".
The third document I would like to submit is USSR 416. It refers to the citizens of Yugoslavia and refers to the year 1942. It states that the citizens of Yugoslavia ware arrested frequently without being convicted or even suspected of any crime - over four thousand citizens listed - it is not quite clear whether it is only the Gestapo or who these are who are responsible for the arrests and shootings; however, it is the document in the archives of the Gestapo.
The first document I want to refer to is USSR 416. I consists of a German police order captured in Yugoslavia and consists of Hitler's decree, expressing joy in the German victory and sorrow for the German defeat at Stalingrad.
Another document is USSR 71. It is very brief and consists of a wire or rather a paper of the German police which refers to their workers and official of the German Reich. The wire took place one day prior to the German invasion of Yugoslavia and talks about exportation of the future workers. General Kappe of the German army, which states that the Gestapo killed his own colleague, under the circumstances of a special investigation. These are the documents which I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to. If it is possible, I would like to request the Tribunal to permit me also to quote several other USSR exhibits referring to the Gestapo, which deal with question which so far have not been given sufficient or very little attention. Could I please refer to several other documents?
THE PRESIDENTS: These aren't documents which have already been put in evidence, are they?
COLONEL CAREV: No, Mr. Chairman; these documents have been presented to the Tribunal but not from the viewpoint of the Gestapo but with regard to other questions; therefore, I would like to draw your attention to them simply because here there are facts which refer to the Gestapo which so far have been ignored, although the documents themselves have been submitted to the Tribunal on other occasions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that the appropriate time for you to deal with these documents will be when the case is argued on behalf of the prosecution if there are documents which have already been put in evidence.
COLONEL CAREV: They will; than you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, the witness may retire. Have you had all your witnesses?
DR. MERKEL: Yes, Mr. President. If I understood your Lordship, the quotation of documents and submission of documents is to take place after all the witnesses to the organizations have been heard.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the object of that being that all the documents can then be dealt with together, as some of the documents are not yet available; so we will go on with the next organization.
DR. MERKEL: I should like to ask but one thing. In my submission of documents, may I refer and refute the documents which are now being brought forth by the prosecution in this connection, dealing with these documents which today have been introduced for the first time?
THE PRESIDENT: When you say "refute" you mean criticize the documents and argue upon them, I suppose.
DR. MERKEL: I mean argumentation and perhaps by the new affidavits or new documents, to bring a counter evidence for these documents which have been submitted to-day for the first time.
THE PRESIDENT: The time for you to "refute", as you say, or to argue upon the documents which have been put in today by the prosecution, will be made when you make your final argument.
At the end of the record of all evidence for all the commissions, all the organizations will offer their evidence and comment upon it shortly and then they will have time within which they may argue the whole case and at that time you will be able to argue and "refute", as you put it, the documents which have been put in today.
DR. MERKEL: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Now I call upon counsel for the SD. Will you please call your witnesses now?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Mr. President. Before the Commission I Interrogated seven witnesses. The transcript I do not have in my hands in their complete state. With the approval of the high Tribunal I should like to call the witness Hoeppner. follows: BY THE PRESIDENT :
Q. Will you state your full name?
A. Relf-Heinz Hoeppner.
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak too pure truth and will withheld and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. First, I should like to put a few preliminary questions in order to prove that the witness has the necessary knowledge for the answering of questions on facts. When were you born?
A. On 24 February 1910.
Q. Since when have you been a member of the SD?
A. Since the beginning of 1934.
Q. What activity did you carry on before then?
A. Before that I studied and I tried to become a Jurist.
Q. What examination did you pass?
A. The first and second. I made the first and second examinations at the bar and passed them.
Q. What was your rank or position in the SD?
A. First of all I was an honorary member and expert, then I went to the higher level and leader, then Abschnittsfuehrer, and at the end I was Gruppenleiter in the RSHA.
Q. What group did you head?
A. I lead the group Roman III-A, law administration and communal life.
Q. What other sphere of activity did you deal with in the SD?
A. In the beginning, during my activity as an honorary member, I dealt with the press, press matters, later with personnel and organizational questions, and as staff fuehrer and Abschnitts fuehrer I was responsible for the entire sphere of the Security Office in my area.
Q. Now I shall turn to my first topic. I should like to prove that the SD and the SSF formations were completely different organizations. What do the abbreviations SD mean?
A. The SD means Security Service, Sicherheitsdienst.
Q. What different significations does this word have?
A. The word Sicherheitsdienst has two meanings. On one hand it means the special SS formation, SD, and on the second hand, the Security Service has an information service.
Q. Was the-foreign information service characterized as SD?
A. Yes, it was information, as SD abroad, Office VII.
Q. Was the Office VII known as SD also?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the Office VII concerning itself with?
A. It concerned itself with questions on archives and library matters, and us far as I know, it has special scientific missions.
Q. Was the SD completely different from the internal service, Office VII?
A. Yes. The special formation of the SS was subordinate to the chief of the Security Police.
Q. Who belonged to this special formation?
A. This special formation consisted of these members of the Security Police who belonged to the information branch. Secondly, these who belonged to the second formation, and who after that worked in the formation we talked of. Thirdly, to this special formation belonged these members of the SS who belonged to the Security Police and the State Police, and finally, point four, the members of those formations who were in business-like connection with the formation.
Q. The other persons as well belonged to the special formation.
People not active with the Security Police or the SD?
A. Yes, by that I meant this group 4, they dealt especially with border customs regulation.
Q. Did they have a general purpose or a common purpose?
A. No. They are a union of people. We were connected solely for the fact that later in 1939, the RHA was cut and registered under office one.
THE PRESIDENT: The light Keeps coming on. Will you try and pause between question and answer?
Q. Now I shall turn to the second topic. I would like to prove the relationship of the information office on 3, and National Service, and office 6 and 7. We are concerned with the offices 3, 6 and 7.
A. We were concerned with different organizations. Perhaps I can give you my reasons. First, the purpose of these three offices were quite different. Office 3 dealt with information and intelligence service. Office 6 with these matters abroad, and office 7 with questions on libraries and archives. Secondly, office 3, the main purpose of the organization was that it was centralized at the time. The work was decentralized. With office 6, we war concerned with a strong centralization of work. Office 7 had only one branch.
Q. Between these offices, 3, 6 and 7, was there any connection, which could be determined as a connection with a general common purpose?
A No. The aims of these offices were too varied for that. The members of these offices hardly had any connection with each other. development of the SD particularly dealing with the questions whether during this time it was a task of the SD to work with others in a general plan.
When did the SD originate When was it established?
A The SD was established in '31-'32. the same task and aims and activities?
A That you can't say at all. The task and aims varied strongly according to the political constellation; during the Security service up until '33 and beginning of '34 the task was to help this SS.
This task has been changed completely, after the parties with which the SNP had been in rivalry and it was dissolved, and then therefore there was no more rivalry, and the combatting of an opponent became the task.
Q. What time was it when it differentiated?
A. I already mentioned part of the time. '31, and perhaps '33 to '34. The second period of time was beginning in '34. I should like to quote the document of special significance, of the deputy fuehrer.
Q. Perhaps first of all you can just give us the various periods of time.
A. The first period of time was from '31 to '34, the middle of '34. The second was from the middle of '34 to the creation of the RSHA, and the third deals with the time of the establishment of the RSHA to the end of the war.
Q. What was the aim, the task and the activity of the SD from '31 to '34?
A. The task from '31 to '34 was that of protecting the Fuehrer and protecting the meetings and help that way. I think the SS received reports' about the rivalry of opposing parties. We helped that way and protected. Just what plans were being made by the then parties and what they had in mine we didn't know. We protected the meetings.
Q. Was the SD already under its leader, Heydrich, and did it develop into an espionage system? Mr. President, I should like to refer to the entire brief of the SS, page 8-b of the English text, pages 1 and 2. Please answer the question.
A. In answering this question, I have to start -with the fact when I entered the SD, in '34, and tell you things I myself saw. Things that also were told me at that time about my friend. When-the Security Service began in January '34, we were concerned with a very small arrangement, which hardly had more than 20 or 30 members, who were paid, and many still who were honorary. But you can hardly speak of an experienced training such asit would apply to an actual organization. That you cannot consider at all.
Q. The 22 to 25 paid, what area did they comprise. Were there other honorary members?
A. The number of the honorary members were not much larger.
Q. Did the members of the SD have a general agreement among themselves to cooperate against peace and against laws of war and humanity?
A. No. If you can speak on any agreement system, they hardly knew which; there were just parties fighting in rivalry. We helped them in such ways.
Q. Did the members of the SD in '31 to '34 have an aim of separating people who had a general and common plan -- an aim to agree against peace and against laws of war and humanity?
A. No.
Q. In the years '31 to '34, did the members knew anything of a plan like that?
A. I believe the members of the SD did not have any different experiences than the greater part of the German people and there was nothing known.
Q. Now I shall turn to the second span of time. 1934 until the erection of the RSHA in the year 1939 ?
A. After a legal, rival party was no longer in existence we had only illegal political followers, and as I have already mentioned it was the task of the political police system to combat this and this evolved into the State Police and the task of the Security Service had to change as well. First, it changed in this way, that other ideological and political symptoms, other ideological groups -
Q. Witness, can you be a little more brief in enumerating the tasks and aims?
A. In order to give you a few examples, for instance, Free Masons, Marxists, Jews, all these groups should be looked into in a more scientific way and the party should have material for training and similar tasks. That was the final task set by the party, beginning with June of 1943, that is to have an intelligence service for the party, something which, by the way, never did happen, and - that a large number of information services were to be active to that end. This work dealing with other ideological symptoms of political parties and research as to it did not last but after a period of time it became obvious that this research work belonged in the sphere of activity of the Secret State police for any research dealing with opponents, in the long run could not be separated from the executive, dealing with the results of daily interrogations and so forth. Therefore, this task ended with a clear division of tasks between the Security Service and the State police, a division which started in the middle of 1938 and was carried through particularly in the year 1939 and on the Whole, with the erection of the RSHA in September of 1939 this reached its final phase. police Service would have been concluded if it had not been that the Security Service, beginning with the so-called "spirit SD" in 1933 and 1934 dealing with special phases of culture and dealing with a special department and off-set from this Security Service itself a special task had not arisen for the internal intelligence service.
By that task I mean namely that the various lapses amongst the German population be looked into and reported on.
THE PRESIDENT: As I said to the other counsel, we do not want these witnesses to go over exactly the same grounds that they have gone through before the Commissions. he have got that evidence. We only want you to present them here in order that we may see what credibility is to be attached and to deal with any particularly important or new subject which has not been dealt with before the Commission. he has gone over before the Commission and at great length. It is simply doing the same thing twice over.
DR. GAWLIK: As I understood it, Mr. President, these matters which were dealt with before the Commissions at length, which were dealt with in more than two clays, that I should summarize the results thereof and in that way it might be carried through. Is that correct ? This witness has been heard for two days before the Commission and I shall present the results of what we learned before the Commission in one and a half or two hours. the various years would be of interest to the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you try to present the summary within reasonable limits?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, indeed, Mr. President.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. What do you knew about the significance of the work of the SD during these various periods of time?
A. The work of the SD during this period of time was without significance First of all we really had to look for the actual tasks and we had to set up a source of information and for the collection of necessary, basic material. Particularly important is the fact that during this time the Security Service really did not come to the surface.
Q. The Prosecution has submitted that the SS and the SD had been an elite group of the party and that the most active members of the party were involved; that they took over a blind obedience for the Nazi activities and were ready without asking any questions to carry out their tasks, no matter what the sacrifices or cost would be. VII B, I should like to ask you witness, were the paid and honorary members of the SD selected along the lines and principles I enumerated ?
A. The paid and honory members were selected on this basis; that they were skilled and as far as their characters were concerned, decent people.
Q. Perhaps you can answer this question first of all with yes or no.
A. No.
Q. Please give me your reasons now.
A. I have already said that the paid and honorary members were selected on this basis; that they were skilled people and were reliable as far as their character was concerned. Neither for the paid nor for the honorary members was it a prerequisite that they were party members or that they belonged to the SS. political party, no even the Nazi Party, wanted to carry public responsibility for? trial brief against the SS page VII, second paragraph of the document.
A. No.
Q. Did the SD from the time of its establishment until 1939 work secretly and sort of, behind the scenes?