4000bce - 399
400 - 1399
1400 - 1499
1500 - 1599
1600 - 1699
1700 - 1799
1800 - 1899
1900 - 1999
THE MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal: the Defendant Hess is absent.
DR. RUDOLF DIX (Counsel for the Defendant Schacht): May I be permitted quite briefly to submit to the Tribunal a possible precautionary application regarding evidence. I repeat: it is a possible precautionary application which will only be operative under certain conditions which I am about to explain. I beg the Tribunal to remember that I wanted to call Frau Struenk and Generaloberst Halder as witnesses for the same subject on which the witness Gisevius testified as a Defense witness for Dr. Schacht. The application to hear Generaloberst Halder I withdrew at an early stage, whereas the examination of Frau Struenk as a witness was granted by the Tribunal. However, after hearing the witness Gisevius and the witness Focke, I decided in the interest of time to withdraw my application for these witnesses as I considered that their testimony would be cumulative.
Now these two witnesses, Frau Struenk and Generaloberst Halder, will no longer be cumulative if the Tribunal should adopt the view, which I do not hold, that the testimony of the witness Gisevius insofar as it was in favor of Dr. Schacht was weakened in any way by the statements of the witness Von Brauchitsch.
It is not my task to represent the material or ideal interests of the witness Gisevius; nor is it my task to strengthen the credibility of the witness Gisevius insofar as he has incriminated other defendants or other persons. It is merely my duty to furnish evidence in defense of my client, Dr. Schacht. It is my own personal opinion and that speaks against my own application-that the testimony of Gisevius with reference to Dr. Schacht, that is, his testimony regarding the purpose of armament as Schacht intended it to be, Schacht's real attitude towards the regime, and especially Schacht's active part in the resistance movement-that this testimony has in no way been shaken by the testimony of the witness Brauchitsch, to the effect that he did not know the witness Gisevius at all. These subjects of evidence have not only been proved by Gisevius; but, as far as the purpose of armament and the inner attitude towards the
20 Aug. 46
regime are concerned, has also been proved by every affidavit submitted; as far as the beginning of the resistance movement and the contact with Kluge are concerned, that has been proved by the witness Focke; the affidavit of Schmidt proves the attempts to avert war at the last.. ~
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, I think you must make up your mind whether you want to make an application or not. If you want to make an application, you must make it in writing. The Tribunal is not inclined to entertain possible precautionary applications which are not in writing.
DR. DIX: I intend to leave it to the decision of the Tribunal. I am merely making a suggestion because it is my personal view ...
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made a rule that applications must be in writing. That rule has been applied to every other counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants. The Tribunal thinks that rule should be adhered to by you too. Therefore, if you wish to make an application you should make it in writing.
DR. DIX: Very well, then I shall gladly make my application in 'writing. Does the Tribunal wish me to indicate now briefly what it will contain, or is it sufficient merely to state my intention of making an application in writing?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not see any reason for departing from the rules.
DR. DIX: Then I shall make my application in writing.
THE PRESIDENT: I have two announcements to make. In the first place, with reference to the application of Dr. Seidl, who does not appear to be present, the Tribunal has had a report, dated the 17th of August 1946, on the condition of the Defendant Hess from Captain G. M. Gilbert, the prison psychologist. This report will be communicated to the Defendant Hess' counsel, to the Prosecution, and to the Press. The Tribunal will not call for any further report upon the Defendant Hess at the present time.
In the next place, with reference to the application by Dr. Stahmer, dated the 14th of August 1946, the Tribunal will treat this application as an exceptional case, and they will allow the Defendant G6ring to be recalled to the witness box to deal with the evidence upon experiments which was given after the Defendant G6ring gave his evidence, and upon no other subject.
The Tribunal rejects the application to call another witness, and the Tribunal will hear the Defendant G6ring in the witness box now.
[The Defendant Goering resumed the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: You understand, Defendant, of course, that you are still under oath?
20 Aug. 46
GOERING: Yes, of course.
DR. STAHMER: Were you the President of the Reich Research Council?
DR.STAHMER: When and by whom was the Reich Research Council established? What were its tasks?
GOERING: As far as I remember it was established by me either in 1942 or at the beginning of 1943.
It embraced every sphere of science, physics, chemistry, technology, medicine, and philosophy and united in itself the various institutes of the State, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, the institutes of the universities, the economic research institutes, which were an carrying out the same kind of research work. Commissions were formed in every sphere, and together they saw to it that research in a particular field was not carried out on parallel lines but as a joint project. It was also their task to correlate the various spheres of research work, such as physics and chemistry.
At the head of each one of these commissions was a plenipotentiary. A prime consideration of all this research work was, of course, the application of results to the necessities of war, and for that purpose also special representatives were appointed. The Reich Research Council literally assigned thousands of research tasks and since I personally am, of course, not an expert, I was head of the -whole institution only to lend it my authority and especially to provide the necessary funds. These tasks were allotted under the title "Reich Marshal of the German Reich, President of the Reich Research Council."
DR. STAHMER: What position within the Air Force, and what tasks did the Medical Inspectorate of the Air Force have?
GOERING: It had the task, as in all other branches of the Armed Forces, of taking care of the hygiene and health of the Luftwaffe, and of all other tasks in that sphere.
DR. STAHMER: Did the Medical Inspectorate have any connections with the Reich Research Council? '
GOERING: Naturally it had loose connections with the Reich Research Council in order to obtain the results of the clinical and medical research work and to communicate to the Research Council its own wishes on research tasks in which it was particularly interested.
DR. STAHMER: Did you assign the Reich Research Council or the Medical Inspectorate of the Air Force or any other authority at any time tasks for medical experiments on detainees in concentration camps, for example Dachau, or any other camps?
20 Aug. 46
GOERING: I should like to say quite clearly on this point that there cannot possibly exist a single letter which I signed, and that not a single person can possibly allege that I, myself, at any time whatsoever assigned a single task or gave even a hint in that respect.
DR. STAHMER: Did you have knowledge of the fact that a certain Dr. Rascher, or an Oberfeldarzt of the Air Force, Dr. Seltz, carried out medical experiments on detainees in the concentration camp of Dachau?
GOERING: Dr. Rascher was, as I heard here in Nuremberg and as I gathered from the documents, a medical officer of the Air Force Reserve. Since later on, as appears from his correspondence, he was apparently not successful with his experiments, he left the Air Force and became a medical officer in the SS. I myself have never seen or met him, nor do I know the second name which you mentioned; and I do not even know whether he was a medical officer of the Reserve or on active service.
DR. STAHMER: Did you give to any agency, or did you instruct anyone to give to any agency, orders to carry out subpressure chamber experiments on detainees in concentration camps?
GOERING: I have already said that I did not do so. It is obvious that if anybody had approached me, shall we say from the Medical Inspectorate or from the Reich Research Council, and had told me that it would be serving a useful purpose if we carried out -research on typhoid or even cancer or in other fields, I would of course have said that that was a very praiseworthy enterprise. But I would never countenance the fact that human beings should be used in an inhuman manner for this purpose. And if someone had told me that experiments with subpressure chambers were going on, I should not have inferred that detainees were being used for the purpose, all the more since I knew that every aviator had to enter a subpressure chamber to test his reaction to such conditions.
DR. STAHMER: Did you commission the Reich Research Council or the Medical Inspectorate of the Air Force or any other authority to carry out experiments for making sea water potable?
GOERING: I have never heard of these experiments. They would have interested me greatly because we as airmen repeatedly discussed this point, not so much as to how to make sea water potable, but as to how an airman- who was adrift in the sea in a lifeboat could obtain drinking water at all, and all airmen were told at that time that there was only one way: that they should have fishing tackle aboard their lifeboats so that they could catch fish and-in a quite primitive way-squeeze the fish with a cloth; under such circumstances that was the only method of obtaining potable water. That is why that point is particularly clear in my memory.
20 Aug. 46
DR. STAHMER: In May 1944 this matter is supposed to have been discussed during 4 conference in the Air Ministry. Did you convene that conference or were you informed of it afterwards?
GOERING: No. Daily conferences of all offices and of all departments were always taking place in the Air Ministry and they could not possibly all have been communicated to me or convened by me from headquarters.
DR. STAHMER: Discussions with the Air Force are supposed to have taken place at Dachau on the same question. Were they ordered by you or did you hear of them?
DR. STAHMER: For this purpose the Air Force is said to have made working space available at Dachau. Did you know of this?
GOERING: No, I had no knowledge of this at all.
DR. STAHMER: Do you know a medical officer of the Air Force Reserve, Dr. Denk or Ding?
GOERING: Neither under the name Denk or under the name Ding.
DR. STAHMER: Did you give orders, or did you instruct anyone else to give orders, to carry out freezing experiments which are said to have been carried out by a certain Professor Wolfsloehner, a medical officer of the Air Force Reserve, on detainees at Dachau?
GOERING: No, as far as I remember from the documents Rascher carried out these experiments. Wolfsl6hner is as unknown to me as are the other names. There were thousands of medical officers and Reserve medical officers in the Air Force.
DR. STAHMER: Did you ever commission Dr. Haagen, Professor at the University of Strasbourg, who is said to have been Oberstabsarzt of the Air Force and consulting hygienist, to carry out with all means experiments to combat typhoid?
GOERING: I also gathered from the documents that Dr. Haagen was a medical officer, in the Air Force Reserve, and consulting hygienist not of the Air Force but of an air fleet, that is, a unit of the Air Force. I do not know him, and have never given him a commission; he could obviously be heard on that point at any time.
Apart from that, a commission of this sort would certainly have remained in my memory because it would have somewhat astonished me, since I myself was immunized against typhoid three times and I did not think that further research in that sphere was taking place.
DR. STAHMER: Now, how do you explain that the witness Sievers, in a letter addressed to Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and dated May 1944, stated that Professor Haagen had been ordered by the Reich Marshal and President of the Reich Research Council to carry out such experiments?
20 Aug. 46
GOERING: This can be explained as follows: firstly, as I said earlier, the letter heading for all such commissions given by the Reich Research Council was worded: "The Reich Marshal of the German Reich," signature: "The President of the Reich Research Council." It was the custom in Germany that the personal title was given, rather than the office of the person in question; for instance: "The Reich Minister of Finance," not "The Reich Ministry of Finance." Secondly, the witness Sievers himself testified here-and he gave a rather large figure-that tens of thousands of commissions were given under my name without my knowing anything about them; which, indeed, would have been quite impossible. Thirdly, it was well known in the whole of Germany that hardly any name was used as much as mine. If anyone wanted to achieve anything at all, he quite happily wrote "The Reich Marshal desires, orders, or would like to see this or that done."
It was for that very reason that in 1944 1 created a special department calculated to prevent the misuse of my name for such matters.
DR. STAHMER: What was your attitude, as a principle, with regard to the carrying out of medical experiments on human beings?
GOERING: I already...
THE PRESIDENT: I think the defendant has already told us what his basic attitude was.
DR. STAHMER: Very well, Mr. President. Then, with reference to this subject, I have no further questions. I must merely reserve the right to put further questions as soon as the witness Schreiber has appeared here. A statement from this witness was submitted to the Tribunal, but it has not yet been introduced in evidence, so that I cannot at this moment deal with it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal doesn't know what you are talking about because the Tribunal has not yet allowed the witness Halder to be called; but you must conclude your examination of the defendant now.
DR. STAHMER: I believe I have been misunderstood, Mr. President, I was speaking of the witness Schreiber. A statement of the witness Schreiber was submitted, and the Tribunal ruled that Schreiber should appear here as a witness. I shall, therefore, have to reserve the right...
THE PRESIDENT: The interpretation came to us as Halder.
DR. STAHMER: No, no-Schreiber, Professor Schreiber of the Russian statement.
THE PRESIDENT: If this Schreiber is brought here in accordance with the Tribunal's order, then no doubt you will have the opportunity of cross-examining. Dr. Stahmer, if you want to put any
20 Aug. 46
questions to the Defendant G6ring, you must put them now because the Tribunal doesn't propose to have the defendant recalled again should the witness Dr. Schreiber be produced. Therefore, if you have any questions to put to, the defendant on the subject which Dr. Schreiber might be called to deal with, you must put them now.
DR. STAHMER: Did you never receive from Hitler an order or some special authority to carry out preparations for bacteriological warfare?
GOERING: I have never received authority or an order of the kind mentioned by General Schreiber of the Medical Service in his letter to the Soviet Government.
DR. STAHMER: Did you have -knowledge of the fact that your medical officers were working on preparations of this sort?
GOERING: No, and this letter does not say anything about medical officers, but merely that a Luftwaffe officer...
THE PRESIDENT: One minute. Will you just wait one minute. Go on, Dr. Stahmer. You will confine yourself to the matters with which you have dealt in your written application with reference to Dr. Schreiber.
DR. STAHMER: Did you have knowledge of the fact that the working association "Bacteriological Warfare" existed?
GOERING: That such a working association existed I did not know. What I did know, however, was that as a matter of course defensive measures against bacteriological warfare were discussed. It must not be forgotten that to a certain extent this type of warfare had already been instituted against us by the dropping of destructive potato beetles and so on. Measures were taken, on the one hand, to carry out preparations for defense against such warfare; then possibly I do not know this, but it is quite possible-preparations may have been made to enable us to reply, should the enemy start this bacteriological war.
DR. STAHMER: Do you know Professor Blommen?
DR.STAHMER: Then you did not commission him to prepare such measures?
GOERING: That is hardly possible.
DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the Prosecution desire to ask any questions?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, I first want to know how much of the witness Sievers' letter you agree with or disagree with. Do you agree that the directions for carrying out the spotted fever experiments were in the hands of the director of the Hygienic
20 Aug. 46
Institute of the Reich University of Strasbourg, Professor Dr. Haagen, major in the Medical Corps, and consulting hygienist to an air fleet? Js Sievers right in saying that?
GOERING: I have no means of checking that; it is possible.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Now, are you disputing 'that Dr. Haagen was-I quote-"commissioned with this task by the Reich Marshal, the President of the Reich Research Council," or do you again say that you have no means of checking that?
GOERING: I said quite clearly that I know nothing about it; and it is interesting that he also speaks of the Reich Marshal and the President of the Reich Research Council, that is, the heading under which all the thousands of research commissions were given.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FY]FE: To put it quite bluntly, your defense to this is the rubber-stamp defense that your signature on the orders was merely a rubber-stamp for the equivalent signature as President of the Reich Research Council? Is that what you want the Tribunal to understand?
GOERING: No, I am not saying that at all. If my signature was given, then it had its full value; but it was not given. As I said earlier, this was the heading, the letter heading of the tasks set. These task allotments were signed by some subordinate department dealing with these matters. If I signed a letter, I alone assume the responsibility for it. 'It would be only too easy for the Prosecution to put such a letter before me or to question Herr Haagen.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then you say that if instructions went out from the Reich Research Council you knew nothing about them. That is your answer, as I understand it.
GOERING: The details, of course, I did not know, because firstly, that was impossible if only from the point of view of time; my day, too, only had 24 hours. Secondly, I emphasized that I was not an expert in any way, but that my task was to give general instructions to the men working in research, to centralize the research work of every sphere, and to provide the very large funds required.
SIR DAVID MAXWELIFYFE: Did you see, Defendant, the letter goes on to say: "In accordance with his instructions"-which were said to come from the Reich Marshal, the President of the Research Council-"In accordance with his instructions, Dr. Haagen has to report about his work to the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services."
GOERING: That is possible; it is possible that he was given that ,-order. However, he did not report to me, and the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate did not report to me either.,
20 AUG. 46
It is for that reason that my defense counsel applied to have the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate appear here as a witness, in order to make this point abundantly clear.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So that in both these capacities-in these two of your capacities-the Reich Research Council and the Medical Department of the Luftwaffe were both acting without any knowledge of yours? In these experiments which were concerned with the condition of, among others, the service for which you were responsible, you say both of these bodies were acting without your knowledge? That is what you say? Is that right; are you sure. it is right?
GOERING: That is absolutely right. A short explanation, in this connection. Well, you see, it is absolutely...
SIR DAVID MAXWELLFYFE: Just a moment. I would like you to consider one or two points before you commit yourself too deeply to that.
Do you know that in May of 1942 Field Marshal Milch was expressing your special thanks to the SS for their co-operation in the altitude experiments?
My Lord, that is Document Number 343-PS, and it is the letter that begins, "Dear Wolff." Wolff was one of Himmler's personal staff. If my recollection is correct, he was the liaison between Himmler and Hitler, certainly at one time.
And your second man, Defendant, Field Marshal Milch, was expressing the special thanks from the Supreme Commander of the Air Force to the SS for their extensive co-operation in the altitude experiments.
Are you saying that Meld Marshal Milch, when he wrote that or when he signed it on behalf of your medical department-was merely expressing a chanson de malaise and was not conveying your thanks to Himmler?
GOERING: Not only am I saying it, but Milch himself testified to that quite clearly while he was in the witness stand; if you will read the record, you will find that he expressly admits that I had no knowledge of these details.
Apart from that I must mention that we employed a certain method of correspondence which may perhaps not seem quite fitting here, but it nevertheless existed: if a representative of a Ministry wrote a letter of thanks which was not of a personal nature, he always had to express thanks on behalf of the chief, in the name of the chief, and I believe that rule exists everywhere.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I just remind you: what the witness Milch said was that these letters were put in front of him by your medical department. These experiments mainly and greatly
20 Aug. 46
concerned the Luftwaffe. Are you saying that the thanks of the Luftwaffe and of the Supreme Commander, yourself, were given without any reference to you at all?
GOERING: Field Marshal Milch. did not say that the letters were put before me, he said they were put before him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is what I said: I said "before him." I didn't suggest they were put before you at all.
GOERING: It probably came through incorrectly. Then he goes on to say that he expressed his grateful thanks, because the inspectorate had told him that it was no longer interested in the matter since the high-altitude experiments had already been carried out voluntarily by our young medical officers, and he spoke about that at length.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But you know, it didn't stop with your young medical officers. Your service provided the equipment for Dachau for these experiments.
GOERING: The translation is not coming through.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will repeat that. It did not stop there. Your service was providing the equipment for these experiments for Dachau.
My Lord, the reference to that is Exhibit GB-582, Document Number 2428-PS, which is an affidavit by the detainee Anton Pacholegg, who was at Dachau. He says that the Luftwaffe delivered, here at the concentration camp at Dachau, a cabinet constructed of wood and metal, measuring one meter square and two meters high, and so on. He describes the equipment.
[Turning to the defendant.]Are you saying that the supplying
of equipment for these experiments at Dachau was done without any reference to you on these particular Air Force experiments?
GOERING: In the first place, it was not the Air Force which was carrying out the experiments at Dachau, it was the medical office of the Air Force Reserve, Dr. Rascher. Whether Dr. Rascher obtained the order to do so from the Medical Inspectorate, and in what form, I do not know.
Secondly, it was not wood or various parts which were sent there, but a so-called high-altitude chamber. That is the thing I mentioned before, which every airman had to enter to test the reaction of his body to altitude and pressure conditions. It was not difficult for Rascher, therefore, to go to the inspectorate, to the Technical Inspectorate, and ask for such a chamber without giving exact details of the type of experiments for which he wanted to use it, and whether his experiments entailed any danger for the people subjected to them.
20 Aug. 46
Thirdly- should like to stress this again-the Prosecution has repeatedly said, and only lately Justice Jackson in his final speech especially emphasized, that I had my fat fingers in every pie. I want to say that if I held as many offices as I am being accused of having held, then you will understand that I could not have concerned myself with every high-altitude chamber used for experiments.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But did you not concern yourself with the experiments to test the flight clothing for the Luftwaffe when the concentration camp detainees were dressed in various types of flight suits with jackets? I mean, Defendant, you have been a practical airman yourself, with a very gallant record of service in the air in the last war. What I am suggesting to you is that these matters were matters that were not only within your administrative interest in your positions, but they were within your personal interest as an ex-air officer. That is why I am suggesting to you that you would have, and did have, an interest in these experiments.
Putting back your memory, are you sure that you don't remember about the experiments on these concentration camp detainees for testing air clothing?
GOERING: Sir David, I am not only absolutely sure that I do not remember, but I am absolutely sure that it was not so. I emphasize that I am not saying I do not remember; I am saying with absolute certainty that this was not so.
Secondly, you are quite right: naturally I took the greatest interest in the welfare of my airmen, and also in their clothing. As airmen we repeatedly discussed among ourselves what the best type of combination would be. Had I been told that heatable combinations would be used, then on the strength of my own experience I would have said that I did not want them, because at the end of the last war I myself once wore such a heatable suit with the result that I badly burnt myself.
SIR DAVID MAXWELIYYFE: Well, now, take another experiment. It must have been the same in your Air Force as in ours, that one of the greatest difficulties,, or one of the things that one wanted to deal with, was those who came down, in our parlance, who came down into the sea; that is, what could be done and for what time they would survive.
Do you say that you did not know about the cold test? According to this affidavit to which I have referred, Dr. Rascher conducted this cold test. That was for the Luftwaffe also. That was to see the resistance of the human body to immersion in water. Do you say that you knew nothing about that experiment also?
GOERING: I knew neither Dr. Rascher nor any of his experiments. The symptoms of cold experienced when the men fell into the water
20 Aug. 46
were known. Against freezing there existed an excellent powder, or some such stuff. Moreover, I knew that everything had been done to construct life belts in such a way that they would permit breathing in spite of breakers, and so on, and we also observed and studied the precautionary measures, the clothing, and the rescue methods of our opponents. I remember that I once held a pamphlet of that type in my hand, but that is all.
Apart from that, people have been falling into the water for years, and have always done the most suitable thing under the circumstances: they have moved about, they have taken alcohol, and so on, to get warm again.
SIR DAVID MAXWFLIFYFE: Well now ...
GOERING: I beg your pardon, but there is one thing to which I attach very great importance, and it is this: The experiments with women, and so on, which were described here, are so utterly in contradiction to my views as regards women, that I would have resented such experiments most deeply, not just afterwards, but at the time.
SIR DAVID MAXW'ELIFYFE: Well, now, just one other experiment, then I will. pass to the question of knowledge of these experiments at that time. Did you or did you not know that the Sanit5tswesen of the Luftwaffe were, in May 1944, working on experiments to render sea 'water drinkable, in which concentration camp inmates were used?
GOERING: No, that I did not know. But I would like to explain how it may have happened. Not even the Medical Inspectorate need have known of it. A task was set by the inspectorate, and even assuming that I had done so, it does not at all follow that experiments were carried out on human beings, which endangered their lives. If a medical officer of the Luftwaffe Reserve had any sort of connection, let us say, with Himmler or his Research Institute, for instance as a member of the SS, which was quite possible, then these were cross-connections of which the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate need not have known anything whatever. Not all methods of procedure were reported to superior authorities.
SIR DAVID MAXWELTYYPE. The first letter that I put to you was dated 26 May 1942. You say that the facts which Field Marshal Milch was concerned with-I want to get it as exact as possible were merely formal methods of conveying the facts of that date? Do you remember that on 28 July 1942 Hitler issued a Fuehrer Decree, countersigned by the Defendant Keitel and by the witness Lammers, establishing a Co-ordination Staff for the Armed Forces to deal with health? That is on 28 July 1942. It was to co-ordinate the coming tasks in the field of health for the Armed Forces, the Waffen-SS, and subordinate organizations. And, if I may remind you so that you may fit it in your memory, "for the purpose of a comprehensive
20 Aug. 46
treatment of these offices, a sanitary officer of the Navy and a sanitary officer of the Air Force will be assigned to work under him"-that is the Sanitary Inspector of the Army. Now listen to this: the latter, that is, the medical officer of the Air Force, in a capacity as a Chief of Staff; that is the time when Field Marshal Milch was writing to Wolff about these experiments.
Two months later there was a Fuehrer Decree, and one of your officers was to be Chief of Staff of this Co-ordination Staff.' Are you telling the Tribunal that you did not know about the Fuehrer Decree and that your officer was so appointed?
GOERING: Before giving my answer, may I have a look at the decree?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you like ... ?
GOERING: Yes, I should like to see it.,
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-PYFE: I have only the English copy.
[ document was handed to the witness]
GOERING: Yes, that is just what I wanted to find out. This decree has nothing whatsoever to do with experiments. It begins with the following-I shall translate it freely, I do not know the language so well. t
"A planned co-ordination is necessary for the personnel and material in the field of health and in the whole Medical Inspectorate. I therefore decree as follows..."
The decree created the post of the chief of the medical department-I no longer know the exact designation-in order to solve the shortage of medical officers and of medical supplies-that is especially emphasized here-and, of course, if necessary, to carry out joint research work.
What we did in the field of research, especially during the war, is of course quite clear. Since the Army was providing the bulk of the medical officers and was receiving the largest amount of medicines and material, the Sanitary Inspector was put at the head of the department. Since the Air Force was the second largest branch of the Wehrmacht, the Chief of Staff was chosen from the ranks of the Luftwaffe. That is quite understandable.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The point that I am putting to you, and I think you have gathered it, is that on 28 July 1942 there was this additional interest in medical matters and research which made Hitler assemble this co-ordinating staff. Now, I want you just to remember how that interest in medical matters was shown in your service. A month later, on 31 August 1942, your second man Milch was writing to Himmler. My Lord, this is Document Number 343-PS, the Exhibit USA-463.
20 Aug. 46
"Dear Herr Himmler: I thank you very much for your letter of 25 August. I have read with great interest the reports of Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg. I am informed about the current experiments. I shall ask the two gentlemen to give a lecture combined with the showing of motion pictures to my men in the near future."
Now, assume that Milch is telling the truth for the purpose of this question, and that that letter was put in front of him by the head of your medical department for his signature; assume that, if you like. There is no reason to suppose that the head of your medical department was telling lies in the letter he put before Milch; no reason to assume that that letter is untrue, and if, in your service, lectures were given on these experiments with motion pictures to the men, are you still telling the Tribunal that you, as the head of the service, knew nothing about these experiments for your service that were going on?
GOERING: I am telling the Tribunal only the truth. First, this letter need not by any means have been submitted to Milch by the Sanitary Inspectorate just because it was a direct letter between Himmler and Milch. Secondly, while he was in the witness stand here, Milch ...
SIR DAVID MAXWELIFYFE: Excuse me for interrupting you. I am only quoting Milch's evidence. I was asking you to assume for the moment that Milch's evidence is true. It was suggested to Milch that his evidence wasn't true, and the truth was that you said it was his own letter. I am asking you to assume that Milch is telling the truth; this is the letter put before him by the sanitary department. That is why I put it that way. Now, continue your answer.
GOERING: I am afraid I did not understand you quite clearly. Did you read me a letter from Field Marshal Milch or did you read the testimony which Milch gave here? The translation did not make that quite clear.
SIR DAVID MAXWELIFYFE: I read to you a quotation from a letter of Field Marshal Milch to Himmler. And I informed you, in case you didn't remember, that Field Marshal Milch-that that letter was put in front of him by your medical department and that he signed it blindly. That was Milch's evidence. I asked you to assume that Milch was telling the truth. I don't mean that for the moment. I am asking you, as head of your service, if, these experiments were the subject of lectures and motion pictures shown to your own men serving under your command? Are you still telling the Tribunal that you knew nothing about them? ,
GOERING: I already said quite clearly and plainly that I myself knew nothing about them. I did not say that Meld Marshal Milch
20 Aug. 46
had made an untruthful statement. After all he must know whether the letter was submitted to him by the inspectorate or not; as far as I recall his testimony here on the witness stand, he cleared up this matter completely and emphasized that he made no report whatever to me about the details of these experiments.
But, Sir David, may I once more direct your attention to this decree. I have meanwhile glanced through the whole of it. It has nothing at all to do with these experiments but, as I said earlier, Part I deals with the medical departments of the three Wehrmacht branches, and Part 2 deals with the relation of the army and civil medical health services from a purely organizational and administrative point of view.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Witness, I just passed the decree, you know. I want your answer. Do you say that you did not know that lectures and motion pictures were shown to the men under your command, dealing with these experiments? I just want your answer quite clearly yes or no. Did you or did you not know?
GOERING: No, I knew nothing about that. May I ask you once more to take into consideration that the Ministry was an administration of its own, whereas I, at headquarters, dealt rather with strategic and tactical matters. I would certainly have objected to such experiments; even though the Russian Prosecution, I believe, at one time distorted this, I maintain this. In 1934 1 strictly forbade experiments and tortures to be carried out on living animals; kindly do not expect me to have permitted them to be carried out on human beings.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is not for me to comment. Plenty of people have standards with regard to animals which they do not apply to fellow-men. But this is a matter of comment and I do not wish to pursue it.
Now, in November 1942-you referred to it in giving your evidence-Dr. Rascher was transferred soon after that from the Air Force to the SS. Before he was transferred, Himmler wrote to Milch on that subject after describing the experiments on the behavior of the human organism at great -heights, in prolonged cooling, and similar problems. I quote Himmler's words, which are of vital importance to the Air Force in particular:
"These researches which deal with the behavior of the human organism at great heights, as well as with manifestations caused by prolonged cooling of the human body in cold water, and similar problems which are of vital importance to the Air Force in particular..."
Then he says:
"Unfortunately you had no time recently when Dr. Rascher wanted to report on the experiments at the Ministry for Air.
20 Aug. 46
I had put great hopes in that report because I believe that in this way the difficulties, based mainly on religious objections, which obstructed Dr. Rascher's experiments for which I have assumed responsibility, could be eliminated. The difficulties now are still the same as before. In these Christian medical circles the standpoint is being taken that it goes without saying that a young German aviator should be allowed to risk his life, but that the life of a criminal who is not drafted into military service is too sacred for this purpose and one should not burden oneself with this guilt."
Then Himmler goes on to say that in view of the importance to the Air Force and also to the Waffen-SS, "however, in this connection, I suggest that in view of the liaison between you and Wolff," that is, Milch and Wolff, "a non-Christian physician should be in charge who would, at the same time, be informed of the results."
Are you saying, Defendant, that you never heard, although Hitler had heard, that Christian medical circles were protesting against these experiments?
GOERING: I think you mean Himmler, not Hitler.
SIR DAVID M - AXWELL-FYFE: Himmler, I am sorry. Although Himmler knew, you say you did not know that Christian medical circles were apparently, according to this letter, publicly and insistently protesting against these experiments? Did you not know that?
GOERING: No, and they did not protest publicly. But I am very grateful to you for having brought up this letter which I no longer remembered among the many documents which have been submitted to me. It underlines clearly and unmistakably what I said before and I am happy that by the Christian medical officers who are mentioned here, the inspectorate of my Luftwaffe is apparently meant, because only the inspectorate could raise protests. And that is also the reason why this Rascher had apparently to leave the Air Force as his co-operation with the inspectorate no longer satisfied Herr Himmler; and therefore he transferred him to the SS. That emphasizes exactly what I said.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want you-again, I want you to apply your mind to this. You and Himmler were still on good -terms in 1942, weren't you?
GOERING: Until the end, Himmler always adopted a very polite attitude towards me, as befitted him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You were more than that. Within a few days of this letter you sent him an attaché-case of crocodile leather, a box of cigars, and a notebook for Christmas. This means
20 Aug. 46
that you were on good terms with Himmler at this time. Do you mean to say that you never heard, that Himmler never said to you, that Milch never told you, that your medical officer never said to you, that these experiments were being carried on and were causing protest in Christian medical circles? Did everyone conspire, Defendant, to keep you in ignorance of every matter that might be embarrassing to you? Now, is that the answer?
GOERING: The experiments and knowledge of them have nothing to do with the crocodile attach6-case and the notebook. These were Christmas presents in return for a present which Himmler always gave me for Christmas on behalf of the SS, and I always wanted to respond to this gesture. Secondly, no attempts were made to hide anything from me intentionally, but the various spheres, of activity were divided; there were important matters, very important matters, and routine matters which were treated by certain departments. The Medical Inspectorate was one of them. It was impossible to bring everything to my knowledge.
Apart from that, I wish to emphasize again that I never heard of a public protest by Christian circles or doctors in Germany against such experiments during the war; such a protest would not, in fact, have been possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any question to put, Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant can return to the dock. Dr. Gawlik.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Lordship, may I first of all apologize for my failure to be ready for the submission of my documents yesterday. I regret that this resulted in a delay of the proceedings, but defense counsel for the Organizations were informed that the sequence for the submission of documents would be different from that of the examination of witnesses, and the sequence of which we were informed was the following: Political Leaders, Gestapo, SS, and SD. I therefore assumed that I would follow the SS with the submission of documents. I ask the Tribunal to take into consideration that I am at present preparing my final speech and that I am therefore not able to participate in 411 the sessions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you saying that you are not able now to participate in the session?
DR. GAWLIK: Now I am ready, Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know how any such misunderstanding as you indicate can have occurred, because no order was given by the Tribunal that there would be any alteration of the order, and counsel for the defendants and the defendant organizations must
20 Aug. 46
understand that they must be here when~ their case is called on, and the Tribunal can't be kept waiting as it was yesterday. This is the first occasion on which it has happened, and the Tribunal hopes it will not happen again.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Lordship, it is a notice dated I August which is posted on the blackboard in counsel's room.
THE PRESIDENT: Just what does it say?
DR. GAWLIK: It says that for the examination of witnesses, the sequence was altered and the SD witnesses were heard before the SS witnesses, but that for the submission of documents and the final speeches, the old sequence will be followed, and then the sequence is quoted: Political Leaders, Gestapo, SS, and SD.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will inquire into that matter.
DR. GAWLIK: First of all, may I submit the records with regard to the witnesses I have examined. I shall now begin with the submission of affidavits. On account of the pressure of work in- the Translation Division, only some of the affidavits have so far been translated. I request that those affidavits ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, as you weren't present the other day, perhaps I had better tell you what the Tribunal's wishes were and are with reference to these 'affidavits.
A large number of these affidavits, if not all, have been summarized and the summaries set out in the transcript before the Commissioners, and therefore for you to give a summary again of these affidavits merely creates on the transcript of the Tribunal a repetition of the summary which is already in the transcript before the Commissioners. The Tribunal does not desire that. Therefore, if you will confine yourself to commenting on or summarizing the affidavits which have not been summarized before the Commissioners, that is all that is necessary, subject of course to offering them in evidence.
Is that clear? I wasn't suggesting that you should bring before us affidavits which haven't been brought before the Commissioners, but I was merely telling you that we don't want to have a repetition of summaries which were put before the Commissioners and which are set out in the transcript before the Commissioners.
DR. GAWLIK: That was not my intention, Your Lordship. I have only asked for some of these affidavits to be translated, and I was going to submit only those completely translated; but of those which I wanted to submit I have received only a part fully translated. Therefore I cannot at this moment submit the translation of all the affidavits I propose to use, and so I request that I may submit some of them later.
20 Aug. 46
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Before you begin, this will be a convenient time to break off.
DR. GAWLIK: Very well.
[A recess was taken.]
DR. GAWLIK: I shall present my affidavits in the order of the points of the Indictment, as they appear in the trial brief against the Gestapo and SD; that, I believe, would be of aid to the Tribunal. This order will not agree with the sequence of the numbers, but I believe that can be put up with, because this method will enable the Tribunal to see that I have endeavored not to present cumulative evidence.
First, I come to the point of conspiracy, to the tasks, aims, and activities of the SD from its foundation to the establishment of the RSHA. On this, point I submitted Affidavit SD-27 by Dr. Albert; a summary appears in the transcript of 23 July 1946.
The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the Prosecution that it was a task of the SD to obtain secret information on actual and possible opponents of the Nazis. The reference is the trial brief against the Gestapo and SD, Statement of Evidence III b, Page 17 of the English version. In this connection I submitted Affidavit Number SD-28 by Dr. Albert; the summary of the contents is also shown in the records of the Commission on 23 July 1946.
Then on this point also I now submit Affidavit Number SD-1, by Ferdinand Sackmann.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. GAWLIK: The next affidavit will prove that the reports of the SD to the Party Chancellery were not made for the purpose of supporting a conspiracy. On this topic I have submitted Affidavit Number SD-27. The short summary appears in the transcript of 3 August 1946.
The next affidavit was submitted to prove the aims, tasks and activities of Group III-D of the RSHA and in connection with the fact that Group III-D did not support a conspiracy. For this point, I have submitted Affidavit SD-40, by Ohlendorf. The summary appears in the transcript of 23 July 1946.
My next affidavits refer to the aims, tasks, and activities of the branch offices and the confidential agents, and to the fact that the tasks, aims*, and activities of the branch offices and confidential agents were not to support a conspiracy. In this connection, I submit Affidavit SD-65, by Professor Ritter. I asked for the complete translation of this affidavit, but I have not yet received it since the Translation Division is overburdened with work. I particularly call
20 Aug. 46
the attention of the Court to this affidavit. It was deposed by one of the best-known German historians, and I should like to quote the following from it:
"Question One: 'Please give details of your profession.' Answer: 'Since 1925 1 have been Professor of Modern History at the University of Freiburg."'
I omit one sentence.
"Second question: 'Were you a member of the NSDAP or any of its branches?' Answer: 'No.'
"Third question: 'Were you a member of a resistance group against the Hitler regime and were you persecuted by it Answer: 'Yes. I belonged to the circle of friends of Dr. Goerdeler who selected me as Minister of Education in his new Cabinet. In November 1944 1 was arrested in connection with the events of the 20th of July and was _placed before the People's Court in Berlin. On the 25th of April 1945, 1 was liberated by the Russian Army."'
THE PRESIDENT: The translation came through to us as "November 1934." Was it 1944?
DR. GAVVTLIK: Yes, November 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
"Fourth question: 'Do you know the activities of the SD Arbeitsgemeinschaft and where did you obtain your knowledge"
Answer: 'Yes. My knowledge originates from my activity as Chairman of the Purification Committee of the University at Freiburg.'
"Fifth question: 'What were the tasks of the SD Arbeitsgemeinschaft
Answer: 'First, to keep the supreme SD command-I do not know the exact term-informed of feelings among the population and the criticism expressed on Party measures.' "
To save time, I should like to omit the rest of this answer; I also omit the next question and come to Question Number 7:
"'What were the aims, tasks and activities of the confidential agents (Vertrauensmdnner)?' Answer: 'The aims and tasks were essentially the same as in the case of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft to which the confidential agents belonged; but while the other members of the Arbeitsgemeinschaften were asked for information and requested to attend conferences with the SD only occasionally, the confidential agents were in constant contact with the SD.'
20 Aug. 46
"Eighth question: 'Was it the task of the confidential agents to collect and pass on remarks hostile to the State and to watch persons hostile to the State?' Answer: 'I do not know of a task of this sort.'
"Ninth question: 'What was the purpose and what was the aim of the SD reports within Germany?' Answer: 'In contrast to the frequently "rosy" official Party reports, the SD reports were to give a picture corresponding to the actual conditions and feelings of the people. In the field of cultural policy, in addition, inadequacies and deficiencies were to be pointed out.'
"Tenth question: 'Did the SD in Germany watch and report on your lectures and addresses?' Answer: 'Yes. I know that in the branch of the SD in Karlsruhe or in Strasbourg a number of reports and stenographic notes on my lectures and addresses were found. I can also say that several scientists and high officials corresponded with me on the SD's activity..."'
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, I think it would be more convenient to the Tribunal or more easy for them to follow if you could summarize the affidavit rather than read it.
DR. GAWLIK: I have only a few more brief questions to read from this affidavit. I ask the Tribunal to take into consideration that this is the only affidavit which I want to read. I attach special importance to this affidavit because its author is not an SD member but a man who was himself watched by the SD.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
11 '1 can also say that several scientists and high officials corresponded with me on the SD's activity and confirmed that my presentation of the facts agreed in all points with their experience.'
"Eleventh question: 'Did the SD cause Gestapo measures to be taken against you as a result of watching your lectures?' Answer: 'I know of none.'
"Thirteenth question: 'Did the Gestapo arrest or warn you because of your lectures?' Answer: 'No. I was warned once by the Gestapo but on the basis of a denunciation of which I knew and which did not come from the SD.'
"Fourteenth question: 'For what reason were you arrested?' Answer: 'On account of my connections with some leading men of the 20th of July.'
"Fifteenth question: 'Did the examining officials in the case
against you know the contents of your lectures?' Answer: 'No, apparently not. They accepted without contradiction that
20 Aug. 46
as part of my defense I referred to the proper, "patriotic attitude of my lectures." I consider it out of the question that the Gestapo officials knew my lectures and the SD reports based on them.
"Sixteenth question: 'What was the attitude of the Political Science Faculty in Freiburg toward the Hitler Reich Answer: 'Not only the Political Science Faculty of the university but
the majority at least of the Liberal Arts professors were opponents of National Socialism. This was well known- to Dr. Scheel, the head of the Reich Organization of University Teachers, and he had announced that after the war the whole university would be dissolved.'
"Seventeenth question: 'Did the SD know of this attitude Answer: 'There can be no doubt of that.'
"Eighteenth question: 'Did the SD cause Gestapo measures to be taken against the Faculty of Political Science or any other members of the teaching staff?' Answer: 'I know of none."'
I also submitted on this point an affidavit by Hans Timmermann, Number SD-29, which is in the transcript of the Commission of 23 July 1946. Then, by Dr. Horst Laube, SD-31, also recorded in the transcript of 23 July 1946. Furthermore, SD-26 by Dr. Zirnbauer. Of that there is no summary in the transcript; therefore, may I make a brief statement about it? ,
Zirnbauer submitted two original reports which as an honorary agent he had sent to the SD, and he testified on oath that these were reports which he had prepared as confidential agent of the SD. I should like to state that these are the only two original reports which I was able to obtain.
Annex I is a report stating that the publication of the Alsace Lorraine catalogue of the geographical economic section of the Saarbrucken Municipal Library was absolutely necessary.
Annex 2 is a report on Salzburg concert life.
I further submitted Number SD-30 by Zellern, also in the transcript -of the 23d of July 1946.
The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD was all the time a part of the SS; the reference is the introduction to the trial brief against the Gestapo and the SD,
Page 12 of the English version and Page 67 of the English version.
In this connection I submitted Number SD-32; the short summary is in the transcript of 23 July 1946.
The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD played a role in the execution of one or more specific tasks, the reference being the Indictment against, the SS, Number II, Page 8
20 Aug. 46
of the German translation. In this connection I submitted an affidavit by Otto Ohlendorf, and the short summary is in the Commission transcript of 23 July 1946.
The next affidavits ...
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't give the number of that affidavit, I think.
DR. GAWLIK: Number SD-23, Your Lordship. No, I beg your pardon, it is Number 33.
The next affidavits refer to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD and Gestapo together formed a unified police system; these are Statements of Evidence Numbers II B and III B of the trial brief against the Gestapo and the SD, Pages' 9 and 17 of the English version. In this connection I have submitted SIM by Otto Ohlendorf; the short summary is in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
Furthermore, Number SD-34; a short summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946. SD-35 is by Dr. Hoffmann, and the short summary is in the transcript of 23 July 1946; SD-36 is by Otto Ohlendorf, and the short summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946.
The next affidavit is to prove that the SD had no executive power. In this connection I have submitted Affidavit Number SD-20 by Alfred Kutter, and the short summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
The next two affidavits supplement the affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl, Prosecution Document 2614-PS. I submit in this connection a supplementary Affidavit Number SD-37 by Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl.
THE PRESIDENT: That has been submitted to the Commissioner, has it?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Your Lordship. The summary is in the transcript of 23 July 1946. 1 have asked that this affidavit be translated completely; and I am submitting the complete translations.
I further submitted on this point SD-38 by Theo Gahmann; the short summary of this affidavit is in the transcript of 23 July 1946.
The next affidavit proves that the SD had no influence on the selection of SA leaders. The reference is Statement of Evidence Number III B, Page 18 of the trial brief against the Gestapo and SD. On this point I submit Affidavit SD-4 by Max Juttner. The short summary of the affidavit is in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
The next seven affidavits tend to prove that the SD had no influence on the selection of Party leaders. The reference is Statement of Evidence Number III B, Page 18 of the English trial brief. On this topic I submit Affidavit SD-5 by Otto Frehrer, for the former Gau Mainfranken, SD-6 by Otto Biedermann for the former Gau Thuringia, SD-7 by Siegfried Uiberreither for the former Gau
20 Aug. 46
Styria, SD-3 by Karl Wahl for the former Gau Schwaben, SD-9 by Paul Wegener for the former Gaue Mark Brandenburg and WeserEms, SD-10 by Albert Hoffmann for the former Gaue of Upper Silesia and Westphalia-South. SD-39 is by Adam Foertsch for the former Gau of Upper Bavaria. I do not yet have the translation of this, and I shall hand it in later.
The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD scrutinized the loyalty and reliability of State officials. The reference is Statement of Evidence III B of the trial brief, Page 18 of the English version. In this connection I have submitted affidavit SD-3 by Dr. Werner May. The short summary of the contents -is in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
I now come to Crimes against Peace. With the next affidavit I want to prove that the SD was not used in the border incidents of August 1939, and that the members of the SD had no knowledge of them. Statement of Evidence V, Page 23 of the English version.
In this connection I submitted Affidavit SD-11, by Dr. Marx. The short summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
I now come to War Crimes, first of all to Statement of Evidence VI A of the trial brief against the Gestapo and SD, Page 25 of the English version. In this connection I submit Affidavit SD-41 by Karl Heinz Bendt. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946.
I have also submitted on this point Affidavit SD-42 by Walter Schellenberg. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946.
I shall also later submit the complete Affidavit SD-43 by Heinz Wanninger, and SD-44 by Otto Ohlendorf. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946.
I have also submitted on this point Affidavit SD-45 by Erwin Schulz, the summary of the contents being in the transcript ~ of 23 July 1946; and SD-46 by Otto Ohlendorf, the summary of the contents being also in the transcript of 23 July 1946.
With the next three affidavits I want to prove that the members of the Leitabschnitte (the central regional authority), the Aussenstellen (branch offices) and the Vertrauensmdnner (confidential agents) had no knowledge of the activities of the Einsatzgruppen employed in the East. In this connection I have submitted SD-47 by Wilhelm Dilroff, which refers to the former Gaue South-Hanover and Brunswick. SD-48 by Karl Heinz Bendt refers to the former Oberabschnitte Neu-Stettin, Breslau, Dusseldorf. SD-49 by Adolf Rott refers to the former SD regional authority at Neustadt-Weinstrasse and at Saarbrucken. These three affidavits were submitted on 23 July 1946.
20 Aug. 46
The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD Abschnitt Tilsit participated in the liquidation of Jews and Communists in the border areas, Statement of Evidence VI A of the trial brief. I shall submit a complete translation of my Affidavit SD-12 by Wilhelm Sieps later. The summary of the affidavit is in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
The next affidavit refers to Prosecution Document 1475-PS and Statement of Evidence VI A of the trial brief, Page 25 of the English version. In this connection I submit the affidavit of Gerti Breiter, Number SD-69.
The next affidavit is intended to prove that the SS Major Piltz mentioned on Page 26 of the English trial brief against the Gestapo and SD did not belong to the SD but to the Gestapo.
In this connection I have submitted Affidavit SD-50 by Heinz Wanninger. The summary is in the transcript of"23 July 1946.
The next affidavits refer to Statement of Evidence VI F of the trial brief, Page 54 of the English text.
The first subject of evidence is this: in Prosecution Documents 553-PS, 498-PS, and 532-PS, SD does not mean Domestic Intelligence, Amt III, or Foreign Intelligence, Amt VI or Amt VII, but the Security Police. In this connection I submit Affidavit SD-52 by Wilhelm Keitel. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946.
The next subject of evidence is that the SD did not participate in lynchings. In this connection I have submitted SD-51 by Walter Schellenberg; the summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946.
Furthermore SD-68, by Hans Steiner. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 3 August 1946.
The next two affidavits refer to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD murdered prisoners in the prisons to prevent their being liberated by Allied troops, Statement of Evidence VI J, Page 56 of the English version of the trial brief.
On this subject, I have submitted SD-13 by Horst Laube. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9 July 1946. SD-14, by Fritz Wolfbrandt, is in the same transcript. 0
The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD participated in the forcible confiscation and partitioning of public and private property; Statement of Evidence VI K, Page 67 of the English version. In this connection I have submitted SD-15 by Kurt Klauke. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
The next affidavits refer to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD persecuted Jews, Statement of Evidence VII A of the English
20 Aug. 46
text of the trial brief. I have submitted in this connection Affidavit SD-16, by Walter Keinz. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9 July 1946. SD-17, by Emil Hausmann, is in the same transcript. Also SD-53, by Emil Fr6schel, in the transcript of 23 July 1946, and SD-54, by Dr. Laube, in the same transcript.
The next affidavits refer to the charge that the SD persecuted, the Church: Statement of Evidence VII B, Page 63 of the English text of the trial brief.
I have submitted in this connection SD-55, summary of the contents being in the transcript of 23 July 1946. Walter Keinz, SD-18, is in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
I shall submit later a complete translation of SD-19 by Helmut Fromm, summary of the contents being in the transcript of 9 July 1946. 4
With the next affidavit I wish to show the methods, aims, activities, and tasks of the SD in the Government General. On this topic I shall later submit a complete translation of Affidavit SD-56 by Helmut Fromm, summary of contents being in the transcript of 23 July 1946.
The purpose of the next affidavit is to prove that the Police in France was called SD. I have submitted in this connection an affidavit by Dr. Laube, SD-23, with a summary of contents in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
The next affidavit is submitted as proof that the members of the Gestapo and Kripo in Belgium and Northern France wore the SS uniform with the SD insignia. I have submitted SD-24 by Walter Hofmeister, and the summary of contents is in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
With the next affidavit I want to prove that the members of the SD employed in Belgium and Northern France did not belong to Amt III. For this point I have submitted SD-25 by Walter Hofmeister, summary of contents being in the transcript , of 9 July 1946.
The next affidavit indicates that membership in the SD Amt III during the war was in general not voluntary, but was based on a legal order. In this connection I have submitted SD-57 by Bernhard Dilger, in the transcript of 23 July,1946; SD-58 by Dr. Ehlich, in the same transcript; SD-59 by Karl Heinz Bendt, in the same transcript; SD-60 in the same transcript, and I shall submit later SD-21 by Oskar Eiseler, summary of the contents being in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
With the next affidavit I want to prove that withdrawal from the SD was not possible for full-time and salaried members. I submit SD-22 by Werner May, summary of contents in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
20 Aug. 46
The next three affidavits refer to the tasks, aims, and activities of Amt VI. On this subject I shall submit later SD-61 by Walter Schellenberg; the summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946. Furthermore, SD-62 by Walter Schellenberg; summary of contents is in the same transcript. Furthermore, on the tasks and activities of Amt VI, I submit Affidavit SD-66, by Otto Skorzeny.
The next affidavit refers to the aims, tasks, and activities of Anit VII. I submit this affidavit provisionally, as the Commission did not decide whether Amt VII falls under the Indictment. The chairman of the Commission told me that the Tribunal would decide this question. The affidavit is SD-63 by Dr. Dietl, which I shall submit later.
The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the Prosecution that the immigration offices had the task of carrying out evacuations with the aim of permanent colonization of. the occupied territories and the destruction of the national life of these territories, thus favoring constant expansion of the German borders. (Trial brief against the SS, III G, Pages 33 and 35 of the German translation.) I have submitted in this connection SD-64 by Martin Sandberger, summary of the contents being in the transcript of 23 July 1946. ,
Now I have an affidavit to refute Affidavit F-964, which was submitted by the Prosecution during the examination of the witness Dr. Hoffmann. I was not able to submit this affidavit to the Commission because the Commission had already concluded its session's when I received it. May I therefore submit it now. under SD-65.
THE PRESIDENT: You have one 65 already, haven't you? It came through in the translation.
DR. GAVILIK: That should be SD-71, Your Lordship. From this affidavit I shall read the following, briefly:
"To establish my knowledge of the facts given, I, Georg Schr5pel, state the following: From 1930 to 1939 1 was Government Councillor in Brunswick. In 1939 1 was temporarily in the Reich Criminal Police Office in Berlin, and from 1941 to 1945 1 was Section Chief of Personnel in the Main Office of the Security Police of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. From January 1944 on, I was also in charge of the Personnel Department of the Secret State Police, Gestapo. My last rank was Regierungsdirektor and SS Standartenfuehrer."
As to the facts:
"At no time during the existence' of the Gestapo and the SD were instructions or decrees issued by the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, or by the Reich Ministry of the Interior, ordering that the activities of the Gestapo, either at its headquarters or at its agencies throughout the Reich, were
20 Aug. 46
to be influenced or supervised by the SD. The agencies of the Gestapo were at all times completely independent. The independence and the special position of the State Police made all general influence of the SD impossible; supervision would not have been tolerated either by the Chief of Amt IV or the Chief of the Security Police, because such supervision would have been quite incompatible with the actual responsibility of the State Police itself."
I ask that I may be allowed to submit this affidavit later when I have the translation.
Now I have a collective statement on 6,123 affidavits. I have not yet received the translations. I beg your pardon, I have the French translations; may I be allowed to submit those. I also submit the list of these affidavits. From my collective statement I ask only
to be allowed to read Subject 18, concerning participation of SD members in executions in the areas of the Einsatzgruppen. On this subject I have 140 affidavits from agencies of the SD in all parts of Germany for the period from 1939 to 1945, which state the following:
"The agencies and members of the SD Amt III had no knowledge of the participation of SD members in executions carried out by the Einsatzkommandos in the East."
I now come to the presentation of my documents, which are also numbered according to the trial brief against the Gestapo and SD The first document refers to the charge of conspiracy.
I submitted as Document SD-1 an agreement between Himmler and Ribbentrop on the establishment of a uniform German Secret Intelligence Service. The document has already been submitted under USSR-120. I quote from this document the following: "The ,Secret Intelligence Service has the task, as far as foreign countries are concerned, of gathering for the Reich information in the political, military, economic, and technical spheres." And the following paragraph: "Information received by the Secret Intelligence Service from foreign countries will be put at the disposal of the Foreign Office by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt."
SD-2 is an excerpt from the special alert procedure of the Security Police and the SD in case of escapes. I shall not read this document, but I would like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that, although Amt III and Amt VI were united with Amt IV and Amt V in the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, Amt III and Amt VI had no police tasks, and there was a strict division between the offices of the Security Police and those of the SD; Amt III and VI were not entitled to institute alert proceedings.
The next six Documents SD-3, SD-4, SD-5, SD-6, SD-7, and SD-8 belong together. They are excerpts from decrees by the Reich
20 Aug. 46
Minister of Justice, SD-3; by the Reich Traffic Authority, SD-4; by the Reich Food Estate, SD-5; by the Reich Forestry, SD-6; by the Reich Ministry for Armament and War Production, SD-7; and by the Reich Ministry for Food and Agriculture, SD-8: all concerning the co-operation of these agencies with the SD.
I particularly call the attention of the Tribunal to the tasks of the SD as shown in these documents: to inform the leading Reich' authorities of the effect of official measures on the population. I submit these documents also as evidence that it was the task of the SD to co-operate not only with the State Police, but with all agencies of the State.
The next document is SD-12. With this I want to prove that the SD, in the years around 1936, did not have the significance ascribed to it by the Prosecution.
The next document is SD-13. It is an excerpt from the circular decree of the Chief of the SIPO and the SD of 16 October 1941. This document shows that the SS and Police jurisdiction applied only to full-time and salaried members of the SD, but not to honorary members and not to those who were carrying out individual tasks. The majority of the members of the SD were honorary members, and were therefore not under the SS and Police jurisdiction.
The next document is SD-14. It is an excerpt from a decree of the Party Chancellery, from which I quote the following: "Only the Hoheitstrager of the Movement, from Kreisleiter up, are entitled to issue political appraisals or certifications of political reliability." This document refers to the trial brief against the Gestapo and the SD, Statements of Evidence III and IV. The next document , SD-15, deals with the same subject of evidence. It is an excerpt from the circular decree of the RSHA, dated 12 June 1940. This decree shows that as from I July 1940 the information bureau of the Amt I, SD, was transferred to Amt IV, C 1; thus for political information of all kinds the Gestapo Amt became competent, and the Gestapo had no more support from the SD.
The next document is SD-15-a, which refutes 3385-PS submitted by the Prosecution, and shows that the SD was neither the only information service of the Party, nor the information service of the Party at all. Within its political organization, the Party had its own political situation reports, and from the Kreisleiter up, it has specific reports from all offices.
Document SD-16 is an excerpt from the memorandum by Hitler about the problems of a Four Year Plan.
With SD-17 I want to prove that the activity of members of the SD in the occupied territories was not a voluntary one, but was based on a legal order. I quote from this document the following:
20 Aug. 46
"Refusal of departmental personnel to undertake employment in occupied territories.
"The order..."-I omit the details-"has approved on principle that personnel in public service can be compelled to undertake work in places other than the regular place of service. Since it is not intended to limit this order to apply only to Reich territory, a staff member-provided the terms of the special service order have been complied with, especially no W' in time of war-may also be called upon and detached to fulfill a mission in the occupied territories."
With the next documents, SD-18 to SD-22, I want to refute the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD had special units in prisoner-of-war camps with the task of segregating and executing racially undesirable persons; the reference is the trial brief against the Gestapo and the SD Statement of Evidence III B.
Document SD-18 is an excerpt from the circular decree of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD. I call the attention of the Tribunal to the file note "IV A," which shows that the Gestapo was competent in this matter. Moreover, the decree is addressed to all State Police authorities and to the commander of the Security Police in Lublin.
I should also like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the file note "I"VA" of the next document, SD-19. I quote the following from this document. "The State Police directorates are again requested to speed up the current examinations which are still incomplete."
Document SD-20 concerns employment of Russian prisoners of war ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, what is the meaning of S15-19, Paragraph 2? The writing refers especially to various figures and then "Number 92/42 Top Secret," according to which the selection of all prisoners of war is to be made in the future in the General Government only. Why do you select prisoners of war? What does that mean?
DR. GAWLIK: That is the charge which the Prosecution has made, and I want to prove that this was done by the Gestapo alone. This decree orders that in future these selections are to be carried out only in the Government General. But that is not relevant in this connection, Your Lordship. I am only concerned with Paragraph 3.
THE PRESIDENT: But it is a document of the SD, is it not?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It is an administrative ruling, is it not?
DR. GAWLIK: Your Lordship, the Chief of the Security Police and the SD had seven Amter. It is, therefore, important which of
20 Aug. 46
his Amter acted. Amt IV was the Secret Police, the Gestapo. Amt III was the Inland SD, Amt VI was the Foreign Intelligence Service. Each of these offices had its own chief, and Amt IV was an organization different from that of Amt III and of Amt VI. Above these seven offices was the Chief of the Security Police and of the SD. This title does not in itself show that the SD had anything to do with any matter, but one must examine which of the offices acted: Amt IV, III, or VI. And for that reason I called your Lordship's' attention to the file note "IVA," that is Amt IV, the Secret State Police, Gestapo. This shows that Amt III and Amt VI had nothing to do with this matter, but that it concerned Amt IV only. This is also shown by the numeral "III," which expressly lists only the State Police directorates.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will adjourn now.
[A recess was taken until 1400 hours.]
20 Aug. 49
DR. GAWLIK: In answer to the last question of Your Lordship I think it would assist the Tribunal if I were to indicate briefly the nature of my evidence and what I propose to establish by means of these documents.
It is assumed by the Prosecution that the Gestapo, the Security Police, and the SD are independent organizations. The Gestapo is indicted separately, the Kripo (Criminal Police) is not indicted and the SD is indicted as a part of the SS. Over all of them was the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, so that in a small way it can be compared with the position of the Defendant G6ring, who was the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, Prussian Minister President, and Reich Hunting Master.
Thus one cannot conclude from that which office it was; that only becomes apparent from the file numbers and the people who dealt with these files and I am trying to establish that by means of my documents.
I now come to Document SD-20 which deals with the employment of Soviet Russian prisoners of war. One paragraph deals with the very questions which Your Lordship addressed to me with reference to the previous document, and I shall, therefore, read this paragraph.
"In order to avoid any delay in moving new arrivals of prisoners of war into the Reich, the sifting out of political commissars and 'politruks' by the Einsatzkommandos of the Security Police will in future be carried out in the Government General only.
"In the Government General the sifting will continue to be carried out by the Security Police."
By this I wish to establish that we are here purely concerned with a measure of the Security Police, not of the SD.
It then goes on to say:
"In order to insure a more rapid execution, the Security Police will reinforce its Einsatzkommandos in the Government
I then pass on to Document SD-21. In this connection I beg to draw the Tribunal's attention to where it expressly says:
"if occasion arises the request by the Kommandanturen to examine certain Arbeitskommandos through the Security
Police is to be complied with."
I beg to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the file reference, "IV," that is, measures by Amt IV. Amt IV was the Secret State
20 Aug. 46
Police, the Gestapo. Had it been the SD, then the file reference would have had to be III or VI. I now come to -
THE PRESIDENT: In the document you have just been dealing with you have got "2 A III E" at the top, and you have "III B" a little bit further down.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Lordship, the one at the top is the general collection of decrees of which there are several volumes, which I obtained from the library here; and "2 A III E" refers to this general collection of decrees. The fact that it was Amt IV can be seen from the file reference "IVA I C 2468 B/42 G."
THE PRESIDENT: Just by the first of April 1942, there is III B. What does that mean-OKW File Number 2 F 2473, Prisoner-of-War Organization III B?
DR. GAWLIK: I have not got that. Your Lordship, I have not got that here, I do not know ...
THE PRESIDENT: Immediately under the words: "Re: labor detachments for agricultural work."
DR. GAWLIK: May I ask Your Lordship, did you refer to SD-21? That is a military file reference, Your Lordship. It says OKW, High Command of the Armed Forces, file reference of the Armed Forces, Chief of Prisoner-of-War Organization III B, and that III B has nothing to do with Amt III.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, go on.
DR. GAWLIK: I now come to Document SD-22. Here we are concerned with an extract from the directives for the Kommandos of the Chief of the Security Police and of the SD to be assigned to the prisoner of war camps. The date is 17 July 1941.
I beg to draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that the leaders of the Einsatzkommandos are ordered to get in touch with the chief of the nearest State Police office or the Commander of the Security Police and the SD.
The commander can be compared on a small scale with the office of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD; he too had several subdepartments. III was SD, IV was State Police, V was Criminal Police; so that even the title of commander does not show which department issued it.
I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the following sentence:
"As a matter of principle, such communications are to be
passed to the RSHA IV A 1 by way of information."
From that it becomes evident that the measures were only dealt with in Amt IV, that is the State Police, and that Amt III had nothing to do with it.
20 Aug. 46
The following documents, SD-23 to SD-28 inclusive, refer to the allegation on the part of the Prosecution, according to which the SD had carried out the Bullet Decree; trial brief against the Gestapo and SD, Statement of Evidence VI C.
I shall first of all deal with Document SD-23. The document has already been presented by the Prosecution as Number 1650-PS. It concerns the teletype letter from the Gestapo, the Aussendienststelle Aachen, to all main Gestapo offices. I quote in order to prove that here, too, we are merely concerned with measures of the Secret State Police, the Gestapo.
"In this connection, I order the following:
"1. The main offices of the State Police are to take over the recaptured prisoner-of-war officers from the Stalag commandants and transfer them to Mauthausen Concentration Camp, according to the procedure customary up to now, unless circumstances make special transport necessary.
"2. The OKW has been requested to instruct the prisoner-of-war camps that for the purpose of camouflage the recaptured persons should not be delivered directly to Mauthausen but to the competent local office of the State Police."
I come to Document SD-24.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you leave out the fact that those documents were addressed to Inspectors of the Sipo and the SD?
DR. GAWLIK: Your Lordship, the case of the Inspectors is the same as that of the Chief of the Security Police and SD and the commanders. The Inspector was over the Criminal Police, over the State Police, and over the SD, and therefore was exercising all three functions.
THE PRESIDENT: According to this he was an Inspector of the SD. ,
DR. GAWLIK: He was Inspector of the SD, but it does not follow that because the Inspector of the Sipo was the same person, that when carrying out that activity he was acting in the capacity of the Inspector of the Sipo. We are here concerned with several offices under one person. But the contents show that prisoners of war were only to be taken over by the main offices of the State Police and that the SD offices had nothing to do with it. It says expressly under Number 1: "The main offices of the State Police are to take over
The Inspector of the Security Police and of the SD also had jurisdiction over these police offices. He had control of these measures of the State Police in his capacity as Inspector of the Security Police. The fact that he also simultaneously was Inspector of the
20 Aug. 46
SD does not mean that these things were to be carried out also by the SD offices.
THE PRESIDENT: Please continue, Dr. Gawlik.
DR. GAWLIK: I come to Document SD-24. It has already been presented under 1165-PS, and in this connection I beg to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that this is signed by Mueller, who, as is known to the Tribunal, was the chief of Amt IV. This again shows that the Gestapo alone were competent.
Document SD-25 is a circular decree from the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, dated 20 October 1942, which deals with the treatment of escaped Soviet prisoners of war, and again I beg to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the file reference, which is IV.
I will now quote:
"I request that the main offices of the State Police instruct all the police offices of the area, in the sense of Article 3 of the decree of the High Command of the Armed Forces of 5 May 1942, even if such has already been done."
May I say to Your Lordship in this connection that if this had belonged to the tasks of the SD offices then the SD offices would also have had to be informed.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, I don't think it is doing any good at all to argue upon each document. You must make your final speech at some time; and unless there is anything really very important in particular documents which you want to draw our attention to, so that we can really consider it before you make your final speech, you had much better leave the argument upon the documents until you get to your final speech. This is simply wasting our time without having any useful purpose at all.
DR. GAVVLIK: Your Lordship, I have only ...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, up to the present you have commented upon each document as far as I can see, SD-22, SD-23, SD-24, SD-25, each one of them; and you are going through the book like that. Why don't you offer them all in evidence in bulk; and then if you want to draw our attention to any particular document for some particular purpose, as I say, because you think it is important and we should consider it before you come to make your final speech, do so. But don't spend time in just explaining what each document is. We have to hear all the other organizations before we come to hear your speech.
DR. GAWLIK: I only did it because I gathered from the question that there was some confusion with regard to the positions of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD and that of the commanders and of the inspectors.
20 Aug. 46
THE PRESIDENT: I only put a question to you because you were going through each document in turn and I couldn't understand what the documents were about.
DR. GAV&IK: Documents SD-27 and SD-28 also deal with the allegation on the part of the Prosecution regarding the "Bullet" decree. May I perhaps quote from Document Number SD-28:
"Insofar as escaped Soviet prisoners of war are brought bark to the camp according to this order, they are in every case to be turned over to the nearest office of the Gestapo."
The following documents, SD-29 to SD-42, deal with the accusation raised against the SD by the Prosecution, according to which the SD is to be held responsible for the setting up of concentration camps and determining their purpose, and for the transfer of politically and racially undesirable persons to concentration and extermination camps for the purpose of forced labor and mass extermination, Page 43 of the English trial brief. These documents show that the SD did not in any way participate in these measures; and, if I may, I should like to read one sentence of Document SD-29:
"In the future, restrictions of personal liberty"-I leave out what follows-"may be ordered only by the Secret State Police Office, to apply to the entire state territory, and by the Oberregierungspr5sidenten, by the Police Commissioner in Berlin, and by the State Police branch offices, to apply to their respective jurisdiction."
From Document SD-31 I quote:
"Protective custody can be ordered for any person as a coercive measure of the Secret State Police in order to combat any activities hostile to the State and the people.... Only the Secret State Police is entitled to decree protective custody." ,
Document SD-37 deals with the allegation by the Prosecution according to which the SD also administered concentration camps. I shall, therefore, quote one sentence from the document:
"The camp commandant is in charge of the administration of a concentration camp and of all economic industries of the SS within its sphere of organization."
The administration of camps is also shown in Document SD-38-
THE PRESIDENT: I can't see any point in drawing our attention to that document at the present time.
DR. GAWLIK: Because in the trial brief the accusation has been raised against the SD that it also administered concentration camps.
THE PRESIDENT: But this document doesn't show that they did not.
20 Aug. 46
DR. GAWLIK: Document SD-37 is a decree, from the Chief of the SS Economic and Administration Main Office. That was a completely different office, which had nothing to do with the RSHA.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me to be quite vague as to who the camp commandants of concentration camps are. As I say, it doesn't seem to me to be a document which it is necessary to refer to at this stage.
DR. GAWLIK: I then refer to Document Number SD-39. There it says:
"The transfer of the Inspectorate of the concentration Camps to the Economic and Administration Main Office has been carried out with the full agreement of all the main offices concerned."
From this it becomes apparent that, first of all, concentration camps were under the jurisdiction of the Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps, and that this was then transferred to the $S Economic and administration Main Office. However, the SD belonged to the RSHA. The fact that concentration camps were under the jurisdiction of the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps also becomes apparent from the previous Document SD-38.
I beg to refer you to Document Number SD-40, in which it is explicitly stated ...
THE PRESIDENT: You are not taking the slightest notice of what I said to you. You are going through every document, or practically every document-not every document. You began this by saying that 29 to 42 dealt with concentration camps. Then you went to 37; then you went to 38; then you went to 39. They really don't help the Tribunal at all. You have told us that 29 to 42 referred to transfer to concentration camps. Well, that is quite enough. Unless there is a document which is really important, which we should study before we hear you make your speech, the summary that 29 to 42 deal with transfer to concentration camps is quite enough.
DR.GAWTLIK: I thought that I could assist the Tribunal by drawing their attention to the fact that concentration camps came under the SS Economic and Administration Main Office, not the RSHA. Only for that reason did I discuss these further documents.
Documents SD-43 to 49 deal with the accusation that the SD had participated in the deportation of citizens of the occupied territories for the purpose of forced labor, and that it had the task of supervising this forced labor.
SD-43 shows the jurisdiction of the State Police.
20 Aug. 46
I quote from these documents only the following. From Document SD-43, under Figure 2:
"The tasks arising from the employment of Soviet Russians are to be comprised in a section attached to the State Police Main Offices. This section will be in charge of a criminal police official, who in turn will be under the constant personal supervision of the Chief of the State Police Main Offices."
I now quote one sentence from Appendix I to Document SD-43;
"The recruitment of labor from the former Soviet Russian territory will be carried out by recruitment commissions from the Reich Ministry of Labor."
"The recruitment commissions of the Reich Labor Ministry will set up reception camps."
Document SD-50 deals with the Commando Order. I beg to draw the tribunal's attention to the words "are to be handed over to the Security Police."
Documents SD-51 to 53 deal with the allegation on the part of the Prosecution that the SD had the task of protecting civilians if they had lynched airmen belonging to the United Nations.
Document SD-54 is already in evidence under USA-504 and 668-PS. It deals with the carrying out of the "Nacht und Nebel" Decree.
Documents SD-55 up to 57 deal with the assertion on the part of the Prosecution that the SD, in summary proceedings, had arrested citizens of occupied territories and sentenced them before the courts.
I beg to draw the attention of the Tribunal to Document SD-55, which is also L-316, and from that I shall quote one sentence:
"These foreign nationals are in the future to be turned over to the Police."
I quote one regulation, one sentence, from Document SD-56: "Criminal actions by Jews will be punished by the Police."
Documents SD-58, 58a to c, deal with the assertion on the part of the Prosecution that the SD had participated in the confiscation by force and partitioning of public and private property.
I shall quote one sentence from Document SD-58:
"The confiscation will be declared by the Main Offices of the State Police for the benefit of the Greater German Reich."
SD-9 and SD-60 deal with the third-degree methods during interrogations. In this connection I beg to draw the Tribunal's attention to filing reference Numeral IV, which deals with the jurisdiction of Amt IV, Secret State Police.
20 Aug. 46
In Document SD-60 the existing regulations applicable to the Security Police in the Government General are expressly specified.
Documents SD-60a up to 64 deal with the charge against the SD according to which crimes against humanity were committed. SD-60a to 63 deal with the persecution of Jews. In connection with Document SD-62 I beg to draw the attention of the Tribunal again to IV B and also to the signature "Mueller, Chief of the Secret State Police."
Document SD-64 refers to the charge against the SD in reference to the persecution of the Churches (Statement of Evidence VII B, Page 57). Documents SD-65 to 69 set forth the-legal regulations on the strength of which during the war a large portion of members of the SD Amt III and VI were called up for compulsory and emergency service; I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the following sentence in Document SD-65:
"As employers of labor"-I omit a few words-"the SD sections can request the labor offices to place at their disposal replacement and supplementary manpower in accordance with the principles of allotment and use of the population during war."
SD-69 contains the punishment decreed for those who did not comply with such regulations.
I now come to Document SD-70, regarding which I have been unable to agree with the Prosecution. I ask, therefore, that first a decision be made as to whether or not I may introduce this document.
THE PRESIDENT: I have only got one document book.
DR. GAWLIK: It is in the appendix, Your Lordship. May I send up the original, Your Lordship~
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Will you tell the Tribunal what it is about?
DR. GAWLIK: With this document I wish first of all to prove that the SD did not belong to the Police and did not belong to the SS. Furthermore, I wish to establish that the SD in the Reich and the organization of the Security Police and the SD outside the Reich were separate organizations, and I want to establish the tasks of Amt III. I beg to draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that in Section IV the SD is mentioned under German Intelligence Service.
THE PRESIDENT: This is a book produced by the Allied Command, isn't it? Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Forces, and you are offering that, is that it?
DR. GAWLIK: The General Secretary ...
20 Aug. 46
THE PRESIDENT: Has there been any formal application for this document?
DR. GAWLIK: Oh yes. The document is contained in the appendix to the document book. But I have not been able to reach an agreement with the Prosecution regarding this book.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear the Prosecution about it.
LT. COMDR. HARRIS: May it please the Tribunal, we have no strong objection to this document. It is simply one of several which we discussed and we did not agree upon it. Our objection is primarily to its value in so far as evidence is concerned. It is an intelligence book and therefore what is said in that book relates exclusively to matters of intelligence. It is dated April 1945. That is the date of its publication and quite obviously, as of that date, the information could not be available such as is now available to the Tribunal in a competent form.
DR. GAWIK: Your Lordship ...
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will admit the book for what it is worth.
DR. GAWLIK: First of all, I beg to draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that in this book the organization of the State and the Party is subdivided into four parts and the Intelligence Service is given a section of its own-Numeral IV. Numeral I is the State and Party; Numeral II is Para-Military Units; Numeral III is the German Police, and Numeral IV is the German Intelligence Service; the organization of Amter III and VI.
I then beg to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that in the case of the SS it states that the SS consists of (1) Waffen SS, (2) the General SS, and (3) the Germanic SS. The SD Is not listed there. And I further beg to draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that the Intelligence Service mentioned under Numeral IV is subdivided into SD Inland III, the organization of the Security Police and the SD outside of the Reich, and thirdly into Amter VI and VII. I
And then I beg to draw the attention of the Tribunal particularly to the following statement regarding the activities of Amt III. There it say's:
"The information supplied by intelligence agents is digested into situation reports and"-and it goes on to say that "these reports are extraordinarily frank and sincere"-I translated that myself-"and contain a complete and unvarnished picture of the attitude and frame of mind in Germany."
I now pass on to my last document. That is a letter from an assistant teacher (Studienassessor) Wolferts, and I submitted the
20 Au. 46
letter because I had only just received it and I could not get an affidavit. The letter refers to Document 142. That is the wellknown document from Kochem, where the SD is supposed to have supervised the voting, and this letter mentions the evangelical clergyman, Alferich Wolferts, who voted "no," the vote being attached to the report. The daughter's letter shows that no measures were taken either by the Gestapo or the SD against the father, who has since died. I have now finished.
Your Lordship, should I read to the Tribunal a list of the documents or should I submit a written statement as to where the documents are to be found? Most of the documents have already been submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we have got that. Haven't we got it at the beginning of your document book? We have an index.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean to make a separate document of it?
DR. GAWLIK: I only have part of the documents, some of them are documents of the Prosecution, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: If you think it would serve a useful purpose, by all means submit your index under a separate number and deposit it with the Tribunal.
DR. GAWLIK: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr, Kubuschok, when you were dealing with the witnesses, did we deal with the Reich Cabinet next? Are you prepared to go on with your documents?
DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for the Reich Cabinet): Altogether I have four affidavits. They have been submitted to the Commission. They are being translated. However, the translations are not yet ready. I shall submit them at a later stage, and I shall confine myself today to reading into the record a few very important passages from these affidavits.
The first affidavit, which is Number 1, was given by State Secretary Dr. Otto Meissner, who later became Minister. I shall read the following passages from this affidavit:
First of all, Meissner deals with the work of the Cabinet, particularly during the first period after Hitler had formed his Government; and he states in this connection:
"It"-that is the Reich Government-"worked according to previous custom; that is to say, draft laws were decided upon at meetings of the Cabinet, during which procedure objections could be raised. Right from the beginning the supreme and
20 Aug. 46
uncontested leader of that Government was Hitler, who likewise based his actions, formally speaking, on the Reich Constitution, according to which the guiding principles of policy should be decided by the Reich Chancellor. These guiding principles did not differ from those which he publicly proclaimed in the many speeches which he made during that period."
A little further on he says:
"All the important political decisions, such as the annexation of Austria, the march into the Sudetenland, the signing of the pact with Italy, the march into Bohemia and Moravia, and the attack against Poland and the neutral countries, took place without previous resolutions being passed by the Cabinet, and even without the members of the Government being informed of them beforehand. Except where they had been informed by Hitler personally, they learned of these events just like every other citizen through the radio and the press. The members of the Cabinet were thus forced out of any political activity, against their will and without any guilt on their part, and they were limited to the management of their department. They were merely leading civil servants in their department. Therefore these ministers could not know that Hitler had any intention to begin a war or that he intended to misuse his power to commit acts of violence and make attacks in violation of international law."
The affidavit further deals with the law of 3 July after the end of the Rohm Putsch. Finally, the affidavit goes on to state as follows: "The fact that the members of the Reich Cabinet, in spite of the increasing brutality of the course pursued, remained in their offices, was, according to my own observation-apart from the fact that the Fuehrer as a matter of principle would not accept resignations and particularly in wartime considered them as acts which undermined the country's defense-due to the fact that they, at least the nonradical ministers, believed that if they resigned, their posts would only be filled by more radical and unexperienced men. Thus they would not only have abandoned the intrinsic interests of their departments, but also the personal interests of their employees."
Affidavit Number 2 originates with the former Reich Minister Darr6; and I quote:
"Basic questions of foreign policy were not, as far as I remember, discussed in the Cabinet. Never during any Cabinet meetings were there any utterances or even hints from which it could be inferred that an aggressive war was contemplated."
20 Aug. 46
In another part of the affidavit he says:
"I emphasize that no aggressive plans against Poland were known to me, and that to this end no tasks were given to me in my capacity as Minister of Agriculture."
Darr6 then goes on to describe his differences with Hitler, and he states:
"During a discussion with Hitler about this subject, which took place before the actual passing of the law-there had been arguments about a law which was to be introduced in the occupied territories-there occurred a very serious clash, in the course of which I resigned. Hitler thereupon replied that I was under martial law, and that I would leave my post when it suited him, Hitler, and not when it suited me."
How Darre was finally eliminated from his position is shown in the last part of the affidavit. Hitler had given orders to Darre ... I quote:
"I was to give illness as an excuse to the outside world, and it was desired that the public should get the impression that I was temporarily resigning my office for reasons of health. I refused to pretend that I was ill, and I was told to leave Berlin. Since then I have lived in a remote log-house in the Schorfheide. Nominally, I remained a minister up to the collapse of the German Reich, although I asked Lammers repeatedly to relieve me of the office, and Lammers reported to Hitler on this point."
The third affidavit comes from the former Reich Minister, Count Schwerin-Krosigk. Schwerin-Krosigk describes in one part of the affidavit a meeting with the former Reich Chancellor Bruning in 1932. 1 quote:
"I was to this extent in agreement with Bruning, who a few weeks before his resignation had told me at Badenweiler, where we were both taking a cure, that the time had now come to place some responsibility on the National Socialists. One could not continue to govern by means of the emergency laws published by the Reich President, and the strongest party could not permanently be left in the opposition. The only effective way of combating the unbridled agitation of the National Socialists was to force them to accept responsibility."
In another part of the affidavit, Schwerin-Krosigk points out that he saw Hitler for the first time in his life on the 30 January 1933. 1 quote:
"My reason for joining Hitler's Cabinet was that I, together with the other non-radical ministers, wanted to form a
20 AU9. 46
counter-balance in the Cabinet to the totalitarian. claims for power put up by the Party."
The affidavit deals at great length with the initial period of this Government. I quote only one sentence:
"Moreover, the course that was followed at that time appeared to be a moderate one and objections raised by the non-radical ministers did, in fact, lead to less drastic measures, and in some cases certain legal rulings which had been proposed by him were even withdrawn."
Regarding the amalgamation of the office of the Reich Chancellor and that of the Reich President, the affidavit states among other things:
"Hitler's demand to unite both offices in his person and thus complete the last step in forming a totalitarian regime could not be opposed by the non-radical ministers, because it was perfectly clear even at that time that such power in the hands of Hitler was completely in accordance with the will of the German people."
The affidavit goes on to say with reference to this same question:
"I should like to remark in this connection that Hitler himself made his demand for uniting both these positions acceptable to the Cabinet by stating that he did not consider that to be the final solution, but made it quite clear that these two offices might again be separated later on."
In a summary the affidavit says:
"The Reich Cabinet as such had no political tasks as far as giving orders or leadership was concerned. It did not even serve as adviser to Hitler, but a circle of persons chosen by him personally served in this capacity."
At the end of the affidavit Schwerin-Krosigk states;
"Upon retrospective reflection I must maintain that Hitler deceived his ministers no less than he deceived the German, people and, what is more, the World. The statements he used to make to us as his ministers regarding his intentions were no different basically from those he made 'publicly. We could not suspect that he had other quite different intentions, so great was the persuasive power of his words."
This applies in particular to his will for peace, stressed by him so often.
"If I am told today that as early as November 1937 Hitler was thinking of war as a means of achieving his foreign policy aims, then this is diametrically opposed to what he, at the beginning of 1939, had expressly communicated to me through State Secretary Reinhardt, namely, that 'I need no longer
20 Aug. 46
worry about armament expenditure since we had now before us a long period of peace, and therefore a reduction of these expenses would follow."'
Finally, under Number 4, 1 submit an affidavit from the former Ministerial Director in the Ministry of Food, Rudolf Harmening. Harmening describes the instruction given by Hitler to State Secretary Backe regarding preparations for war with Russia. These contained explicit instructions from Hitler that the Minister himself, Darre, was to be kept in the dark regarding these preparations. And concerning that, I quote:
"A few months before the outbreak of the war with Russia, measures were taken in the Reich Ministry of Food, such as, for instance, the getting ready of agricultural machinery and agricultural workers for a special purpose. What this purpose was became apparent after the beginning of the Russian campaign-these things were intended for use in Russia. State Secretary Backe received the order for this directly from Hitler or Goering, over the head of the Reich Food Minister, Darre. In fact, according to the instructions, it had to be kept strictly secret from the Minister."
Those are the affidavits which I have to submit.
Then I have submitted a document book with altogether 68 documents. I refer to this document book. In the main, the documents submitted set forth the official reasons and official points of view with reference to the draft laws of that particular period. These official reasons together with the dossiers were circulated among the individual ministers when the laws were drafted. Thus, all they learned about the reasons for the proposed laws was what was contained in these papers. The examination of these reasons will show how these laws were actually justified.
From among the remaining documents submitted by me, I should like to refer in particular to Document Number 3. This is a proclamation by the Reich Government of 1 February 1933, containing the directives for the policy of the Cabinet. Document Number 9 consists of official pronouncements of the leaders of those political parties which dissolved in 1933 on their own accord. In these statements the party leaders back the new Government policy and call
upon their followers to let themselves be guided by and to give their adherence to this policy.
Finally I refer to Document Number 63, an essay by the then War Minister Von Blomberg, dealing with the problems in connection with the introduction of universal military service in Germany. The other questions which concern us in this connection, particularly the work and the organization of the Cabinet, have been dealt with in detail during the interrogations of the witnesses
20 Aug. 46
Lammers and Weizsbcker, as well as of G6ring and Von Neurath. I ask to take these testimonies into consideration when judging the case against the Reich Government.
That is all I have to say.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann.
HERR HORST PELCKMANN (Counsel for the SS): Your Lordship, High Tribunal. First of all I refer to the transcript of the testimonies of the witnesses before the Commission which are, no doubt, known to the Tribunal. There are 29 witnesses.
I then begin by dealing with the documents. I have broken them down into different groups and hope that the presentation will thus take very little time. First, Documents Numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, and 84 in one group. The first three documents deal with the so-called "ideals" of the SS; they state the ideals of the fraternity. Something is said about kinship (SippengemeinWiaft) and such like, and proof is given that this was the basis of the training.
Document 5 says that the members of the General SS carried out their normal civil occupations, and that the SS Service was only supplementary.
Document 84 makes it clear once more that the General SS was a branch of the Party and in contrast to the other SS formations, which I shall present later, was represented by the NSDAP in case of complaints.
In Document Number 6, USA-441, which I submit once more, the principles of the SS are again referred to and for the individual man these were quite decent requirements: sanctity of property, the precept of thrift, et cetera. I must present that briefly because it is important for my final plea.
Documents 4 and 103 belong together. Document 4 shows that the, SS men swore an oath which did not differ from that of the civil servants, although it did differ from that of a soldier, for strangely enough the soldier swears absolute obedience, while the SS man does not.
Document 103 deals with the fact that this oath was made in God's name, and Himmler says in reference to that: "I look upon person who does not believe in God as being presumptuous, megolomaniac, and stupid. Such a person is not suitable for us."
Document SS-84, which I just quoted, shows once more that the
SS Verfugungstruppe (Special Units) and the SS Totenkopfverb4nde (Death's Head Units) did not belong to the General SS. They
20 Aug. 46
did not have any civil occupation, but were state employees, and in case of complaints against these members or these formations, that is, the SS Verfugungstruppe or the Totenkopfverbande, the complaint had to be made against the Ministry of the Interior; this is very important for the concentration camp question.
Then there follow Documents 8, 9, 10, 11, and 42. The Waffen-SS was created during the war. Its members were instructed to fight decently and chivalrously and not make themselves guilty of punishable actions against the civilian population in enemy countries, and to respect the prisoners of war and the fallen.
For the members of the Waffen-SS-this is shown especially by Document 42-the basic rules of the SS apply only when the individual Waffen-SS men were at the same time members of the General SS. For example, that is true even for the so-called marriage order. This ideology is not applicable to the Waffen-SS men, so that even the voluntary Waffen-SS men were not subject to the special laws of the SS.
Documents 13, 14, 15: The SS is accused of the legal plundering of the Occupied Eastern Territories. These documents show that the laws in this respect were issued by the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, Goering, or the Minister of the Interior, Frick. The Reich-Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Nationhood and the Office for Racial Germans (Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle) were entrusted with the resettlement and bringing back of Germans. This is shown by Documents 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23. Documents 25, 26, 30,
33, 34, 40, and USA-674 I submit as evidence that the civil service law, the emergency labor regulation, the constitution for German students, the agreements between the Reichsfuehrer SS and the Reich Youth Leader, the Reich Labor Leader, and the Reich Finance Minister, were coercive measures which made it possible for Germans to be allocated to the General SS, the Waffen-SS, SS Verfugungstruppe and the SS Totenkopf units. Even the woifien police staff assistants were forcibly placed in the SS Women's Auxiliary Corps.
Documents 28, 30, 31, and 32 can be lumped together. They give a number of examples of the kind of compulsory service just mentioned, or of men being drafted into the General SS, the Waffen-SS, and the SS Verfugungstruppe.
Documents 29, 36, 38, and 39 show that citizens of foreign states, in so far as they were of German descent, were not forcibly drafted into the army of their respective countries, but into the Waffen-SS. This was on the strength of state agreements.
The documents show further how whole groups were forcibly placed under SS jurisdiction without being SS members. They continued under the name of their old occupation but with the addition of "SS".
20 Aug. 46
Document Number 3 treats the question of the so-called patron members, which has still not been settled by the Prosecution. These patron members were only linked with the SS from the financial standpoint. Their subscriptions flowed into the coffers of the General SS. Membership as a so-called patron member in no case meant that a person belonged to the active SS.
Documents 48, 53, 54, 57, 59, and 60 deal with the more or less pronounced pressure exerted on police officials to join the SS. The request to join was worded: "I therefore expect that the person whom this concerns ... will join."
Continuous inquiries followed as to whether the person had joined. Even members of the Order Police, the Ordnungspolizei, were more or less forced to join. Court officials, doctors, all young officers and constables were also pressed to join the SS. On the other hand, Documents 52 to 55, and 56, show that the members of the Police who joined the SS in this way did not perform any SS service. They were not obliged to attend SS training either. The only sign that they were members of the SS was that when they were promoted they were also promoted in the SS.
Finally, in Documents 65, 66, 67, and 68, 1 have to deal with purely external SS designations in police units. The battalions and regiments, as well as fire-fighting police units, that is, units of the fire service, all received the designation SS as an external sign of recognition, as it says in the decrees. As an example, I refer in this document to the Second Gendarmerie Battalion which became the Second SS Gendarmerie Battalion; or the Police Regiment "Alpenland," which becam6 the SS Police Regiment, and so forth.
The documents show further that, in spite of all this, these SS police regiments remained with the Ordnungspolizei, that they received their equipment from the Ordnungspolizei, and everything else was attended to by the Ordnungspolizei. The individual policeman of these regiments did not become a member of the General SS or a member of the Waffen-SS, even though his unit had this SS designation.
Finally, the following documents deal with the question: to what extent did the members of the SS know of and desire the crimes with which the Prosecution charges them?
Documents 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, and 79 are lumped together. Hitler was constantly making speeches in which he simulated a firm will for peace. The Reich Government also stated that they wanted to preserve peace at all costs. The paper Das Schwarze Korps, believing these statements, wrote that the SS did not like war, a statement made in January 1937; and it goes on to explain this antipathy to war.
20 Aug. 46
Documents 77 and 78 show that in this connection even outsiders like the Austrian bishops and the British Government were deceived in 1938. The German-British Peace Declaration of 30 September 1938 is well known. It expresses the will of both peoples never again to wage war against each other.
In Document 80, containing some official statements on the nature and character of the SA and the SS, it is shown that neither the SA nor the SS was armed, neither were they given any training with arms or otherwise trained for military purposes. I am asserting this only for the case of the SS.
The supplement to Document 81 says that on 16 April 1934 the German Government offered to prove to the British Government that the SS and the SA had no arms and were not trained for any military purposes. This was not only maintained outwardly; it was actually the case within the SS. This is shown by Document SS-82, which is the secret Fuehrer Decree of 17 August 1938, stating that the SS as a political organization of the NSDAP is not a military organization, and that it needs no training and is unarmed. It says further in this decree that the members of the General SS, being unarmed, in case of war, in accordance with the provisions of the National Defense Law, are at the disposal of the Wehrmacht, not of the Waffen-SS.
Document SS-92 is a small example of how the masses were deceived about peace aims. According to this-it is a law of the Reich Cabinet-any participation in the Spanish Civil War in any form whatever is subject to punishment by imprisonment, although at the time thousands were fighting in Spain on Hitler's orders.
Documents 87, 88, 90, and 99 show the following: ,
Through the various laws against subversive activities and defeatism, and the prohibition to listen in to 'the foreign radio, any spreading of the truth-and I take as a single example the spreading of rumors on concentration camps-became in fact impossible. This policy was rigorously applied during the war. That is proved by Document SS-98. It is the well-known speech of Himmler in Posen in 1943, Document 1919-PS. I refer only to one sentence of Himmler which says that whoever is disloyal, be it even in thought, will be dismissed from the SS; also that care will be taken that he will disappear from among the living,
On the Jewish question there are Documents 93 and 95. In February 1934 the Reich Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick, declared before the Diplomatic Corps that the only intention was to reduce the activity of the Germans of Jewish faith in proportion to other Germans. It was expressly denied that these citizens would be forced to emigrate.
The other document, Number SS-95, proves that even in the year 1942, when the mass destruction of Jews was under way, a law
20 Aug. 46
provided for the creation of a settlement in Theresienstadt for Jewish citizens. This, consciously or unconsciously, served to deceive the public about this extermination, and it deceived the SS members too.
The events of 30 June 1934 are dealt with in Documents 83, 100, 74, 105, and 106. The public did not learn the truth. Hitler was thanked for dealing with the situation in telegrams sent by Reich President Von Hindenburg to Hitler and G6ring. These telegrams were published in all papers. In his speech of 13 July 1934, Hitler described in great detail the preparations R61im had made to overthrow the Government, how he had been in contact with foreign countries, and how an SS Fuehrer, who was mentioned by name, had prepared an attack on his life. The situation was presented as so urgent that only immediate action, without judicial proceedings, could do any good. Moreover, this speech gave assurance that illegal excesses committed during this action would be punished by law.
Document 104 provides a sketch to supplement the testimony of the witness Von Eberstein. It clarifies the actual position of the Higher SS and Police Leader.
Then I have another document, SS-107, which unfortunately I was able to hand to the Prosecution only this morning, as I have only just found it in the collection of decrees. I ask that it be accepted. It is a decree of the Reichsfuehrer SS of 27 August 1942. This decree expressly states that the main office of the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Nationhood (Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle) is not an SS Main Office, but a State organization. This question is important for the responsibility of the SS in the so-called Germanization program. This document has not yet been translated. I shall endeavor to have translations made as quickly as possible.
That is my presentation of documents, Your Lordship.
Now I come to the affidavits. For the purpose of examination before the Commission and especially for the examination of the five witnesses before the Tribunal, I was forced to call only witnesses who, because of their high positions, could give the Court a comprehensive survey of specific questions. Through the affidavits the Defense had to endeavor to present as large a number as possible of statements on the whole evidence of the Indictment, in order to give the Court an idea of how much the bulk of the population knew and how they behaved. I have attempted to do so by means of separate affidavits on certain points, and by summarizing a large number of statements on certain groups of questions and subjects.
I submit first 114 individual affidavits. They are SS Affidavits 1 to 60, 63, 64, 68, and 69, and 71 to 118. Affidavit Number 70, given by two SS members, contains the list of the affidavits of the
20 Aug. 46
internees of one camp, Camp Number 73. It refers to, almost all of the points of the Indictment against the SS.
Then I submit the digest of 136, 213 individual affidavits and collective affidavits. To these I have given the numbers 110 to 122.
Finally, the digest of a questionnaire which was sent to all camps, that is, a statistical report under Number 123.
I regret that I cannot give the Tribunal today the texts of these affidavits, especially of the individual affidavits, in English. As far as I know, translations into French are available for all affidavits, and I shall attempt to submit the English translations as soon as possible. I am now submitting the French translations.
I then submit affidavits by Dr. Morgen, SS-65 to 67.
I personally consider Affidavits SS-64, 68, 69, and 70 extremely important. I have ...
THE PRESIDENT: Which are the ones you said were very important?
HERR PELCKMANN: 64, 68, 69, and 70.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Go on.
HERR PELCKMANN: I have especially asked for their translation. I have not submitted any summaries of them to the Commission, as they must be presented in their entirety. Number 70 is as important for the question of legal hearing of the bulk of the SS men as the presentation of the digest of the 136,000 affidavits. In order to shorten my presentation I have arranged the individual affidavits in groups, and I hope that by giving the numbers I have made it possible for the Tribunal to obtain a general view of the various groups.
Group I contains the affidavits denying that the SS was a single group bound by oath in which no distinction can be made as to composition or time. This is asserted by the trial brief, on Page 9 and 10 in the German version. Moreover that is asserted in the transcript of 19 December (Volume IV, Page 175/176).
SS Affidavit 116, Petri, proves that the purpose of the Fuehrer Order of 17 August 1938, USA-443, was not to form an organic connection between the General SS, Totenkopf Units, and Verfugungstruppen but, on the contrary, to separate these various branches of the SS.
Now I sum up a group of affidavits, 13, 52, 49, 48, 42, 56, 55, 45, 54, 46, 97, 98, 53, 50, 51, and 38. 1 might remark, Your Lordship, that a translation in English of these affidavits, and also of Number 52, has already been made and is being distributed. I beg your pardon, it is only in French, Your Lordship. With these affidavits I wish to prove the following: Certain groups are charged in the general indictment of the SS. They cannot be brought under
20 Aug. 46
the concept of a common conspiracy if only for the reason that they had only a very temporary relationship to the 9S, or none at all. They are the patron members of the SS, the Bauernfuehrer (farmers' leaders), the so-called Ehrenfuehrer (honorary leaders), the SS Frontarbeiter, the so-called SS-Eisenbahnbaubrigaden (railroad construction brigades), the Postschutz (postal protection), the National Political Education Institutions. Furthermore, the Fuehrer des Reichskriegerbundes (leaders of the Reich Soldiers League)-that is something similar to the Stahlhelm-the SS-Sportgemeinschaften (sport associations), the riders' groups which were transferred to the SS-known as SS Reitersturme, which had exactly the same characteristics and history as the SA Reitersturme and finally the students who were taken into the SS on a compulsory basis.
The following two affidavits, 118 and 101, deal with the Lebensborn organization, They prove that the tasks of this organization were to support families with many children and to care for mothers and children, including illegitimate children and unmarried mothers, but they did not afford the opportunity for the illegal begetting of children and the taking away of children for the use of the State, as the Prosecution has asserted.
Affidavit SS-47 is a valuable supplement to the testimony of the witness Liebrich, an SS doctor, before the Commission. It proves that doctors were taken into the SS exclusively on the basis of their professional ability. Leading doctors and leading authorities were taken into the SS to raise its prestige. It is asserted that the activity of the SS doctors of the General SS was also recognized by foreign countries, and examples of international authorities were given.
SS Affidavits Numbers 95 and 96 prove that the SS Women Auxiliaries were neither members of the SS nor sponsors. These girls carried out the same work as the Women Signal and Staff Auxiliaries in the Wehrmacht and must not be confused with the female supervisors in the concentration camps for female prisoners.
There follows a large group of affidavits on the question of Germanization, a lengthy and very involved accusation by the Prosecution. They are Affidavits Numbers 2, 112, 114, 113, 110, 115, 44, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 11, 43, 72, 74, 76, 78, and 80. May I add at this point that in putting such a large group together, care has been taken to 'see that these individual affidavits are not cumulative. The affidavits supplement each other and thus give a complete picture of the points of the Indictment and their defense. These affidavits prove that the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle and the so-called -Staff Main Office of the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Nationhood-I repeat for the interpreters: Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle and Stabshauptamt des Reichskommissars fur die Festigung des Deutschen Volkstums-were not SS agencies, but State authorities. That is the formal side of the defense.
20 Aug. 46
The material side is found in another part of these documents just quoted.
The SS was not entrusted with evacuation measures, Germanization measures, and the settlement of Germans in the occupied territories. Affidavit SS-89 proves that the Chief of the Prisoner-of-War Department, even after Himmler's appointment, was purely a Wehrmacht office.
When Himmler was appointed Chief of the Prisoner-6f-War Department, nothing was changed in the organization of the Prisoner-of-War Department. The SS did not influence in any way the treatment of prisoners of war.
I will now deal separately with the documents in the next, the second group, and sum them up. They deal with the assertion of the Prosecution that there had been organizational unity between the SS and the Police. This unification is supposed to have taken place under the so-called "Higher SS and Police- Leaders." That assertion of the Prosecution is on Pages 12 and 16 of the German trial brief. It is in the transcript of 19 and 20 December. The following affidavits will refute this statement: 86, 87, 88, and 10.
I will ask the Tribunal to pay special attention to the explanation in Affidavit 87. These affidavits prove that the Higher SS and Police Leaders within the Reich had no authority to give orders to the Order Police and to the Security Police. On the contrary, those police branches received their orders from their respective main offices, and they were given directly and not through the Higher SS and Police Leader.
The presentation given by Dr. Best in Document 1852-PS does not give the true facts and is wishful thinking.
The affidavits taken together in the third group contain material to refute the assertion of the Prosecution that the SS was trained in the doctrine of the "Master Race" and in racial hatred, and that it prepared for war mentally and physically. This assertion also appears in the trial brief on Page 6, and in the transcript of 19 and 20 December.
They are Affidavits Numbers 57, 58, 59, 60, and 83, and they prove that the SS was not trained in racial hatred and certainly not for racial extermination, also that the SS was not trained for war either mentally or physically.
The affidavits in the fourth group , deal with the charge that the Waffen-SS was an integral part of the whole SS. That is found in the transcript of 19 and 20 December 1945. Moreover, that service in the Waffen-SS was, with a few exceptions at the end of the war, mainly voluntary. Thirdly, that the Waffen-SS, because of their ideological training, had fought in an inhuman manner and contrary to international law. Affidavit 84 shows that the Waffen-SS
20 Aug. 46
as a unit had no concept of Himmler's ideology, and above all that the Waffen-SS heard hardly anything about the other sectors under Himmler's power, and that they were not directed by Himmler in a military sense, but only in regard to personnel questions, clothing, and equipment.
The next four affidavits will be taken together: 36, 37, 39, and 40. These prove that a considerable part of the Waffen-SS and also special groups such as the Customs Border Protection, the SS Motor Transport Squadron, and the Auxiliary Army Post were taken into the SS on a compulsory basis.
The following affidavits, Numbers 1, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 81, prove that the Waffen-SS were repeatedly instructed in the observance of the customs of war. The customs of war were in fact observed and infringements were severely punished.
Affidavits 82 and 83 deal with the SS Police Regiments in the same way as the documents quoted previously. They prove that these SS Police Regiments were purely regiments of the Order Police without connection with the SS. The police divisions, as distinguished from the police regiments, were never under the SS up to April 1942. Only after that were they forcibly ordered into the Waffen-SS.
The "Dirlewanger" Brigade has been mentioned repeatedly. Affidavit 35 deals with this. This affidavit says:
"This brigade was not an SS unit, but a unit set up on the direct orders of Himmler and composed of all kinds of convicted persons on probation."
The next group are Affidavits 3 and 4. They prove that the assertion of the Prosecution that the SS had participated in suppressing the SA on 30 June 1934 is false. The General SS in Frankfurt and Berlin, for example, was only told to stand by. No arrests or shootings took place. I may say here in this connection that a large quantity of evidence from all over Germany is given in Affidavit 70. It is a cross-section from a whole camp, a whole internment camp, which will be presented in the digest.
The next group deals with another point of the Indictment; participation of the SS in the Jewish pogrom of 9 November 1938. This comprises Affidavits 7, 6, 8, 9, 104, and 105. They prove that the SS in Nuremberg, Offenburg, Hamburg, Berlin, and Ulm did not participate in pogroms, but were only used for protection on 10 November.
I consider Affidavit Number 5 of special importance in connection with the question as to whether an order from higher up was given to the SS to participate in these pogroms. It is by a certain Schallermeier. I have heard that it is available in English
20 Aug. 46
and I would be grateful if the Tribunal would permit me to read it. I shall ...
THE PRESIDENT: Has it been digested in the transcript before the Commissioners?
HERR PELCKMANN: It was digested in the transcript before the Commission, Your Lordship. I do not want to read the whole document, your Lordship, but may I read just a small portion of it which is especially important?
"About 3 a.m. on 10 November"-this is Schallernieler speaking-"the Reichsfuehrer SS dictated to me in my room a statement which read as follows:
"'On 9 November I was at the Fuehrer's when about 2330 hours Gruppenfuehrer Wolff came to me and informed me about the order issued by the Gau Propaganda Office in Munich.'"-I repeat, Gau Propaganda Office.-"'I asked the Fuehrer what orders he had to give me. The Fuehrer replied that the SS should keep out of this action. The State Police Offices were to take care of Jewish property and see that the Jews themselves were protected. The General SS should remain at home and were only to be called out for protective measures if necessary. I immediately passed on this Fuehrer order to Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich for the State Police Offices and to the Oberabschnittsfuehrer for the General SS. When I asked the Fuehrer, I had the impression that he knew nothing about what was happening. The order emanates from Reich Propaganda Headquarters and I presume that Goebbels, in his lust for power and foolhardiness, which has struck me for some time, has sponsored this action at a time when the situation as regards foreign policy was at its worst."'
May I correct myself; if I said this was Schallermeier, that was a mistake. This quotation was dictated by Himmler; Himmler dictated this paragraph.
And the author of the affidavit goes on to say: "I myself had to type what I had taken down from dictation." Afterward this statement of Himmler was locked up in the safe and made secure.
Some very good material for judging the participation, or rather the non-participation of the SS in these events of 9 November is again afforded the Tribunal by Affidavit Number 70, a digest from a camp.
The next group includes the following affidavits: 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 25. It deals with conditions in the concentration camps.
20 Aug. 46
These affidavits are to prove that the treatment in concentration camps, as described by those witnesses, was, generally speaking, satisfactory.
Ill-treatment of prisoners was severely punished. Evidence of this is given in the numerous examples in Affidavit Number 70 which I have already mentioned, and in the digest of many affidavits, the collective Affidavit 119-122.
Relevant to the question of authority in the concentration camps and the part which this played within the whole SS organization are Affidavits 99 and 100. They prove that the gains to concentration camps out of the employment of prisoners were not turned over to the SS, in particular not to the Waffen-SS, but were entered in the budget of the German Reich.
The next group includes affidavits regarding experiments on living human beings. I consider them valuable only insofar as they provide an answer to the question: What did the bulk of the SS men know of these experiments?
Affidavit 17 is to prove that in Dachau prisoners voluntarily submitted to freezing experiments after they had been medically examined and given food to make them fit. Affidavit 107' also deals with these experiments.
The following group of affidavits, 18, 22, 27, and 28 deal with the question of secrecy regarding crimes, especially crimes in concentration camps, and are to refute the assertion of the Prosecution that the whole German population knew of the atrocities in concentration camps, and therefore the SS men also knew about them, especially the SS men outside the concentration camps (Afternoon session of 28 January 1946, Volume VI, Page 252/253). These four affidavits prove that from all persons who in any way came into contact with concentration camps statements of secrecy were demanded, further that the concentration camp guards could have no insight into the actual conditions of protective custody camps and that even within the administrations of the camps one section was not informed about the activity of the other section.
On the same question of how much the members of the SS knew, I consider Affidavit Number 24 to be very important.
In answer to a direct question by a Waffen-SS Fuehrer who reported to him, Himmler said in April 1944 that everything was in order hi the concentration camps, and that the treatment of the prisoners was satisfactory.
Himmler made this same statement to the. whole officers' corps of the 17th SS Division.
Affidavit 117 proves that the utmost secrecy prevailed in the Fuehrer's headquarters, and the degree of secrecy was such that
20 Aug. 46
nothing was known about crimes in concentration camps, the extermination of Jews and the activity of the Einsatzkommandos.
I again put three affidavits together, 63, 93, and 94. They also show that the utmost secrecy was observed within Himmler's' sphere of command and especially concerning the inspection of concentration camps.
The notorious speech of Himmler's at Posen in October 1943 is known to the Tribunal. It was made to Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS. The Schneider affidavit, Number 29, says the following:
"Schneider was warned by Himmler personally to keep absolutely silent about, the Posen speech if he valued his life."
Affidavit 41 shows that the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office was competent for concentration camp administration through Amtsgruppe D. This affidavit emphasized the extraordinary secrecy which prevailed within this administrative organization.
Affidavit 12 reports that the Adjutant of the Chief of the SS Personnel Main Office made inquiries of the RSHA, and also of the W-VHA Amtsgruppe D. That was in 1943. This Chief of the SS Personnel Main Office inquired whether rumors about the murder of Jews were true. The offices mentioned answered to the effect that those rumors were untrue, and that they were definitely enemy propaganda.
THE PRESIDENT: We shall break off now, Doctor, please. Will you be much longer in your summaries of these affidavits?
HERR PELCKMANN: No, Your Lordship, these affidavits will not take much longer, but a r6sum6 of the group affidavits, which I must give so that the Tribunal will know what these group affidavits deal with, will take a little longer.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 21 August 1946 at 1000 hours.]