Q Dr. Lehmann?
2 Aug M LJG 5-6
Q Schultze? and it should be "Schultz".
Q That is right, "Schultz".
A Yes, I know. Here we have "Schultze."
Q That is a mistake. I have it as " Schultz."
Q Was he a staff member of the SD? where in Northern Germany.
Q Do you know Biermann? name.
Q Who was he?
A I beg your pardon? I think that he was then Stabsleiter Later he became Inspector of the Sicherheitspolizei.
Q Do you know Heinrich, Dr. Heinrich?
A I didn't know him. Was he Einsatz Commander 10?
A I didn't know him.
Q Hoffmann?
A I knew him by name but I didn't know him personally.
Q You are acquainted with the post he hold though? heit police, but I can't quite remember what he was, inspector in Berlin
Q Inspector of S.D.?
A There were no S.D. inspectors at that time; there were only inspectors of the Sicherheits police.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I have no more questions about the chart, Mr. President. May I ask some other questions?
THE PRESIDENT : These words "E.K." in the circle at the bottom mean Einsatzkommando I suppose, do they? And will you tell the Tribunal what the purpose of the chart is? What is the organization which it is supposed to define?
The translation didn't come through.
THE WITNESS : Could you repeat your question, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT : What is the organization which the chart is supposed to define?
THE WITNESS : I suppose that it is the preparation of some plan of Gruppenfuehrer Hoydrich which the offices of the Sicherheits police and the SD, which were beneath him. were preparing for some eventual development with Czechoclovakia, as it was at that time, and where the Einsats-kommandos could be used. Then actually, later, when the marching into Czechoslovakia occured, there were units of the Sicherheits police and of the SD which were called into Czechoslovakia the same time and which, just like the Einsatskommandos and the Eisatzgruppen in the east, were mobile units, units of a very special nature which had been newly set up and had entirely new tasks, and which later were dissolved as the State police office in Prague under the SD was organized.
THE PRESIDENT : Well, I am not concerned with whether they were later dissolved. Heydrick, I suppose, was in command of the whole of the SD, was he not?
THE WITNESS : Yes, Heydrich was head of the SD head office and at the same time head of the Sicherheits police, personally united in him.
THE PRESIDENT : Was Stahlecker a member of the Information Branch of the SD that you are speaking of?
THE WITNESS : I cannot state that in detail. If I remember correctly, Stahlecker had at that are some function in east Prussia.
THE PRUSSIA : You said it just now, I thought, that Stahlecker was in Berlin?
THE WITNESS : In East Prussia at that time. In opinion, Guenther was in Berlin. His name was also mentioned previously.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes. Well, was he a member of the SD Information Service?
THE WITNESS : Yes, I think that he was then head of the Berlin Oberabschnitt. I can not say it with certainty.
THE PRESIDENT : Was he also a member of the SD information Service?
THE WITNESS: I Don't know in what office Erlanger was then employed. I heard his name only later as head of Office I.
THE PRESIDENT : What about Rauf?
THE WITNESS : Rauf was then in charge of the transportation of the SD head office, but --
THE PRESIDENT : But the information service of the SD, was he a member? Was Rauf a member of the SD information services?
THE WITNESS : He was head of a technical department in the SD head office. In the SD head office at that time, which handled foreign information and domestic information, in central head office No. 1 he had a technical office
THE PRESIDENT : One of his functions was to work in the Information Service of the SD, in the domestic Information Service of the SR?
THE WITNESS : He had also the truck transportation for the domestic --
THE PRESIDENT : Yes, but you can answer the question yes or no. Was it part of his function to work in the domestic Information Service of the SD?
THE WITNESS: Well, he had no competence, as you call it, in the domestic Information Service of the SD?
THE WITNESS: As far as I can remember, he had only the truck transportation of the SD head office; also for the domestic Information Service.
THE PRESIDENT: Doesn't that chart show that the SD was working in close coordination with the Gestapo?
THE WITNESS: The chart shows, in my opinion, only that the head of the to organizations was preparing, in case of searching in Czechoslovakia, an organization of men who could be used for Einsatz.
THE PRESIDENT: And don't these documents show that your comment about the first document was inaccurage and that that document was being used by Schellengerg in September, 1938, for the purpose of organizing the SD in Czechoslovakia?
THE WITNESS: I think it impossible that this document should have been used, because in that case the date would have been added to it; and, secondly, then the Roman figures at the end of the document would have been initials. Whether another draft was m* later and submitted, that I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you see that the first document is headed Roman III, Arabic 225. The letter to Dr. Best is also headed Roman III, 225, and it refers to the suggestion which is not doubt contained in that document; and the chart itself is also headed III, 225.
THE WITNESS: Yes; I suppose that some other draft was made perhaps months later, and this draft was almost certainly not us because then, in any case, all the Roman figures would have been initials. In any case, the former Roman figure III had nothing to do with the later organization, because the department for which Roman III later went out was Central 22.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, in connection with the witness' replies on the fact that he does not know whether the staff members of SD made up the lists of persons who were to be annihilated or mobilized forcibly or else arrested and placed in the concentration camps, in connection with that, I would like your permission to submit another short document relating this till to Poland, and which consists of the instructions of the SD Chief in Poland to his trusted collaborators. I ask your permission to submit this document.
THE WITNESS: May I say one more word. There is nothing my document about annihilation or concentration camps.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: You will now have the document before you.
May I quote the document? It is USSR 522. I quote:
"Security Service of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Block Station Macheganeaa, 24 August 1943."
Translating verbatim. "To Trusted persons. Subtitle: The preparation of the lists of Poles." The text follows: "I have to point out to you the necessity of paying special attention to the Poles. For that reason, I am giving below the speech of the Reichsfuehrer of the SS, Himmler, given on 15 March 1940 at the staff meeting of the concentration camp commanders in Poland, and according to the directives given in that speech, I ask you to submit to me the list of names of all the concerned Poles." Extract from speech, I quote: "For that reason, it is necessary that all our collaborators, male and female, consider as their most important and serious problem to be to render harmless all the leaders and potential leaders of the Polish people. You, as commanders of the concentration camps, are best informed on how to fulfill the problem. All experts and specially qualified workers of Polish origin we mustutilize in our war industries; also, later all such Poles will be done away with altogether. In fulfilling this very responsible task, you must, within the prescribed limits of time, exterminate the Poles. I give this directive to all the camp commanders. The hour is coming when every German will have to prove himself. For that reason, it is necessary that the great German people understand that its most important task right now is to exterminate all the Poles, I expect from all my trusted colleagues and plenipotentiaries immediate reports on all the Polish anti-German activity. For such tasks we must also utilize all children and aged persons, who can play a considerable role in helping us with this, for it is public knowledge that such people know Poles. Heil Hitler." The signature is illegible but the date is 1 5 March 1940. BY COLONEL SMIRNOV: you still deny that the workers of the SD in the occupied territories trained and oriented all persons they could use to make up lists of such persons that were to be annihilated? of the nature of this document.
in the building of the SD.
A I take, for example, the word "camp commander" as being absolutely impossible. I don't see what it could refer to, and it seems to me impossible to ascertain what "Polish defeatist" might mean. It seems to me absolutely -- it seems to me that the Poles, of course, hoped that Germany would lose the war -
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I am not asking you to make propagandistic speeches on the subject of Poland. I am asking you something quite different. I am asking you this question: Are you denying the fact that the SD trained and oriented persons collaborating with it to make lists of persons to be annihilated?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: What evidence is there that this document was found in the SD headquarters?
Your answer didn't come through.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: This was not found at the central headquarters. Mr. President. It was not translated to you correctly if that is what was said. The document was found, by the Polish Army -
THE PRESIDENT: What was translated to me was that it was captured by the Polish Army at SD Headquarters. Is that right?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: That is right, but not at the central headquarters of the SD for Poland but at the Headquarters in the Block Station of Macheganeau.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't say anything about the central headquarters. All I want to know is what evidence there is that it was found at the headquarters of the SD.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. May I now read the document of the Polish delegation on the subject which says, "It is hereby certified that the submitted document in the German language dated 24 August 1943 consists of the instructions of the Security Police in the City of Mogilno of the Reichsfuehrer SS, containing the extract from Himmler's speech and that it is the exact photostatic copy of the original submitted by the Chief Commission for the Extermination of Nazi crimes in Poland."
The original was found in an envelope. At the left top there was stated Sicherheitsdienst, and county of Mogilno. The rest contains a number and a statement in German, but the date is 24 August 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry, I didn't hear the beginning of what you said. What are you reading from now?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I an reading Mr. President, from the certificate which the Polish delegation submitted on the subject of this document. This was a document which was submitted to us by the Polish delegation.
THE PRESIDENT: How did it certify this particular document? You see, we have a document produced before us which appears to have nothing on it which connects it with that certificate. I mean, how do you connect it with the certificate?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I was just handed a note here from our documentary section which says that since the Tribunal has the original, nevertheless, the original does not have the certificate of the Polish delegation attached to it, whereas, I have the certificate attached to my document and this is why I wanted to read it to you. I am very sorry about the mistake.
THE PRESIDENT: And the certificate you have identifies the translation you have in Russian? It identifies your copy as being a true copy?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, yesterday I myself verified the translation which I have with the original, and I have found it to be accurate and correct, and the certificate also states that the Russian translation is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you must offer in evidence that certificate in order to make it clear that this is the document which was found at this SD headquarters at Mogilno.
That should be attached to this exhibit. Has this got a number, the exhibit? Is it 552?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, the number is USSR-522, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: We will have to have the certificate attached to it then we shall be able to look at it.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. I have no more questions to ask this witness, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A short recess was taken.)
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President in connection with one of the points to which my eminent American colleague has drawn my attention, I request your permission to put here another question to the witness concerning the first document which I submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Which was the first?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: This is USSR 509, the chart.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION (continued) BY COLONEL SMIRNOV:
Q. Witness, will you kindly tell us -- Do you deny that Gengenbach, who is to be found in this chart as belonging to the Einstzgruppen -- You will be shown the chart in a minute -- was a member of the SD?
A. He was a member of the SD.
Q. He was a member of the SD?
A. Yes, he was. He was a Gruppenleiter of III-A. He was my immediate superior.
Q. Tell us then-- Wasn't it you who represented him later on?
A. I was the successor of Gengenbach but not his deputy. When I came to Berlin he was already dead. As I set down, Gengenbach was not in Berlin yet but as far as I can recall today from later knowledge, I met him only during the war.
Q. But, at any rate, you did afterwards assume the activities which were assumed before by Gengenbach?
A. The service which Gengenbach did later in Berlin, I took ever from him. He was a Gruppenleiter of III-A.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Thank you very much. The American prosecution, Mr. President, had a copy of the document which has already been submitted under No. L-185, USA 484, and it is stated here in the places underlined that the head of the division III-A was Gengenbach, that is the same man who is to be found in the chart. I have no further questions to put to the witness, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the speech of Himmler, dated 15 March 1940, already been put in evidence.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: As far as I Know, Mr. President, no. At any rate, I do not know this speech.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Now Dr. Gawlik. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, do you still have document USSR 509 ?
A. I have no documents at all.
Q. Witness, please look at page 1. What was the task of these Einsatzgruppen which were to be employed in Czechoslovakia ?
A. I do not know; I had nothing to do with the preparation of this task.
Q. I said please look at page one.
A. "To secure political life and to secure national economy", it says on page one.
Q. Was this a completely different task which later in 1941 was given to Einsatzgruppen A,B,C, and D in the East ?
A. I do not know the tasks in the East very well either because I had nothing to do with them but as far as I am informed, the Einstzgruppen in the East certainly had nothing to do with safeguarding the national economy. The Einstzgruppen in the East had to secure the rear army area.
Q. Please look at the chart. the organization of these Einsatzgruppen A. The handwritten one or the printed one ?Q. The second one.
With the aid of this chart, can you answer the question whether these Einsatzgruppen belonged to the organization of the SD ?
A. You mean the chart that says "Staff SS Grupenfuehrer Heydrich", at the top ?
Q. Yes, that is the chart I mean.
A. No. that was not an organization of the security service but was something completely new.
Q. Regarding the tasks these Einsatzgruppen had, these Einsatzstaebe belonged to the tasks of the security service.
A. I do not know the tasks which were assigned to these Einsatzstaebe. In this case, the assignment on page one said the national economy is not a task of the security service; it is not an information service and safeguarding of political life has nothing to do with the information service.
Q. A part of the organization of the SD was used by these Einsatztaebe -- Can you answer the question with the aid of this chart ?
A. As far as the chart shows, parts of the organization were not used but only individual members of the security service, just as the State Police and individuals, just as later in the Einsatzgruppen in the East may have been the case. This can be compared with being drafted into the Wehrmacht.
Q. Were the individual members of the security service, by being assigned to the Einsatzstaebe, were they removed from the activity of the security service ?
A. Yes, of course. Then they had completely different tasks. I can only make this comparison: If a judge is drafted into the army, then he no longer carries on his activity as a judge.
Q. Among the members of the security service, particularly the members of the subordinate agencies, the directing of branches, by the use of this Einsatzstaebe, was it generally known to them ?
A. In no way.
Q. Now, I come to the second document that deals with the letter of the Aussenstelle IV. What was a "Blockstelle" ?
A. In the structure of the security service, the term "Blockstelle" did not exist but, nevertheless, it is possible that branches organized subbranches and used this term; in general, under a branch was called an "Observer" (Beobachter).
Q. What was the staff of a bran Aussenstelle in general ?
A. According to the period and according to the significance of the branch, it differed considerably.
On the average, it was about 1943 or 1944 -- there were one or two regular officials in a branch and a large number of honorary workers and the head of the branch was often a honorary official or sometimes a regular one.
Q. Was the Blockstelle above an Aussenstelle or was it subordinate to it A. Above the Aussenstelle was the Abschnitt and certainly not a Blockstelle and as I said before, the individual Aussenstelle in part selected terms which were not established by an organization with observers (Beobacht) Q Did Amt III issue any orders established in this document ?acting on his own initiative ? I mean the head of the Blockstelle ?
A In case Himmler did make this speech, that would be true. I cannot imagine Himmler saying that he expected this from these men.
Q I am not speaking of Himmler. I am speaking of the head of the Aussenstelle.
A But the instructions are the speech of Himmler. Do you mean the instructions in the first sentence to give especial attention to Poland? The head of the Blockstelle in Mogilnow will of course care for the Poles in the same way as ha cared for the Germans. But of course he was interested in the general mood of the Poles, and he reported to the main office, Roman Numeral III-B.
THE PRESIDENT: Was this shown in cross-examination ?
DR. GAWLIK: I have a few more questions in connection with the question which the Chairman asked yesterday at the end of the session.
THE PRESIDENT: You are putting in some document which has not been referred to before.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. Chairman, the document was submitted yesterday by the American prosecution.
Q THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon.
A WITNESS: I have here the English text of the document.
Q Please look at page 45 now. Among the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C and D, were there Commanders of the Security Police and the SD ?
A No, that is something different. The Einsatzgruppen were mobile units, which advanced together with the Wehrmacht in the rear Army area. The Officers and Commander were Officers in the Civilian Administration. An area was taken in a civil administration, and an Officer was set up.
Q How was the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D organized ?
Q What names did these Einsatzkommandos have ?
A These Einsatzkommandos have no names at all, but as said yesterday, they were numbered from 1 to 10, as far as I can recall, or 11 to 12.
Q Please look at the distribution. Where it says that the Chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D, are to receive copies for the Commanders of the Security Police and the SD.
A No, that is wrongly translated. It should be the Kommandeure of the Security Police and the SD. The Kommandeure of the Security Police and the SD were under it. To make it more clearly, the Einsatzkommandos was not lead by a Kommandeure of the Security Police and the SD, but by a Commander of Einsatzkommandos of 1, 2, 3, etcetera. In the section under civil administration, as in occupied France for instance, there were agencies of the Kommandeure, the Security Police and the SD. That was different.
Q Who were the officers superior to the Kommandeure ?
Q Who were their superiors ?
Q Who was the superior of Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D ?
A That cannot be answered in one word. The Chief of the Einsatzgruppen had two superiors. In the first place, they were assigned to the Army group in question, and had to take instructions from the Chief of the Army group. On the other hand, they received instructions from the Chief of the Security Police and the SD. That is the very reason why I said yesterday that they were entirely unique and different.
Q Now I ask you again. If the Kommandeur and the Security Police and the SD did not belong to the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D -
THE PRESIDENT: Hasn't all this seen the roughly gone into before ? I mean, we have the document. We have asked the witness a number of questions and he has given his answers. You are now asking him the same questions over again.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. Chairman, I only have one more question in regard to the copies.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask your one question then.
Q Why did the chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D receive copies for the commanders of the Security Police and the SD, if they are completely separate organizations ? for the same purpose, or, as I assume, this was not a clear way of expressing it.
I had a German copy yesterday. Various words were used for the Kommandeur. Sometimes it was Commander and sometimes another word, Befehlshaber. Completely different words. I had a German copy yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire. Dr. Gawlik, your next witness.
DR. GAWLIK: With the permission of the court, I call as the next witness, Dr. Roessner.
DR. HANS ROESSNER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your name, please ?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q When were you born ?
Q Please describe briefly your professional career ? the German language, and literature, then English and German theology. From '36 I was assistant at the University of Bonn. In. 1939 to '40 military service I. 1940 deferred for the University of Bonn and emergency service in the Reichsicherheitshauptamt, AMT III.
Q Since when have you been a party member ?
Q What office did you have ?
Q. Do you know of the tasks, methods and aims Group 3-C ?
A. Yes, I know them.
Q. Please wait a little before you answer. In addition, do you also know of the tasts, methods and aims of Amt. 3 ?
A. Yes, I also know these, because they were fundamentally the same as those of Group 3-C.
Q. What were the tasks and aims of Amt. 3 from the time since 1939 ?
A. Amt 3 was an internal German information service. It had ideological aims and tasks itself and worked independent from the domestic German sphere of life, that is to say it took up important questions of domestic German life in various fields, such as economics, culture, administration of law and others as far as information service was concerned and in particular attempted to sum up criticism on the part of the population regarding mistakes inside developments, etc., and to report on them.
Q. Please rive a few examples by way of explanation ?
A. For example, every week and sometimes daily, Amt. 3 reported on the opinion of the population on German propaganda to the agencies concerned. In 1943 for example, Amt. 3 through its reports prevented the closing of German Universities in spite of German's warfare.
Q. The prosecution has submitted, on page 11 of the English trial brief, that Amt 3. did the police tasks in all phases of German life. Bid Amt. 3 carry out police work ?
A. In all, Amt. 3 never had any police tasks.
Q. Did the SD Amt. 3 have the practical task and the fundamental aim of giving information through its information center on actual and possible opponents of the Nazi movement. This refers to page 17 of the trial brief.
A. No. Amt 3 was not the information service on opponents, but on the German domestic life.
Q. That was the purpose of the information service reports of Amt. 3 ? In particular, was the man pursuit to support the leaders of the party and state as part of a conspiracy to keep them in power ?
A. No. Amt. 3 never had such a task and did not set up such a task for itself. The task of the information service of Amt. 3 was to create an extensive picture of the domestic questions of German internal life and to present them uncamouflaged.
Q. Did the members of Amt. 3 know that the leaders of the party and the state were participating in a secret plan for the purpose of committing crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity?
A. To my knowledge, the members of Amt. 3 did not know anything about this. All the material collected by all members of Amt 3 is evidenced to the contrary.
Q. Can you answer this question of the members and honorary members of the subordinate agencies?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the close collaborators of the chief of Amt. 3 know of such a conspiracy?
A. No. Not even the closest collaborators knew anything about this.
Q. On what is your knowledge based for your answers to the last few questions?
A. I often participated in internal Gruppenleiter conferences with the chief of Amt. 3.
Q. Were the tasks and aims of the domestic information service known to all workers even in the subordinate agencies?
A. Yes, the tasks and aims were known to the workers and honorary workers of the subordinate agencies. They were continually announced in the individual meetings.
Q. On what is your knowledge based by reason of which you have answered my last question?
A. From numerous individual conferences and meetings where I myself announced the aims and tasks of Amt. 3.
Q. In the reports made on a situation, were the names of the persons mentioned?
A. No, not usually, since the SD was not interested in the names of individual persons, but in typical examples of questions regarding the sphere of life.
Q. In giving personnel data, was the aim pursued, to bring persons into influential state position, who would not oppose the execution of a plan for war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity?
A. No, Amt. 3 did not present such data and reports of the SD were kept separate from the reports on this situation. The SD, Amt. 3 gave personnel data, but did not have permission to pass judgment on people. That was the sole task of the Hoheitstraeger the party.
Q. What was the purpose of giving out information on personnel data by the SD ?
A. This was to substitute the political judgment and purely specialized judgment of the individual party officers and departments and present if possible a total picture of the personality, character, ability, political attitude and personal life independent of any departmental point of view or power or political interest.
Q. The prosecution describes the tasks of the SD as follows: The task consisted of taking necessary steps to destroy or make harmless the opposition Does this correspond with the actual facts and ideological aims of Ant. 3 from the period since 1939?
A. No, by no means. I have already emphasized the fact that Amt. 3 was not an intelligence service for gathering news about opponents.
Q. When did Amt. 3 give up this task?
A. Amt. 3 never had this task.
Q. The prosecution further submitted that the SD had an extensive spy net that would spy on the German people in their daily work, on the streets and even in the sanctified halls of church. This is on page 66 of the English trial brief and states that the SD conducted such an extensive spy net work as described.
A. During the whole period of its existence, Amt. 3 never in the internal general sphere of life worked with spys or a spy net work. The spy net work would have contradicted all the aims of this internal German information service.
Q. Did the SD for its tasks use only regular officials?
A. No, they were by far the smaller percentage. The work of the internal SD was dependant upon the big staff of honorary workers from all parts of the country and all professions.
Q. Can you give any figures?
A. I cannot give accurate figures, but in the last few years we estimated the honorary workers at about 10,000. They worked on a complete voluntary basis and a large part worked on their own initiative for the internal SD.