information service for internal German spheres of life chosen? interests he would give clear and objective information on questions relating to his field, on questions relating to the population amongst whom he lived any other concerns and critical statements of the population with which he came in contact. In addition, he had to be a person of decent character.
Q Did these agents have to be members of the party?
A No, by no means. It was even worse not to have a large or at least a percentage of non-party members amongst these agents of the SD so as to get a complete and independent picture of the total situation within Germany from some of these agents.
Q Did the agents have to be members of the SS? according to my estimate, still less than of party members.
Q What were the tasks of these agents?
A The tasks varied. In Amt III we had agents who were to give general information on the mind, conduct and opinions of the population and on urgent questions during the course of the war years. Then we had another type of agent who were to give information on the professional workers and on question relating to the specialist fields, on which they were able to comment and which they understood.
Q What was the task of the SD Arbeitskreise? were called together for conferences and these Arbeitskreise were absolutely free and frank; the opinions on technical questions and measures of the party, and measures of the state agencies were expressed. These were discussed and this criticism was then sent to Ant III in Berlin. The main prerequisite was absolute objectively and absolute frankness and criticism.
Q Did the agents or the Arbeitskreise work under any special cover? This question refers to the trial brief, page 16.
A I do not know what you mean by the expression, cloak of secrecy. I can answer these agents never acted under any special personal secrecy and these Arbeitskreise, which I just mentioned, had no special obligation for secrecy.
They were publicly known as such.
Q Were there, aside from the obligated agents other agents of the SD?
A Yes. In the last few years of our work there were representatives of the various occupations and part of the population, who on their own initiative came with some criticism, some positive suggestion to the SD, in order, on the basis of a personal confidence in the SD, to be able to turn over its worries to it. It deals with the decree concerning political prisoners and the turning over of prisoners of war to the Gestapo. It is the first point of the Indictment VI (c) against the SD.
Was the SD competent to execute this decree? had no executive power.
Q Can you give any further explanation of the individual documents? One document mentions the chief of Amt III. The document of the Wehrmacht also refers to the Gestapo. decrees? deportation of citizens of the occupied territories for forced labor? competent.
Q Did the SD have the power to inflict punishment on forced laborers? This question refers to page 1941 of the English transcript.
Q Did the SD, through its reports, contribute to deportations?
A No, quite on the contrary. Ant III repeatedly contradicted the negative effects of such measures.
Reich? III did not have.
Q Now, I show you document PS 205. This is a memorandum on the general principles for the treatment of foreigners employed in the Reich. Did the SD have any part in the drafting of this memorandum? this memorandum. It made its material available in the formulation of a positive treatment of foreign workers. This material, which was used in this memorandum, corresponded to the basic principles of the domestic SD in the treatment of national questions in the European area. memorandum? of that section.
Q Did the SD, Amt III have the right to make confiscations? This question refers to the part of the Indictment, VI (c) and to the trial brief.
A No, the SD had no right to confiscate. This also would have been an executive task. and private property, the SD domestic information service?
Q On page 51 of the trial brief, it says, referring to document 071-PS:
"In connection with the planned confiscation of scientific, religious and art archives, an agreement was reached between Rosenberg and Heydrich on the basis of which the SD and Rosenberg were to cooperate closely in the confiscation of public and private collections." defendant Rosenberg, his agencies or any of the deputies?
A No. This document is again the customary mistake as between the Security Police and the SD. Such cooperation if it existed would have had to be known to me since Group 3C would have been competent for it.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. Chairman, I now come to my last point. Shall I begin it?
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any questions to ask upon it? It looks as if you had, so perhaps we had better adjourn.
DR. GAWLIK: There are 34 questions.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 2 August 1946.)
HANS ROESSIER _- Resumed BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. We come now to my last point, the Persecution of the Church, the Trial Brief paragraph 7(b). I ask the Tribunal to turn its attention to the fact that the SD was said to be active only until the 12th of May, 1940, on page 60 of the English Trial Brief. My taking of testimony limits itself to the activity up to 12 May 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Which does that mean, May 1940 or May 1941?
Dr. GAWLIK: The 12th of May 1941, page 64 of the last but one section of the Trial Brief, where it is said that the political handling of the Church was divided between the Gestapo and the SD and from that point on was taken over entirely by the Gestapo.
Q. Did Division 3 c 2 handle church questions?
A. No.
Q. Did any other office in Division 3 handle church questions?
A. No. Since the foundation of Amt III, no church matters were handled in this office.
Q. What was handled in Amt III?
A. In Amt III, Group 3 c, only general religious matters were handled in various realms of life.
Q. In what manner would matters regarding religious life be handled?
A. The principles of the handling were the same as for any other sphere of life. It was the task of Amt III to watch all proposals and movements of the religious in the German population in the Reich and to report on the opinions of these groups and send reports in.
Q. The Prosecution has stated that the persecution of the churches was one of the fundamental principles of the SD and Sicherheitspolizei.
Did the SD do this with the Gestapo?
A. As responsible head of a department I can say that no such common plan existed.
Q. Did the SD on its own initiative have any such program?
A. That would have been against all the principles of our task.
Q. Did the SD, Amt III, practically handle any activities of the churches?
A. No.
Q. Did the SD, Amt III, get from the Gestapo any directives to persecute the church?
A. Between the Gestapo and Amt III there was a complete material and organizational division of labor.
Q. Did the SD get from any other offices of the Administration, directives to persecute the Church?
A. No. The SD worked all on its own in this sphere, independently. No offices of the Party or of the State were allowed to give any objectives to the SD in this matter.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
matter of their attitude toward the church, and through any pressure made to leave the church? trary to our fundamental motions right to the end. There was a large number of regular and honorary officials who were members of the Christian Churches and who remained so. The head of Amt III left the Protestant Church in 1924. tions? This question is relevant to page 48 of the Trial Brief. there any counseled aims, hidden aims or secret investigations. As head of the department, I would have had to known of them if there had been any.
Q I submit to you the prosecution document PS 1815. Will you look at Page 59 of this, please? only up to 29.
Q Will you lock at Page 1? transferred to the Gestapo on orders. Was this order given on the ground that tasks of the organization and aims and activities of it in the sphere of the church affairs were the same in AMT III of SD and AMT IV of the Gestapo?
A No. This order was given for entirely different reasons. AMT III and AMT IV were entirely different offices. Transfer of the former SD employees to the Gestapo would have taken too long, and for that reason this planned transfer was undertaken in the form of an order. It was to save time and to save work.
Q Will you now see page 29 of the prosecution document? That is Number 18. Will you look at the first two sentences of that? Can it not be seen from that, that the SD handled church matters in collaboration with the Sipo and Gestapo?
ticipate in this discussion. At the time of this conversation in 1942, AMT III, according to the order of separation given, was not allowed in any way to handle such matters.
Q Will you now lock at Page 1 and Page 2? On the basis of these two pages, the prosecution has suggested, also on page 58 of the Trial Brief, that the handling of such matters had to be divided between the Gestapo and the SD, and that the SD files on such opposition had to be transferred to the Gestapo, but the SD should retain material concerning church influence on public opinion. Will you make a statement on this? tion, had never handled church matters. The material that had to be given on the basis of this order to AMT IV was general informational material which it was not proper to maintain for the police tasks of AMT IV. In general, the order was formulated by AMT IV and it took into consideration, as a result of the different points of view, AMT IV. with the church and task of the spheres of life should go together, hand in hand; is it not evident that collaboration of SD and Gestapo was a common aim when the struggle against the church took place? task of the struggle against the church. What is formulated here, in this matter, is a personal desire of an inspector, who, whether in the matters of the Gestapo or SD had any factual right to give orders.
Q Turn now to page 24. Especially note, now, Paragraph 1 and 4 where it says, "I am looking for orders given out in the sphere of struggling against the church in order to intensify it." Also note the half sentence immediately afterwards, that it has already been achieved in this manner. Does it not seem from that that the SD had informational services of its own in this sphere?
A No. What I see from that is exactly to the contrary. The order in front of me is dated August, 1941, that is to say, after the order separating the two services.
The SD on the basis of this order of separation, gave over to AMT IV informational service. In general, the order was given to a large number of police organizations and it cannot be simply a matter of one single case.
Q Will you lock at page 27. What can you say as to this order of the inspector in Dusseldorf?
A. I must point out first that this is only a personal desire of the inspector and he had no power for this. He had no power to give orders in these matters. Practically, such a desire could never have been achieved because from the various tasks it was completely impossible to carry it cut so that Amt III and Amt IV should have common confidential agents for certain matters. Each confidential agent of the SD would have refused immediately to undertake police tasks on the side.
Q. On the basis of your activity, what can you say on the scope of the files which, as a result of the separation, were handed over to the Gestapo.
A. That will vary according to the way in which it was handled in the various offices. A good informational service would have had more material which would have been given to the G stapo.
Q. On the basis of your knowledge, were the documents handed over by the SD of any use for the police tasks of the Gestapo against individuals?
A. No, they certainly were not, as the informational attitude toward the problems of church and confessions on the part of the SD was entirely different. It was never organized on the basis of individual cases.
Q. According to your knowledge, were the files that were handed over then actually handled by the Gestapo?
A. I can not make any statement in detail on this, but a large part of the partial, as far as I could see, was never handled any further, as it had no opportunity of being used for police tasks.
Q. Did Amt III of the SD have the fundamental task and aim of persecuting the church or preparing the general persecution of the church, or did it work at all for the persecution of the church? That is to say, in the period between 1939 until the order of separation of 12 May 1941?
A. No, Amt III never at any time had such a practical task set forth, nor did it ever work toward any such aim.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, you remember that you told us before the adjournment that you had come to your last point.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes. I have only about six questions left to ask. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Did Amt III regularly inform important or leading offices of the Party and the state on public opinion in religious matters, with a view to the persecutions?
A. No, the information about religious matters and spheres of life, in the last period, was scanty because Amt III had only one man to work on these matters.
Q. What was the aim of the SD in informing other offices about these matters?
A. Amt III's purpose in open reports in these matters was always concerned with the fact that according to its opinion there was not a matter of a struggle with the church but of handling the religious attitude of the masses in these matters.
Q. Was the SD's information activity leading to any persecution of the churches?
A. No. On the basis of Amt III's reporting on several occasions, very critical remarks were made about individual actions in the sphere of religious matters.
DR. GAWLIK: I have no further questions to ask. BY M. MONNERAY:
Q. Witness, you said that you were mobilized in the SD in 1940
A. I did not say that I was mobilized but that I was brought into the Reichsicherheitshauptamt on special duty.
Q. You forgot to state that you were previously a member of the SD.
A. I was asked, as far as I know, since when I had been in the SD.
Q. Were you a member of the SD before 1940?
A. I have not got the question exactly.
Yes. From 1934.
Q. You forget that, did you not?
A. far as I know, before the Commission I said it all in detail.
Q. Is it a fact, witness that before the seizure of power by the Nazi Party, the SD was a secret and illegal organization?
A. May I ask again, Did you say before the seizure of power?
Q. Yes, before the seizure of power.
A. I can not say anything about that, as I was not a member of the SD at the time.
Q. After the assumption of power, was the SD utilized by the Party, on the one hand, and on the other hand by the state and by the Gestapo in order to fight opposition groups?
A. as far as I know, the SD always had an entirely different informational task from that of the Gestapo.
Q. During the war, in the occupied territories, did the SD manifest itself at the same time as the SIPO -- Security Police -- within the Einsatzkommandos -- Operational Troops?
A. About the organization and activity of the Einsatzkommandos, I can unfortunately give no testimony, as I was never an employee of the SD in any occupied territory.
Q. Did you know Streckenbach?
A. Yes.
Q. What were his functions?
A. As far as I know, he was for some years head of Amt I.
Q. And this Office Number I was charged with question or organizations as much for the SIP as for the SD?
A. Yes.
Q. Therefore, this office could be assumed to know sufficiently the attributes of the SIPO and the SD?
A. May I ask again who in this function should have known exactly?
Q. Witness, the question was quite clear. I was referring to Streckenbach.
A. No, one can not assume that, as beneath him the task and organizational problems were entirely separated, even in his office. I can not say how far Streckenbach had a view over the activities of the SD, and I can not give an opinion on it.
Q. I should like to hand you Document F-984. It is an appeal Streckenbach. It was published in the bulletin of the SD.
THE PRESIDENT: Has this already been offered in evidence or not?
M. MONNERAY: It has not yet been offered in evidence, Mr. President. This document will be RF 1540. It is an appeal by Streckenbach to all the members of the SIPO and the SD, dated the 7th of September 1942. Extract from this appeal : "Before the taking over of power, the SD has, in its part, contributed to the National Socialist revolution. After the assumption of power the SIPO and SD assumed the responsibility of internal security of our Reich and opened up the way for the realization of National Socialism in the face of all opposition. Since the beginning of the war our Einsatzkommandos are everywhere where you find the German army and are carrying on, each in their own sector, the fight against the enemy of the Reich and of the people." the activities of the SIPO and the SD. For instance, they are appealing for information and articles on the following subjects : the history of the SD, its inception, its purpose, the fight for its consecration as the sole information agency of the SS and later on of the Party. Development of the SD from its beginning (illegal camouflage) until its full development after the assumption of power, which are particularly important events on the activity of the furnishing of information before and after the conquest of power, illegal missions, etc. And further on, common action of the Gestapo and of the SD for the destruction of antagonistic groups. BY M. MONNERAY:
Q. Witness, this declaration by Streckenback is contrary to the -
A. No, because of the actual task of SD there is no word in this appeal. Besides, the text read here does not lead one to know who actually drafted this appeal and formulated it. The name "Streckenbach" only means that he had signed it. Amt III can certainly not have participated in it, because otherwise the task of this Amt III would have had to have been described to some extent accurately in this appeal.
Q. Apart from Amt III, what were the various branches of the SD, the various services ?
A. For the domestic SD there was only Amt III.
Q. Witness, I would be obliged to you if you would answer my question.
A. I was of the opinion that I had answered your question, Mr. Prose
Q. I asked you which were the departments of the SD, and not which were
Q. Under the general concept of SD, which had nothing to do with the
Q. What were the functions of Amt VI?
A. That was the foreign informational service.
Q. When it speaks of fighting and combat in conjunction with the
A. That cannot be deduced in detail from the document which I have before me.
Q. Again I say you are not answering my question. Witness, can you imagine the Gestapo taking on a fight against an antagonistic group which would be situated inside the Reich ?
A. No. To my knowledge the Gestapo had a police task within the frontiers of the Reich.
Q. So when we talk in this appeal of a fight carried out against adverse groups, reference is really being made to a fight which is going on inside the country ?
A. Yes, although nothing is said there about the task of SD domestic.
Q. You told us several times, witness, that the job of the SD inland, and no doubt with greater reason outside the Reich, was the duty of the Gestapo and of the Police; is that not so ?
A. I have said absolutely nothing today about the foreign division of the SD, except in mentioning the existence of Amt VI.
Q. Please, witness, can you answer for the SD, the home SD ? According to you, the police was imbued with a police spirit, wasn't it ?
A. May I ask the Prosecutor what he means by this statement ?
Q. As opposed to the spirit of the SD, which was an objective outlook.
A. I cannot say what the point of view of the police was, because I was never a member of it.
Q. But you told us the SD had an objective and impartial spirit. That is right, isn't it ?
A. I have not said a scientific spirit, but always an objective, critical spirit, and I would like to stress this formulation expressly.
Q. That was also the spirit of the police, was it ?
A. I cannot judge that, as I said I was never a member of the police.
THE PRESIDENT: Put the question again, would you, Mr. Monneray. BY MR. MONNERAY:
Q. This impartial and objective spirit was the spirit of the police, wasn't it ?
A. I cannot state an opinion on this, as I was never a member of the police, but only of SD domestic Act III.
Q. Let us be clear about this, witness. You gave us long explanations as to the differences between the SD and the police, didn't you ? If you give us anything further about the difference, we would at least know what the police is.
A. I have for certain spheres stressed the difference between the SD tasks and the police tasks, but I am not in a position to clarify the general point of view of the police, because I don't know it. I spoke only in general and concrete terms from examples that I know from the experience that I have of Amt III and of the department in which I worked.
Q. Is it correct to say, witness, that the young candidate who wished to enter the SD received exactly be same training that the young candidates did who wished to enter the SIPO or the Security Police or the Criminal Police ? I should say those who wanted to enter the Gestapo or KRIPO, the Criminal Police.
A. The education of candidates for the SD was not known to me in detail. I know only that the head of Amt III repeatedly, from year to year made statements against an education which would be organized throughout all the same. How far his object on was practically achieved, I cannot say from my own experience.
Q. Well, I shall bring to your attention a paper which will add to your knowledge of this subject, which seems wanting. It is a circular published in the official bulletin of the and the SD, dated the 18th of May, 1940, and which states that young candidates, young police students of the SD, in spite of its character, which is supposed to be objective and impartial, would have to be attached for a period of four to the Original Police; namely, for three months with the Gestapo and three months with the SD. You were unaware of this, were you not?
Q Thank you. How you have told us also that the SD had very little to do with the official personnel affairs and political views of the Nazi Pans, is that right? Perhaps your memory is coming back to you. You know that the political chiefs of the party had to furnish to the German government their opinions of the political outlook of officials; you know that didn't you?
A May I ask the Prosecutor to repeat his question? I didn't quite understand it. a certain grade, or of appointing a civil servant or functionary, the political chief, the Gauleiter or the Kreisleiter, for instance, would have to furnish to the government a sort of political expert opinion on the proper and good political outlook of the candidate, is that right. task of the Hoheitstraeger of the party. report, did he not?
M. MONNERAY : F-989, which becomes RF-1541, Page 2 of the extract. It is a circular of the Chancellery of the national Socialist party concerning political reports supplies by political chiefs. First of all, this political report is defined as follows; "This political report has no value except if it reflects the moral and political outlook of the candidate." And afterwards there is a short paragraph saying who will have to supply this opinion :
"The people who are competent to give this opinion are the political chiefs of the SS. Political information can be given by all party chiefs. people in authority and the elements there are will be furnished by the various agents of the SD."
That is correct, is it not? give information but never political judgments and that the SD put special value on the fact that other information could be gathered from this information which possible could give an opinion of the general personality. In the document which is before me, in general, there is no manner of personal information but only of general situational information as I have mentioned. cal or ideological attitude? assessments as a judgment having value concerning the political or ideological outlook?
A Not in this document, no. Here only the preparation of reports on situations is mentioned.
M. MONNERAY : I would ask to show the witness the original letter on I continue. elements of the Party, between the SD and the party, wasn't there?
A Of close cooperation one can in no way speak. The relation between the SD and the Party, specially between AMT III and the Party Chancellery was in the last years to a great extent most tense. I would be very glad to illustrate this with concrete examples. circular, dated 21 August, 1943.
Q "It is the duty of the SS to keep the loaders as to the political every which take place on their territory, and the attention of the political chief has got to be particularly urgent affairs by the SD to enable the necessary political intervention." Is that right? all in accord. Amt III would, on the contrary, have been very gladly heard by the Hoheitstraeger of the Party if all the critical material could have been brought together in many cases, but this was, however, for years not the case, as the local representative of the SD was never received by the Hoheitstraeger.
Q Ver well. Well, we will see a few examples of what difference there is between practice and theory. Before the Commission you were shown Document R-142, USA-481, concerning the control by the SD of the plebescite in 1938, where the honorable collaborators of the SD, who were so disinterested, had tampered with the ballot papers.
As this was a practical instance, you told us you would tell us if this was an isolated instance, isn't that so? that this document does not refer to the SD but to one single office amongst many hundreds of offices of the SD. The document does not in any case give -
THE PRESIDENT. Don't raise your voice, please. that AMT III in Berlin had ever given any order for this preparation of reports.
Q Yes, certainly. Well, I will show you another document which reflects another isolated case without a doubt. This time reference is made to the City of Erfurt. Document D-897, already offered by the British Delegation when they were submitting evidence against the political chiefs, Exhibit GB-501. This is a confidential circular, 4 April 1938, coming from the security Service Branch Officer Stuart end addressed to all heads of sections, requesting all agents abroad to send in reports urgently on all those persons of which they were sure that they were going to vote no. This document makes you smile, witness. However, witness, if you look a little further down you will see that the matter was a serious one, for the head of the SD, a conscientious man as you know, says as follows :
"The tremendous responsibility us once more stressed that the representatives abroad have in this matter concerning the eventual serious consequences to those persons named in regard to their relations to the Reich," Witness, do you cell that objective reporting? Is that so?
A I am sorry, Mr. Prosecutor, you speak just now of the head of the SD, and the document is signed by an Oberschar fuehrer, which is approximately the same as a sargeant in the Army, I don't think you can say this is an official document; and again, this is a document which indicates only an extravagant initiative and can not in any way be said to indicate the general policy of the SD.