subdivide the crimes of which the Gestapo is accused into crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Crimes against peace. In this connection the Indictment raises the accusation that the Gestapo, together with the SD, had artificially created border incidents in order to give Hitler a pretext for a was with Poland. Tow border incidents are cited; the attack on the radio station Gleiwitz and a feigned attack by a Polish group at Hohenlinden. the participation of Gestapo officials. Witness Naujocks, who was the leader of this undertaking and who, however, did not belong to the Gestapo, has confirmed unequivocally that not a single member of the Gestapo participated in this action. Instructions for this undertaking emanated directly from Heydrich and were transmitted orally by him directly to Naujocks. transmitted by Mueller the Chief of Amt IV of the RSHA to Naujocks; however Naujocks, who directed this action, has expressly denied any participation by Amt IV.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Merkel, would that be a convenient time to break off?
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened it 14000 hours, August 23, 1946).
DR. MERKEL: Mr. President, I have heard that the French translation of my final plea is not yet available to the interpreters. For that reason I will have to speak more slowly in the interest of the interpreters. comply with the rule that I should finish in a certain period of time
THE PRESIDENT: No doubt; your speech will subsequently be translated and we shall have these pages before us.
DR. MERKEL: Yes, Mr. President. I had gone as far as the testimony of the witness, Naujox, regarding the attack on the railroad station at Gleiwitz and the attack of that group near Hohenlinden. He stated that quite naturally it was not one of the tasks of Department IV of the RSHA to engineer border incidents. Mueller did not select ,embers of Department IV for the carrying out of the latter border incident, but only individuals who were in his confidence for Heydrich did not trust the Gestapo with respect to secrecy and reliability . Naujox stated literally :"I cannot identify Mueller wit the organization of to Gestapo." rather a personal concern of Heydrich, even to the extent to which Mueller participated. The Gestapo has not been accused of other crimes against peace.
(b) War Crimes.
1. One of the gravest accusations raised against the Gestapo deals with the mass murder of the civilian population of the occupied countries through the so-called Einsatzgruppen. Not only the defense but the entire German people condemn the inhuman cruelties committed by the Einsatzgruppen. Those who committed cruelties like that have defiled the name of Germany and must be called to account.
I should like to examine the extent to which the organization of the Gestapo in toto, can be held responsible for the criminal deeds of the Einsatzgruppen. and of the SD in rear echelon areas which meant that they had to safeguard law and order along, the rear of the fighting unit. They were subordinate to the armies and liaison men were detailed to the armies. purposes. They were composed of members of the SD of the SS, of the Kripo, of the Gestapo, the Order Police of those who had to render emergency service, and of indigenous forces. The members of the SD of the Kripo and of the Gestapo were used without consideration for their former membership in their own branch. here with the use of the entire police and of the SD, not with the use of the Gestapo alone. The actual participation of the Gestapo in the Einsatzgruppen amounted to approximately ten per cent. This, of course, was a very small number in comparison with the total figure of Gestapo officials. Being detailed to the Einsatzgruppen took place without any effort on their part, very frequently against their will, but on the strength of orders from the RSHA. Upon being detailed to the Einsatzgruppen, they were eliminated from the organization of the Gestapo. They were exclusively subordinate to the leadership of the Einsatzgruppen which received its orders in part from the higher SS and police leader, in part from the high Command of the Army and in part from the RSHA directly. Any connection to the Home Department and to their organization of the Gestapo as finally severed through their being used by the Einsatzgruppen. They could not receive orders of any kind from the Gestapo, and they had been removed from the sphere of influence of the Gestapo. Einsatzgruppen in the East which are the ones that have been accused of the most crimes and the most serious crimes. To them also applies the fact that the Osteinsatz was not a Gestapoeinsatz either in personnel or in the tasks given but an Einsatz of various units which had been set up especially for this purpose.
The witness Ohlendorf testified to the same effect. the conclusion that it was responsible for deeds committed by the Einsatzgruppen. Nor is this changed by the fact that the Chief of Office IV, Mueller that is, the Director of the Gestapo within the RSHA had an important part in passing on all orders. He was acting here directly on behalf of Himmler and Heydrich. The activity of Mueller cannot be decisive in view of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the agents under him had no knowledge of the events. If that had been the case the Kripo or the Order Police (Ordnungspolizei) would have had to told equally responsible for the events, But the Gestapo cannot be declared criminal because of Mueller's position in regard to the Einsatzgruppen any more than the Kripo -- whose Chief, Nebe, by the way, was himself the leader of an Einsatzgruppen in the East -can be held responsible, on the basis of the participation of its Chief and individual members, for the mass exceptions undertaken by the Einsatzgruppen. Therefore, mass murders of the civilian population, like all other atrocities committed by the Einsatzgruppen cannot be charged against the Gestapo as such.
2. The next charge refers to the execution of politically and racially undesirable prisoners in camps. the third point, according to which the further charge is made against the Gestapo that together with the SD it sent prisoners of war who had escaped and who had been recaptured to concentration camps.
I continue on Page 38 of the original. I further have to deal with the concentration camps. ponsibility for the establishment and distribution of the concentration camps and for the assignment of racially and politically undesirable persons together concentration and extermination camp for forced labor and mass muders; that the Gestapo was by law given the responsibility for administering the concentration camps; that it alone had the power to take persons into protective custody and to execute the protective custody orders in the state concentration camps and that the Gestapo issued the orders to establish concentration camps , to convert prisoner of war camps to concentration camps, and to establish labor training camps.
must be corrected that the concentration camps were an institution of the Gestapo. ministered by the Gestapo. It is true that paragraph 2 of the order for the execution of the law on the Secret at the Police of 10 February 1936,-- Gestapo Exhibit Number 8 -- says that the secret state police office administers the state concentration camps, but this regulation was only on paper and was never carried out in practice. It was rather the Reichsfuehrung-SS which was responsible for the concentration camps which appointed an inspector of concentration camps whose duties were later (1941) transferred to Amtsgruppe, Dept. Bor. D of the WVHA of the SS. Dr. Best and a large number of documents marked as the Gestapo Exhibit No. 40, and it is up to and including No. 45.
After Hitler's seizure of power in 1933 the SA and SS had independently established numerous camps for political prisoners. The Gestapo on its own initiative took steps against those unauthorized concentration camps, eliminated them, an released the inmates. Gestapo Chief, Dr. Diels, even brought upon himself the accusation that he was supporting the Communists and sabotaging the Revolution. (See Affidavit Number 41, testimony of the witnesses Vitzdamm and Grauert.)
Thus the concentration camps were never under the Gestapo. The inspectorate of concentration camps and the Economic and Administrative Departments , the WVHA remained, independent agencies and their chiefs were directly subordinate to Himmler. tion of concentration camps but it regulates -- in the interest of the prisoners-- the assignment of prisoners to the various camps, so that political prisoners would not be sent to camps, which, according to their structure and their formed work, were meant for hardened criminals.
the Gestapo in the a ministration of the concentration camps, I should like to mention only one more : Gestapo Exhibit No. 38. This shows that all persons not mentioned there and thus all Gestapo Officials regardless of their rank or position needed written permission of the Inspector of the concentration camps. If the concentration camps would have been subordinate to the Gestapo, there would not have existed a necessity to obtain this written permission to enter a concentration camp. ment the position of which in the camp and its relationship to the Gestapo is a matter of conflicting views. In this political department were employed one to three criminal officials of the Gestapo or of the KRIPO. These officials did not form an office of the Gestapo or of the KRIPO; they rather were attached to the Commandant of the camp as political experts to fill police tasks in regard to individual prisoners. Above all, they had to conduct the interrogations of those prisoners against whom there was pending a case before the ordinary courts; this was done upon the request of their ordinary courts or the secret state police, or the criminal police. In regard to the power to issue orders they were exclusively subordinate to the commandant of the concentration camp. They had no influence whatsoever on the administration and conduct of the camp or on the transfer, discharge, punishments, and or execution of the prisoners. institution of the Gestapo, but rather, institutions which served its purposes in the transaction of its police tasks. For the Gestapo they were the same as the regular prisons were for the courts or for the state attorney's , namely executive institutions to carry out the protective custody ordered by the Gestapo on which I shall dwell now. to sending people to concentration camps just as he pleased.
In the English Court Transcript of 23 August 1946, Afternoon
"Dr. Best made this statement before the Commission on 6 July 1946."
This is incorrect. I shall again not deal with my plea about the opinion prevailing and beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it.
I shall go on to Page 43. the second sentence of the last paragraph. If one takes the trouble to examine the questionwhat has been the numerical relationship of the cases when among the various available measures as instru tions, warning, security fee and protective custody, the latter was actually chosen, one shall find that the transfer to a concentration camp was the leas practiced means. At the beginning of the war approximately 20,000 people four themselves in protective custody in the concentration camps, half of them approximately were professional criminals, the other half political prisoners At the same time there were found in the regular prisons approximately 300,000 prisoners, of whom approximately one-tenth-- and that means about 30,000 -- were sentenced for political crimes.
THE PRESIDENT: What evidence is there of these figures all the propor tions ?
DR. MERKEL: Witness Hoffmann has testified that before the Commission. Larger use of the concentration camps was made by transferring there the professional criminals and the anti-social elements, particularly those who had been sentenced by the court to security custody, a measure which was ordered and executed not by the Gestapo (Compare Witness Hoffmann).
On the basis of Gestapo Affidavit No. 86 the maximum numbers of prisoners referred to the concentration camps by the Gestapo were at the beginning of 1945 about 30,000 Germans, about 60,000 Poles, about 50,000 subjects of other states. All other prisoners -- on December 19, 1945, the prosecuti claimed that there were in the concentration camps on August 1, 1944, 524,277 prisoners -- had been referred there not by the Gestapo but by the criminal police, the courts, and various authorities, in the occupied territories. of concentration camps will also be omitted by me; and I again beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice of them. I shall continue on Page 50. approximately in the middle of the page.
training camps and that it was responsible for the referrals to them.
The purpose of a work training camp is described by the periodical "The German Police" (Gestapo Exhibit No. 59):
"The purpose of the work training camps is to educate in a spirit or workers' discipline those who have broken their work contracts and those who shirk their duty, and to bring them back to their old jobs after that aim has been accomplished. Those referrals are handled exclusively by offices of the State Police. To stay there is not to be considered a penalty, but an educational measure." laborers were put into the work training camps. They had been established in the same manner both for Germans and for foreign laborers, but even for employers who had transgressed their rights toward their employees. investigation in each individual case, originally 21 days, later 56 days, were stipulated, as contrasted to the verdicts of courts for breach of contract which ran from three months up to one year of imprisonment. Those who had briken a contract and were referred to a work training camp, in every respect found themselves in better conditions than those who were referred for sentencing to the courts. The referral was not included in the individual's court register of penalties, and in general, shelter, feeding and treatment in the work training camps was also better than in the prisons. The food consisted of the regular prisoners' rations supplemented by the additional rations for hard laborers; these rations were continuously submitted to inspection as far as quantity, quality, and taste were concerned, as is shown by the document Gestapo Exhibit No. 58. the supervision of the foreign laborers and particularly the establishment and referral to work training camps by the Gestapo as a crime or even a typical crime.
6. Execution of Commandos and Paratroopers. accused is the charge that the Gestapo and the SD executed Commandos and Parachutists who had been taken prisoners and protected civilians who had lynched Allied fliers. What may be said in this connection? 1942 concerning countermeasures against Parachutists -- the combat of Paratroopers is characterized as the exclusive concern of the army, while the combat of"single parachutists" was transferred to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD. The latter task did not consist in the execution of the Parachutists. The transfer should serve only the purpose of establishing eventual sabotage orders of these parachutists an to receive news about the intentions of the enemy. groups (USA 501). This order was directed not to the German Police but to the German Army. Paragraph 4 of that order stated that all members of such Commandfalling into the hands of the army should be transferred to the SD. Nothing can be learned about any part played by the Gestapo in these measures against the Sabotage Commandos. If, however, the Gestapo would have been transferred to it, the execution of which cannot be accounted for by the Gestapo as such, since doubtless under any circumstances only a small number of individuals participated in it.
Besides, the following should be pointed out: As Rudolf Mildner in his affidavit of November 16, 1945 -- PS 2374 -- stated, an order was issued in the summer of 1944 to the Commanders and Inspectors of the Sipo and the SD to the effect that all members of the American and English Commando Troops should be surrendered to the Sipo for interrogation and shooting execution. This may be taken as a proof that at least up to that moment the Sipo had not shot any Commando groups, or a need for this order had not existed. Mildner continues to say that that order had to be destroyed immediately, which means that only the commanders and Inspectors of the Sipo could gain knowledge of it. Since the the invasion had started long ago and since the Allies relentlessly advanced in France, it was impossible to execute these orders actually, since there were not left any officers of the Sipo in the field of operations, which was pushed back continuously.
Equally it is unlikely that that order, which presumably was issued by Himmler, ever became known to the mass of Gestapo members. August 10, 1943 (Document RF 1419, USA 333), stating that it was not the task of the police to interfere in controversies between Germans and bailed-out English and American terror fliers, and the Prosecution concluded from that that the Gestapo approved of lynch justice. However, it is of significance that the order of Himmler's was addressed to all of the German police, above all to the order police. For in the case of the bailing-out of Allied aircrews, as a rule it was not Gestapo officials who made an appearance, but members of the order police, the Gendarmery, or the local police office. Only those branches of the police system were in charge of street patrols, and not the Gestapo. not informed of this order, but rather learned of it only through the statement Goebbels made over the radio. to the supreme commander of the Luftwaffe, shows in a characteristic manner that that order was generally sabotaged. He stated: "In the spring of 1944 the civilian losses through air attacks rapidly increased. Apparently this made Hitler issue orders not only of defense but of measures against the aviators themselves. As far as I know, Hitler advocated the most severe measures. Lynchings were to be permitted most liberally. The supreme commando and the chief of the General Staff did, it is true, condemn the attacks on the civilian population in the sharpest terms, but yet they did not desire the execution of special measures against the aviators; lynchings and the refusal to give shelter to the crews who had bailed out were to be refuted." And his further statement is of particular importance: I quote:
"The measures ordered by Hitler were not carried out by the Luftwaffe.
The Luftwaffe did not receive any orders to shoot enemy aviators or to transfer them to the SD". Gestapo members were present when allied fliers bailed out, not only did not kill them but protected them against the population -- compare Gestapo Affidavit No. 81 -- and if they were wounded they saw to it that the fliers were given medical care. The few instances when higher Gestapo officials ordered and executed the shootings of crews who had bailed out have already found their just penalty before the courts of the occupying powers. It would be unjustified to hold the whole of the Gestapo responsible for them.
7. The next point of the indictment states: The Gestapo and the SD brought civilians from occupied countries into Germany to bring them before secret courts and sentence them there.
According to this decree persons who had transgressed against the Reich or against the occupying power in the occupied areas would, as a measure of intimidation, be taken to the Reich where they were to be put before a special court. If, for any reason whatsoever this was not possible, the transgressors were to be placed in protective custody in a concentration camp for the duration of the war. order went only to the offices of the Wehrmacht and not to the offices of the Gestapo -- with exception of Amt IV of the RSHA itself. The execution of this decree was a task of the Wehrmacht, not of the Gestapo. According to directives contained in Document 833-PS, it was for the Counter Intelligence Offices to determine the tire of arrests of individuals suspected of espionage and sabotage. order was to be carried out therefore by the Wehrmacht which exercised police power through its own men or those of the Security Police who were directly subordinated to the Wehrmacht Commanders-in-Chief. execution of this order, The Gestapo, which was numerically very weak in the occupied Western areas, was only drawn in to the extent that the RSHA. established a STAPO office, which had to take charge of the arrestees. Through the STAPO offices in agreement with the competent Counter Intelligence offices, the detail of the transporting off to Germany was determined and particularly whether a transport was to be conducted by the Secret Field Police, the Field Gendarmerie, or by the Gestapo. The Gestapo had no other tasks assigned to it by the Nacht-and-Nebel Decree. in the carrying through of this decree has not been determined in this proceeding. On the contrary, according to the testimony of witness Hoffman, it has bean established that Amt IV rejected this decree and that it was not applied at all in Denmark, for instance. from the highest Wehrmacht offices, we may assume with assurance that only the most intimate circle of individuals, those charged with its actual handling, knew the contents of this decree and its significance.
The officials handling, knew the contents of this decree and its significance. The officials of the STAPO offices charged with the transport received instructions to see to it that the arrestees were brought to a certain place in Germany without being told for what purpose the arrest had taken place, or on the strength of which decrees. you cannot make the entire Gestapo responsible for it; that prisoners were turned ever to some offices in occupied territory in order to take them to Germany on the strength of orders. also not be read by me, but I beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice of itI should now like to continue on page 60 with the figure 10.
10. The next point of the indictment concerns the killing of prisoners upon the approach of Allied troops. has been submitted. Again it is an order by the Commander of the SIPO and the SD for the Radom district by which he informs his subordinates of the order of the Chief of the SIPO and the SD in the Government General that in the case of unforeseen developments which would make impossible the transfer of the prisoners, they should be liquidated. were known elsewhere, and to what extent such orders were carried out, which is the main problem for me to establish, the participation of the Gestapo, has not been cleared. On the basis of the affidavits before me, and the statements by the witnesses Straub and Dr. Knochen, the Gestapo only in a few places had prisons of its own. As a rule, there existed only one police prison to be used by all local police branches. The administration and supervision of these police prisons was always the task of the local police administrator, in the occupied territories of the Army, too. At any rate, the Gestapo had no right to interfere with the conditions in which the prisoners found, themselves. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Gestapo should have carried out the killings of the prisoners upon the approach of the enemy.
On the other hand, it has been established with certainty that in many places the prisoners either were dismissed or were handed over to the Allied troops when they occupied the locality. (Compare Gestapo affidavits 12, 63, and 64). proceedings: The witness, Hartmann Lauterbacher has given evidence concerning an order in accordance with which the inmates of the prison at Hameln in Westphalia, supposedly had been killed upon the approach of the enemy. The person who issued the order, however, was not a Gestapo official, but the Kreisleiter of Hameln who, for doing so, was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment by the Fifth British Division, and those who were to execute that order were not Gestapo officials, but prison employees, who, however, refused to carry it out. in Bavaria. I refer to the evidence given by Bertus Gardes, the former Gaustagamtsleiter under Gauleiter Giessler of Munich (USA 291). It states that in April 1944, the inmates of the Dachau concentration camp and of the Jewish work camps Muehldorf and Landsberg were to be liquidated; that means, killed by order of Hitler. It is certain that the order was not given to the Gestapo and most of all, that both of these actions, due to the declining attitude on the part of the Air Force and the witness, Gerdes -for their exoneration this must be stated here -- was not carried out. Thus, at least, in this case, crimes did not take place; the frightful planning of which alone would contort our innermost sentiments. What is of importance, for the organization of the Gestapo, which I represent, is something to which it is my duty as its defense counsel to draw to your attention: The order was given to the competent Gauleiter in Munich, who discussed it with the head of the Gau Staff and the competent Kreisleiters. Not with a word was there any mention that the Gestapo should be used for its execution. and private property, I beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it and I shall continue on page 63 of the original, number 12.
12. The Prosecution accuses the Gestapo of having employed the third degree method of interrogation. I had already spoken about this when I discussed the question whether the methods employed by the Gestapo were criminal. At this point I have the following to say with reference to this accusation: it was only permissible to employ third degree methods of interrogation only in exceptional cases, only under observance of certain protective institutions, and only by order of superior agencies. Furthermore, it was not permissible to use these methods in order to force a confession; they could only be employed in the case of the refusal for giving information vital to the interest of the State, and finally, only in the event of the existence of certain evidence of the perpetration being available. border police have never carried out third degree interrogations. In the occupied territories where occupation personnel were daily threatened by attempts on their lives, more severe methods of interrogation were permitted. If one believed that in this manner the life of German soldiers and officials might be protected against such threatening attempts. Torture of any kind was never officially condoned. It can be gathered from the affidavits submitted, for instance, numbers 2, 3, 4, 61 and 63, and from the testimony of witness Dr. Knechen, Dr. Herrman, Straub, Albath, and Dr. Best, that the officials of the Gestapo were continuously instructed during training courses and at regular intervals, to the effect that any ill-treatment during interrogations, in fact any ill-treatment of detainees in general, was prohibited. Violations of these instructions were prosecuted by ordinary courts and later by SS and Police Courts, in fact, in the strictest manner. (See amongst others, Gestapo affidavit No 76). USA-319, the camp commandant at Auschwitz, has been credibly rectified by witness Rudolf miner, the former chief of the leading Gestapo department, Kattowitcz, in that he stated under oath (See Gestapo Affidavit Number 28), that a STAPO or KRIPO criminal official had been posted to every main concentration camp who had clearly defined orders, none of which included third degree methods of interrogation.
shall continue on page 65 with the discussion of the plans of which the Gestapo is new accused. I turn to my third and last group -- crimes against humanity.
the foremost instrument for the persecution of the Jews. The Nazi regime had considered the Jews as the chief obstacle for the police state, by means of which it had intended to pursue the ends of aggressive war. The persecution and extermination of Jews is supposed to have served this aim too. The National Socialist leaders had regarded anti-Semitism as the psychological spark to influence the populace. The anti-Jewish actions had led to the murder of an estimated six million human beings.
Truly a scattering accusation. What has been unveiled during this trial, and confirmed by the witnesses Hoess and Ohlendorf, forms the basis of a guilt which, unfortunately, will forever adhere to Germany's name. Yes what must still be examined after these such facts are ascertained is the question in new far the Gestapo has participate in this persecution and extermination of the Jews. made regarding the activity of the Gestapo, taking into consideration the point of view of time. of laws punishing the Jews. As far as those loyal regulations contained penal clauses, possibly necessitating the employment of force by the police, the Gestapo may, under certain circumstances have been connected with them. Infringements of such penal laws by Jews were comparatively few, and only the Number laws, announced in 1935, caused increasing police activity, whereby, however, during the first period, every case was handed to the proper courts for the passing of proper sentences. A change only occurred in the last years of the war. That the Gestapo *--*an to act in these cases cannot be held against them; because it, too, had to comply with the existing laws of the State, that is to say, had to obey the orders of the State just like the soldier must obey his orders. Interior of the Reich Finance Administration and the communal administration, have become active against the Jews to a much larger degree than the Gestapo; that is to say, both regarding their personal local status as well as their property, houses, etc.
, without being accused here. considerably were acute. It has been ascertained beyond doubt that this revolting action did not originate in the Gestapo. In fact, the prosecution do not implicate the Gestapo in this connection, or only by saying that they had not intervened. Information on this point is contained in the testimony of the witness Vitzdamm, according to which during the conference on the 9th of November, 1938, in the evening, in Munich, with Gestapo chiefs present, Heydrich had declared quite openly that this action did not have its origin in the Gestapo. Over and above this, he explicitly forbade the Gestapo to participate in the action, and gave instructions to the Gestapo chiefs present to return to their departments at once and take all steps to step the action. The contradiction contained in this testimony, and the contents of Heydrich's teleprint letter, sent to all Stapo Departments during that night (Document USA 240), can be explained by the fact that between this conference of Heydrich with the Gestapo Chiefs and the issuing of the order, a development had taken place which could only be limited but no longer rescinded. Then the Gestapo offices received Heydrich's circular, the holocause of senseless destruction already had swept over Germany. Nothing remained to be done but the prevention of further excesses; that was done.
In this connection I refer also the affidavit No. 5 of witness Luitpold Schallermeier, which also has been submitted by the defense counsel for the SS, stating that Himmler himself had dedicated the order to the Stapo offices and revealed his conversation with Hitler from which one learned that Hitler had ordered the safe keeping of Jewish property and the protection of the Jews. As shown by the evidence given by the witness Vitzdamm and as proved by the numerous other affidavits, this order was carried out universally. I refer to the Gestapo affidavits Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8. Hitler (Document USA 240) and was as a rule carried out by the Kreis and local police authorities. The overwhelming majority of the Jews, however, were not transferred into concentration camps and were released gradually. This is proven for the entire territory of the Reich by Gestapo affidavit No. 6.
nature by the arrest of the Jews in November, 1938. The Gestapo - as shown by the evidence given by the witnesses Dr. Best and Hoffmann - would never have executed or suggested these arrests which were considered unnecessary from a police point of view. The fact at the arrested Jews were soon discharged, justified the assumption of the Gestapo officials that it was but a one-time gesture and not the overture for worse to come. elevated to a point of its program originally was to be solved by the migration of the Jews. For this reason, in 1938, there had been founded in Vienna, the central office for Jewish migration which succeeded in the emigration of a large number of Jews. During the war, too, the emigration was continued according to plan as shown by the documents USA 304 and 410. In addition to it, there started the evacuations of Jews which were carried out in accordance with a detailed, decree of the Chief of the German police. On the basis of that decree, the local Stapo offices had to prepare the evacuation and to cooperate with the Jewish communities. To their task belonged particularly the equipment of these evacuees with clothing, shoes, tools, etc. In most eases the transports were not accompanied by Gestapo officials, the personnel was rather composed of members of the Security Police, the Criminal police, and the Gendarmerie. The destination was not announced in most cases. The evacuations were carried out without friction and unnecessary harshness. of Jews profoundly; yet the part played by the Gestapo in them consisted in tine carrying out of the decrees and orders originating from the highest authorities. Actually, the competence of the Gestapo in regard to the Jewish question had not at all the importance generally attributed to it. In the Jewish department of the Gestapo, both in the RSHA and in the individual Gestapo offices, only a very few employees more active. Polish Ghettoes. This resettlement of the Jews was the task of the Higher SS and police Leader and was carried out by the regular police.