A. No. I could give, a series of examples to prove my point. First of all the paid members were uniforms. They had the insignia of the SD on their sleeves. The officers had insignias and were listed in the telephone directory.
Q. Did the members of the SD, during the period of time from 1934 to 1939, have a common and general agreement to participate in crimes against humanity and war crimes and did they participate in such crimes?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off ?
(A recess was taken).
1 Aug A LJG 18-1 BY DR GAWLIK:
Q. Did the members of the SD during the period from 1934 until 1939 pursue the aim of supporting any individual who had a common plan for the cimmitting of crimes against the laws of warfare or against humanity? receiving information on actual or prospective opponents of the Nazis, contributed to the doing away with the opposition?
A. No.
Q. Can you give reasons for that?
A. Yea. investigate wrong developments in all fields of life. Examples were that it was not the task to start procedures against individuals with other offices.
Q. Was it not a fact that these reports about the situation, about various fields of public life, from the occupation of the Rhineland until the beginning of the second world war that the members of the SD had to be convinced that war was expected by everybody in Germany?
Q Please, will you answer the question with Yes or No?
A I said quite on the contrary. During that period there was hardly anybody in Germany who expected a war. The reports on all walks of life--for instance, the food economy, the industrial-have shown that armament in a limited measure was about to be started but that did not show any indication for an aggressive war or for any preparation for an aggressive war.
1 Aug A LJG 18-2 Was the SD always an inseparable and important part of the SS? and to page 1798 of the English transcript, where that has been alleged by the Prosecution. task for the SS was to help protect meetings, the now task was formed and developed by the staff of the SD. of the English transcript that the General SS was the basis, the root from which the various branches grow. Will you state your opinion about that and your experience concerning the Inland Information Service? Service because only about ten percent of the main functionaries had come from the General SS, the Allgemeine SS, and that leaves 90 percent of all honorary functionaries of the network, the information network, neither members of the SS nor intended to be members of the SS, nor should they have been members of the SS. individual main offices operated together, or were working together automatically in such a way that each branch of the SD would have had a special task within the entire scope of the work? That is the English transcript.
Will you state your opinion on that? SS. The main offices which were under him were in no way commands. They represented to the outside various points of view in different questions. They competed with each other.
1 Aug A LJG 18-3 Frequently they were jealous of each other's authority, and it was not even true that each one of these main offices represented any branch which was necessary for the entity of the SS, because very often their various competencies were overlapping. For instance, in questions of Volk*tum--Folkdom--there were four or five offices co-responsible, and it was not possible, although the suggestion was made, to separate or to limit the competencies to one office. Among these main offices there was no leadership office, had only to supervise he functions of the armed SS, the Waffen SS. if any office ad assumed that leadership, all the other offices would have r*volted against it. of the tasks of the Inland Information Service? opment of the tasks. That task grow out of the work of the office, and it could equally well have developed in some other office, or there were even a large number of cases in which the task, being connected with one individual who was one among others, in which the task suffered because it was not always possible to send reports directly, without sending them to the Reichsfuehrer SS, to the various offices in question.
Q. In order to prove a uniform will and an planned connection between the SD and SS the Prosecution particularly referred to the bock by Dr. Best, "The German Police", and the speech by Himmler about the organization and aims of the SS and police. These are documents PS 1852 and PS 1992. Do you know the book by Dr. Best and do you know that speech by Himmler concerning the organization and the aims of the SS and Police?
A. Generally yes.
Q. Will you please tell us whether in that book by Dr. Best and in the speech by Himmler the relation between the SS and SD is described correctly? concept which in many speeches and publications was designated as "Staats Schutz Korps", a corps for the protection of the state, and that thought of a Staats Schutz Korps has very early been expressed by Himmler and Heydrich since 1936, but its content changed. But although that thought *came back again and again, it was never really put into practice. But individual parts of that concept, that so-called "Staats Schutz Korps" have developed independently, have spread out independently here to have a uniform concept, so that here we can say that it was the wish of Himmler to create that state protection corps, but that the thought never was put into practice.
Q. Did the Higher SS as police leaders do, also have any authority ever the SD, and were they to supervise the activity of the SD ? I refer to the trial brief against the Gestapo and SD, page 12 of the English edition, and the trial brief of the SS, page 12 of the English edition also.
A. The higher SS and police leaders neither had any command authority nor did they have to supervise the SD. They only represented the Reich Fuehrer, so without having any jurisdiction over the Sicherheitsdienst, the SD, any attempts in that direction in connection with the Staats Schutz Korps -- but it was just the Inland, information Service which fought against them and combatted them.
Q. Now I come to the relation between the SD and the Party. How was the connection in the way of organization between the Inland Information Service and the political leadership of the NSDAP?
A. The Inland Information Service was an institution of the Party, but it did not belong to the organization of the political leadership. There was no connection in the way of organization with them. The real and final talk of the Inaldn Information Service was not given to it by the Party. The mission issued by the party had been finished, essentially, in '38 and'39
Q. Did the SD have the mission to help keep the Nazi leaders in power ?
A. The SD had the task of -
Q. Would you first answer the question yes or no?
A. No.
Q. Then please give me your reason.
A. The Security Service had a different task. It had the mission to watch the Consequences of measures by the leadership of the state party in economy and in other fileds and to determine what the people were saying to these measures, how they reacted whether these reactions were positive ones or negative one, and then to inform the leadership about what they had found out.
Q. The Inland Information Service was that the espionage system of the NSDAP? I refer to the trial brief against the SS page 8a and 8b of the English edition.
A. No. First, the Security Service was no espionage service at all. Secondly, it sent its reports to all leadership offices, not only to the party, but also other leading offices of the state.
Q. Now I come to the next subject of evidence, the relation between the SD and the Gestapo. Were the Gestapo and the SD a uniform police system? I refer to the trial brief against the Gestapo and SD page XII, page XIV, XII, XVII, XXL of the English edition. What were the connections between the organizations Gestapo and SD concerning their aims, tasks, activities and methods?
A. First in answer to the first question, it was not a uniform police system, since the SD and police system did not have anything to do with each other. The SD and the secret state police were two entirely different organizations. While the SD had developed from a formation of the Party, the Secret State Police was a continuation of an already existing institution of the State.
Since the Security Service, the SD saw its aim and its task in gaining a correct picture of various forms of life, activities, of ideological groups -- and to take the individual cases as an example, it was the task of the Secret State Police on the basis of laws, decrees, directives, and so on, to deal with that individual case and to take measures of a preventive nature, or police measures; whereas the Secret State Police used methods of an executive type, such as interrogations, confiscations, and so on. The Security Service never had such powers.
Q. What was the task of the SD to support the Security Police such as has been stated in decrees and other regulations on 11 November 1938, document 638 PS?
A. No, that is misunderstood. That has been misunderstood. May I say to that circular decree, circular letter of the 11th of November 1938 just a few words. We are here concerned with the fact that for the first time an agreement had been made between the Security Service and the office of the state. The main purpose of this agreement was that the Security Service was recognized by an office of the state by that decree, and that officials who worked in the SD, not as it had happened up to then, frequently on the basis of that work would have been persecuted for various reasons. The agreement at that time depended on the mentioning of some task vital for the state, because first of all the Security Service on the outside was hardly visible, hardly noticeable. That was in 1938. And then that work in various fields of life could not be mentioned in the decree because the Party did not state it, and therefore Heydirch mentioned they were supporting the Security Police, becaise that could not be checked from the outside.
Q. Did the SD have the task to watch over the members of the Gestapo?
A. No.
Q. Can we concluded from the fact of the institution of inspectors of the Security Police and SD that there was a connection between these two organizations?
A. No; The inspectors had only a certain authority of supervision over the organization; that of directives and tasks were sent down from Berlin.
Q. "hat was the relation between the Department 3 with the Kommandeure of the Security Police and the SD?
A. I don't quite understand that question.
Q. Security Police.
A. The Department 3 of the various offices of the Kommandeure was a department just the same way as the Department 4. They had administrative tasks whereas Department 4 had political tasks. They were departments of the office of the Kommandeure, not parts of institutions of office 3, just as the departments 4 were not departments of the RSHA department 4.
Q. Now I dcome to a short discussion of individual war crimes with which the SD is charged. First, the Einsatzgruppen. I refer to VI-A of the trial brief. Were the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos which were put to use in the East a part of the SD
A. No, these Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos were special institutions of their own.
the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos?
A That question, such as it has been put, has to be answered by no. It is not so that, for instance, parts of that organization were transferred to the Einsatzgruppen Special Task Force. If individual members of the SD were transferred to the Einsatzgruppen or Einsatzkommando, then one can compare that with a military induction. Just as an employee who is a civil servant and who is called into the armed forces can be given different tasks, so that also the case with the SD. As far as they had tasks of security, for instance, a directive came to the Einsatzgruppen from the Office 3 (Amt 3). from the East or reports received from Einsatzgruppen, obtain any knowledge about mass shootings or similar crimes, or crimes against humanity? offices in the Reich, so that the members of these offices could not have any knowledge of these incidents. organization in its administration of concentration camps?
Q Could you give me any reasons for that answer? jurisdiction to do with these matters.
Q Did the SD establish any concentration camps?
Q Did the SD organize any concentration camps? camps? the treatment of inmates of concentration camps?
Q Did the Inland Information Service (Inland Nachrichten Dienst) receive any directives from Himmler to refrain from any action in the case of clashes between Germans and American fliers that had been shot down?
police functions, and it could not intervene, in any case. to pass judgment on persons in shortened proceedings? This question refers to Item VI-H of the trial brief. court of that kind, because that again would have been an executive measure with which the Security Service had nothing to do. or keep then prisoners on account of crimes which allegedly had been committed by relatives? This question refers to VI-J of the trial brief.
Q Did the SD carry out any "third degree" in interrogations? This question refers to Item VI-L. certainly not any with the third degree. the Group 3-A of the RSHA, the Reich Security Main Office, of which you were in charge for some time? of legislation, jurisdiction, and administrative measures on the part of the German people, and these observations were to be put down in the form of reports and made accessible to leadership offices. It was, furthermore, the task of the Group 3-A, in particular the Department 3-A-4, to send regular reports about the reaction of the German population to leadership offices to give them a continuous picture. decrees?
A That question cannot be answered by yes or no. May I take up my group as an example? In my group, at the end, I had about 60 employees. At out 75 percent of those worked there on the basis of legal decrees. For instance, all my chiefs of departments, my four chiefs of departments, had been transferred to the Security Service by orders. I believe that for the entire Security Service, that number may be estimated at from 50 to 60 percent for those people who were working there on directives.
And that comparatively high number results from the fact that once at the beginning of the war a large number of functionaries had been inducted; secondly, that the scope of the task had been increased, and male and female members had to be sent to various territories, and that generally the task of the Security Service grew during the war, and the personnel had to be brought in by draft induction, and so on.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution wish to cross-examine?
MAJOR HURRAY: If the Tribunal please, Major Murray cross-examining for the United-States chief prosecutor.
BY MAJOR MURRAY:
Q Witness, when did you become chief of Office 3-A in the RSHA?
Q Who was the chief of Amt 3 at thay time and for some time prior thereto?
Q At times you substituted for Ohlendorf, did you not?
Q At various times during your career, you took Ohlendorf's place as Chief of Amt 3, did you met?
A No. When I was in that office, Ohlendorf, all during that time, was present. Besides, there was no deputy for him. When he was away, the chiefs of the various groups represented him for their various fields. But during the period while I was in Berlin, that happened very rarely.
Q Do you know Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl, who was a member of Amt 6, RSHA?
A Hay I ask for the name again, please?
Q Perhaps I do not pronounce it properly. Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl, spelled H-O-E-T-T-L.
A Hoettl? No; I only met him here. met him here?
A No. I have not spoken to Hoettl here, either.
MAJOR MURRAY: With the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to read briefly from the affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl, Document 2614 PS, dealing with the activities of the SD.
This will be USA 918. Dr. Hoettl executed this affidavit on 5 November, 1945:
"It was the task of the SD to inform its chief Himmler and through him the Nazi regime about all matters within Germany, the occupied countries, and the other foreign countries. This task was carried out in Germany by the Department III - Information Service for Germany proper -- and abroad by Department VI -Foreign Information Service." Skipping a few lines:
"For the tasks in Germany proper the Department III had organized a large not of informers who operated out of the various regional offices of the SD. This organization consisted of many hundred of professional SD members who were assisted by thousands of honorary SD members and informers. These informers and honorary collaborators of the SD were placed in all fields of business, education state and party administration. Frequently they performed their duties secretly in their organizations. This information service reported on the morale of the German people, on all the important events in the state, as well as on individual
BY MAJOR MURRAY:
Q Do you consider this a fair statement of the task of the SD?
THE PRESIDENT: Answer the question, please. Witness, answer the question: Do you consider it a fair statement of the work of the SD? No, you need not go on reading the rest of the document. Answer the question.
A There are truths and untruths mixed. I feel that the manner in which this report judges the Security Service very superficial. It does not give the impression that Hoettl had been in the Security Service for a long time. and 1942, the head of Einsatzgruppe D in southern Russia? You were informed of that, were you not? members of the SD and of the Gestapo and of the Criminal. Police?
Q You knew that they were commanded by SD members, did you not? organizations, members of the State Police, Criminal Police, and Security Police. I myself, for instance, was never used there.
MAYOR MURRAY: I would like to refer, of the Tribunal please, to the affidavit of Ohlendorf. This is document No. 2620-PS, becoming USA 919. This affidavit has not been used in evidence before. This affidavit of Ohlendorf, which is very brief, states: "The Einsatzgruppen and the Einsatzkommando were commanded by personal of the Gestapo, the SD, who are the Criminal Police. Additional men were detailed form the regular police." And dropping down a few lines: "Usually the smaller units were led by members --"
THE WITNESS: May I interrupt you? Excuse me please. It doesn't say here that members of the regular police were loading them. It says only that additional troops were provided by the Order Police. BY MAJOR MURRAY:
Q Yes, I skipped that. Skipping down a few lines: "Usually the smaller units were led by members of the SD, the Gestapo, or the Criminal Police." So that actually members of the SD were leading these Einsatzgruppen in the cast, were they not?
Police, and other Criminal Police as well were in charge of these Commands. the performance of their tasks, didn't they?
A Excuse me. I only understood a few word. Einsatzgruppen leaders were these uniforms? their duties in the east, is that true? had the sign SD. That was one of the main reasons for misunderstandings which happened, because also members of the Security Police were that sign of the SD. They referred to the special organization of the SD which I have mentioned in the beginning today, and because beyond that even those members of the Einsatzgruppe und Einsatzkommandos were that who were not even members and who, in peace time, had never worn any uniform; they were sent into the Einsatzgruppe as so-called Uniformtraeger, wearer of uniforms. and may of those officers were the uniform of the SD while killing these people in the eastern territories; isn't that true?
A I don't understand the sense of the question. There were very few people of the SD who weren't either Einsatzgruppen or Einsatzkommandos and these leaders, during the intire time, were the uniform with the SD on the sleeve.
MAJOR MURRAY: If the Tribunal please, I should like to bring into evidence another brief document, document 2992-PS, USA 494. This is a portion of that affidavit which has not previously been read into evidence. It is the affidavit of Hermann Friedrich Rabe. I am sure the Tribunal will recall that affidavit where this German citizen recounted the SS and SD men shooting large numbers of helpless individuals, the document which was referred to by the Attorney General of Great Britain a few days ago.
In the first part of that affidavit Rabe states: "SS men acting as the executioner on the edge of the pit during the shooting of Jewish men -- "
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. This document is in evidence already, isn't it?
MAJOR MURRAY: It is, My Lord, but not this particular portion of it referring to the SD. I did not intend to repeat the other portions but this portion refers specifically to the SD and it is only that two sentences that I intend to read.
Paragraph 1 says: "The SS men acting as the executioner on the edge of the pit during the shooting of Jewish men, women and children, at the airport mear Dubno, were an SS uniform with a gray armband about three centimeters wide on the lower part of his sleeve, with the letters " SD " in black on it, woven or embroidered." and drooping down to the last portion of the second paragraph, "On the morning of 14 July I recognized three or four SS men in the ghetto whom I know personally and who were all members of the Security Service in Ravno. These persons also were the armband mentioned above." Einsatzkommandos were members of your SD organization? and Einsatzkommandos, few members of the SD, and it is not said here at all that these people to whom reference is made in this document had anything to do with the Inland Information Service; and if one was there who belonged to the Inland information service, which can not be seen from the documeny, because it only says that they were a uniform with the sign SD, then he had been ordered for that particular work such as anybody may be inducted for military service.
That is just the main reason for a large number of mistakes which are made with that concept of the SD, that the members had the same uniform as these who were in the Einsatzgruppe.
Q. In any event, Ohlendorf was a member of the SD, was he not?
A. Ohlendorf was Chief of Amt 3, but that hah no connection with the fact that he was also commander of an Einsatzgruppe. That Einsatzgruppe could just as well have been commanded by the chief of Amt 4, 5, an inspector or anybody else. That had nothing to do with the activity of Ohlendorf as Chief of Amt 3.
Q. Now, Ohlendorf has testified that frequent reports were compiled by the Einsatzgruppen and sent back to the headquarters, did you see any of these reports while you were in the headquarters of R.S.H.A. ?
A. No. That was not possible because during that period when I was in Berlin these Einsetzgruppen from the east had been recalled, most of them at least. At any rate, there were no more reports; and I am of the opinion generally that in Amt 3, that is the Inland Information Service, only very for people ever saw the reports that came from the Einsatzgruppen.
Q. I would like to have shown to you a series of 55 weekly reports of the activities of the Einsatzgruppen, and, incidentally, the Einsatzgruppen are known as the Einsatzgruppen of the Security police and the SD.
A. No, no, no. There were no Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the Security Service, SD, but there were only the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C and D in the east; and there were good reasons for that.
Q. Before submitting that document to you, witness, I'd like to have you examine document No. 3876-PS, which has already been admitted in evidence as USA 808. I call your attention to the title page of that document, signed by Hoydrich, which reads as follows: " I herewith enclose the summary report concerning the activity of the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD in the U.S.S.R. This report will be sent periodically in the future." Signed Heydrich.
Aren't you mistaken, Witness, in saying that these were not known as Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and SD?
A No. The Einsatzgruppen figured as Einsatzgruppen B, C and D. They were commanded by a plenipotentiary of the Chief of the Security Police and the D with the army groups or army. That designation of Einsatzgruppe of the Security Police or SD is unfortunately wrong. documents are wrong?
AApart from that -- no, I don't want to sap that the document is false. I only say that this expression is not correct. Look at the distribution list. It says on the distribution list: "The chiefs of Einsatzgruppe A, B, C and D."Beside, the Einsatzkommandos are not called kommandos but had Arabic numerals; that is one to twelve, as far as I am informed.
Q: This, of course, is a report of your chief, Heydrich, and I won't enlarge on the point. Turn now to page 31 and 32. It is at the bottom of page 32 in Heydrich's...
A. One moment please. There is no page 31 or 32 in my document.
Q. It is a very short passage. I will read it to you. In White Ruthenia the purge of Jews is under way. The number of Jews in the part up to now handed over to the civil administration amounts to 139,000 "
A. Yes, now I have it.
Q. Now, go down to the last sentence. "In the meantime, 33,210 Jews were shot by the Einsatz groups of the security Police and the security Service SD". It doesn't say anything there about groups A, B, C, or D, does it ?
A. No, it says Security Police and SD, Only, I don't understand what that has to do with the inland information service, Security Service.
Q. [Except that Ohlendorf was the head of your service, wasn't he ?
A. He functioned as chief of Amt III at Berlin but during the time when the Einsatz groups were out, he was in the field and that was handled like any other induction of a particular service.
Q. witness, are you informed of the fact that the SD was carry in on espionage activities in the United States prior to Germany's declaration of war against the United stages ?
A. I cannot imagine that the Inland information service would have worked in the United States.
Q. I would like to offer in evidence, if the Tribunal please, document number 5043 -PS which becomes USA-920. This document is a teletype message of the foreign Office, dated 11 July 1941. I will read just one sentence from this one document. "Reference teletype No. 2110 of 5.7 from Washington Herr Reich Foreign Minister "That was Ribbentrop, was it not? "Herr Reich Foreign Minister requests you submit immediately a written report regarding who amongst these in New York arrested on suspicion of espionage worked with the Abwehr und with the SD.
service in New York prior to the declaration of war against the United States ?
A : One of the first questions which my counsel presented to me was the one whether one could designate the Foreign Information Service as SD. I said, " Yes ", and further clarification was that Inland Information Service and Foreign Information Service were different sections. Whether Amt VI had anything to do with this I cannot say. I was in Amt III and I did not know anything about these things that went on in Amt VI.
MAJOR MRRAY: Well, they were all part of the SD. Whether or not you refer to the SD numerically, they were all part of the SD.
THE PRESIDENT : Would you re-examine the witness if you want to ? Did the Soviet Prosecutor want to ask any questions ?
COLONEL SMYRNOW : Mr. President, I did want to put a few questions to the witness, but these questions are in connection with one new document -- quite an interesting document - which we only received today, and for this reason, we have not had the translation into English made up. Therefore, I do not know whether it would be appropriate for me to put this question now when I do not have an English translation to present to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we could do it in the morning. It would be translated by then. Perhaps you could do it in the morning ?
COLONEL SMYRNOW : Thank you very much, Mr. President, yes.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Gawlik, would you re-examine him now ?
DR. GAWLIK : Mr. President, I do not know whether I should wait for the new document and if I won't have a few questions after the new document is presented. That, of course, I could not do now.
THE PRESIDENT : Well, if there is anything that arises from the new document, you could put the questions later on. You will have a better opportunity if necessary.
DR. GAWLIK : Yes, I see.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK: who had nothing to do with the SD ? who had nothing to do with the SS ? not anything to do with the SD were the SD sign ? A Because all members of the Security Police were that 1 Aug A LJG 22-1* uniform because any man who did any service with the Einsatz commandos or Einsatz groups had to wear a uniform and the only uniform was the gray uniform of the SD.