dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
HOEPPNER: It was the task of Group III A to observe  secondly, that the scope of the work had been increased in extent, and that therefore men and in part women auxiliary workers had to be sent for service in the occupied territories; thirdly, that the entire work of the Security Service grew -during the war, and the personnel had to render compulsory emergency service and so on, according to the legal measures that had been passed for this purpose.
DR.GAWLIK: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
MAJOR HARTLEY MURRAY (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): If the Tribunal please, Major Murray cross-examining for the United States chief prosecutor. Witness, when did you become chief of Office III A in the RSHA?
HOEPPNER: In July 1944.
MAJOR MURRAY: Who was the chief of Amt III at that time and for some time prior thereto?
HOEPPNER: Amt III had only one chief, and that was the then Gruppenfuehrer Ohlendorf.
MAJOR MURRAY: At times you substituted for Ohlendorf, did you not?
HOEPPNER: I believe the entire question did not come through. I heard only "at times you substituted."
MAJOR MURRAY: At various times during your career, you took Ohlendorf's place as chief of Amt III, did you not?
HOEPPNER: No. When I was in that office, Ohlendorf was always there. Moreover, there was no general deputy for him. When he was away on business the chiefs of the various groups represented him for their own spheres, but during the period while I was in Berlin, that happened very rarely.
MAJOR MURRAY: Do you know Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl, who was a member of Amt VI, RSHA?
HOEPPNER: May I ask for the name again, please? I did not understand the name.
MAJOR MURRAY: Perhaps I do not pronounce it properly: Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl, spelled H-o-e-t-t-l.
HOEPPNER: Hoettl? I met him here only for the first time.
MAJOR MURRAY: You do know that he held a responsible position in the SD, now that you have met him here?
HOEPPNER: No, I have not spoken to Hoettl here, either.
MAJOR MURRAY: With the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to read briefly from the affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl, Document 2614-PS, dealing with the activities of the SD. This will be Exhibit USA-918. Dr. Hoettl executed this affidavit on 5 November 1945. 1 quote: "It was the task of the SD to inform its chief, Himmler, and through him the Nazi regime about all matters within Germany, the occupied territories, and the other foreign countries. This task was carried out in Germany by Amt III, domestic intelligence service, and abroad by Amt VI, foreign intelligence service." Skipping a few lines: "For the task in Germany proper Amt III had organized a large net of informers who operated out of the various regional offices of the SD. This organization consisted of many hundreds of professional SD members who were assisted by thousands of honorary SD members and informers. These informers and honorary collaborators of the SD were placed in all fields of business, education, State and Party administration, et cetera. Frequently they performed their duties secretly in their place of work. This information service reported on the morale of the German people, on all the important events in the State, as well as on individuals." Do you consider that a fair statement of the task of the SD? [There was no response.]
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, answer the question, please. Witness, answer the question. Do you consider it a fair statement of the work of the SD?, No, you need not go on reading the rest of the document. Answer the question.
HOEPPNER: It is a mixture of truths and untruths. I feel that the way and manner in which this report judges the Security Service is somewhat superficial. It does not give the impression, according to this document, that Hoettl worked in the domestic intelligence service very long.
MAJOR MURRAY: You know, do you not, Witness, that your chief, Ohlendorf, was, in 1941 and 1942, the head of Einsatzgruppe D in southern Russia? You were informed of that, were you not?
HOEPPNER: Yes, indeed.
MAJOR MURRAY: You knew also, did you not, that these Einsatzgruppen were made up from members of the SD and of the Gestapo and of the Criminal Police?
HOEPPNER: I knew that members of these organizations were detailed there for special service.
MAJOR MURRAY: You knew that they were commanded by SD members, did you not?
HOEPPNER: The Einsatzgruppen and Kommandos were commanded by members of widely different branches, by members of the State Police, Criminal Police, and also the Security Police. I myself, moreover, was never on special service.
MAJOR MURRAY: I would like to refer, if the Tribunal please, to the affidavit of Ohlendorf. This is Document Number 2620-PS, to become Exhibit USA-919. This affidavit has not been used in evidence before. This affidavit of Ohlendorf, which is very brief, states: "The Einsatzgruppen and the Einsatzkommandos weie coninianded by personnel of the Gestapo, the SD, or the Criminal Police ... Additional men were detailed from the regular Police-" and dropping down a few lines- "Usually the smaller units were led by members..."
HOEPPNER: May I interrupt you? Excuse me, please. It does not say here in the document that they were led by members of the regular Police. It says only that additional personnel was provided by the Order Police and the Waffen-SS.
MAJOR MURRAY: Yes, I skipped that. Skipping down a few lines: "Usually the smaller units were led by members of the SD, the Gestapo, or the Criminal Police." So that actually members of the SD were leading these Einsatzgruppen in the East, were they not?
HOEPPNER: The affidavit states that members of the Security Service as well as the State Police and the Criminal, Police were in charge of units of this kind.
MAJOR MURRAY: Now, as a matter of fact, the Einsatzgruppen officers wore SD uniforms in the performance of their tasks, didn't they?
HOEPPNER: Excuse me. I understood only a few words. The Einsatzgruppen wore these uniforms?
MAJOR MURRAY: The Einsatzgruppen officers wore the uniform of the SD while performing their duties in the East, is that true?
HOEPPNER: All members of the Einsatzgruppen wore field grey uniforms and wore the SD insignia on the sleeve. That was one of the main reasons for the many misunderstandings which occurred, because members of the Security Police also wore this SD insignia. .Chat applies to the special SS formation of the SD which was mentioned right in the beginning of today's examination. This confusion also arose because, beyond that, even those members of the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos wore uniforms who were not SS members at all and who in peacetime had never wore a uniform in Germany proper. They were sent for special service as so-called uniformed personnel and received a service rank corresponding to their civil service grade.
MAJOR MURRAY: In any event, many members of the Einsatzgruppen were members of the SD and many of those officers wore the uniform of the SD while killing these people in the Eastern Territories; isn 't that true?
HOEPPNER: I do not quite understand the meaning of the question. There were very few people from the SD detailed to these Einsatzgruppen or Einsatzkommandos, least of all from the three branches mentioned, and during their entire period of service these men and leaders wore the uniform with the SD on the sleeve.
MAJOR MURRAY: If the Tribunal please, I should like to bring into evidence another brief document, Document 2992-PS, Exhibit USA-494. This is a portion of that affidavit which has not previously been read into evidence. It is the affidavit of Hermann Friedrich Gräbe. I am sure the Tribunal will recall that affidavit where this German citizen recounted the SS and SD men shooting large numbers of helpless individuals, the document which was referred to by the Attorney General of Great Britain a few days ago. In the first part of that affidavit Gräbe states: "The SS man acting as the executioner on the edge of the pit during the shooting of Jewish men..."
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. This document is in evidence already, isn't it?
MAJOR MURRAY: It is, My Lord, but not this particular portion of it referring to the SD. I did not intend to repeat the other portions but this portion refers specifically to the SD and it is only two sentences that I intend to read. Paragraph 1: "The SS man- acting as the guard on the edge of the pit during the shooting of Jewish men, women, and children, at the airport near Dubno, wore an SS uniform with a grey armband about 3 centimeters wide on the lower part of his sleeve, with the letters 'SD' in black on it, woven in or embroidered." And dropping down to the last portion of the second paragraph: "On the morning of 14 July I recognized three or four SS men in the ghetto whom I knew personally and who were all members of the Security Service in Rovno. These persons also wore the armband mentioned above." It is a fact, is it not, Witness, that many of the members of these Einsatzkommandos were members of, your SD organization?
HOEPPNER: I already said before that a few members of these Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos were members of the Security Service. It is not said here in any way that the people to whom reference is made in this document had anything to do with the domestic intelligence service; and if there was one among them who belonged to it-which is certainly not shown by the document, for it says merely that he wore a uniform with the SD insignia-then he had been detailed for that special service just as anyone else may be drafted into the Armed Forces. That is precisely the chief reason for a large number of mistakes which were made with that term SD, that even the members who were on special service all wore the same uniform.
MAJOR MURRAY: In any event, Ohlendorf was a member of the SD, was he not?
HOEPPNER: Ohlendorf was chief of Amt III but that had nothing to do with the fact that he also commanded an Einsatzgruppe. That Einsatzgruppe could just as well have been commanded by the chief of Amt IV or V, or by an inspector or anybody else. That has nothing to do with the activity of Ohlendorf as chief of Amt III.
MAJOR MURRAY: Now, Ohlendorf has testified that frequent reports were compiled by the Einsatzgruppen and sent back to the headquarters. Did you see any of these reports while you were in the headquarters of RSHA?
HOEPPNER: No. That was not possible because at the time when I came up to Berlin most of the Einsatzgruppen from the East had been recalled. At any rate, no further reports were coming in, and I am entirely of the opinion that in Amt III, the domestic intelligence service, only a very few' men saw the reports from the Einsatzgruppen.
MAJOR MURRAY: I would like to have shown to you a series of 55 weekly reports of the activities of the Einsatzgruppen, and, incidentally, the Einsatzgruppen are known as the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD.
HOEPPNER: No, no; there were no Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the Security Service, but rather there were only the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D in the East; and, indeed, there were good reasons for that.
MAJOR MURRAY: Before submitting that document to you, Witness, I would like to have you examine Document Number 3876-PS, which has already been admitted in evidence as Exhibit USA-808; I call your attention to the title page of that document, signed by Heydrich, which reads as follows: "I herewith enclose the ninth summary report concerning the activity of the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD in the U.S.S.R. This report will be sent continuously in the future. Signed, Heydrich." Aren't you mistaken, Witness, in, saying that these were not known as Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and SD?
HOEPPNER: No. These Einsatzgruppen figured as Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D. They were commanded by a deputy of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD with the army groups in question, or with an army. The designation "Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD" is unfortunately wrong.
MAJOR MURRAY: Either Heydrich is wrong again, is he, and all the documents are wrong?
HOEPPNER: No, I do not want to say that the document is false, but I merely maintain that the expression is not correct. I ask you to look at the distribution list; it says there: "To the chiefs of Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D." Besides, the Einsatzkommandos were not called Kommandos of the Security Police and the SD, but, as far as I know, they had Arabic numerals from 1 to 12.
MAJOR MURRAY: This, of course, is a report of your chief, Heydrich, and I won't enlarge on the point. Turn now to Pages 31 and 32. It is at the bottom of Page 32 in Heydrich's ...
HOEPPNER: One moment, please. There is no Page 31 or 32 in my document.
MAJOR MURRAY: It is a very short passage. I will read it to you: "In White Ruthenia the purge of Jews is under way. The number of Jews in the part up to now handed over to the civil administration amounts to 139,000."
HOEPPNER: Yes. MAJOR MURRAY [Continuing.]: "In the meantime"-in the last sentence "In the meantime, 33,210 Jews were shot by the Einsatzgruppe of the Security Police and the SD." It doesn't say anything there about Groups A, B, C, or D, does it?
HOEPPNER: No, it says Security Police and SD. I only do not understand what that is supposed to have to do with the domestic intelligence service-Security Service.
MAJOR MURRAY: Except that Ohlendorf was the head of your service, wasn't he?
HOEPPNER: When he functioned as chief of Amt III-in Berlin; but during the time when he led the Einsatzgruppe D he was on special service, and the time on special service is treated exactly like the time of compulsory military service.
MAJOR MURRAY: Witness, are you informed of the fact that the SD was carrying on espionage activities in the United States prior to Germany's declaration of war against the United States?
HOEPPNER: I cannot imagine that the domestic intelligence service would have worked in the United States. -
MAJOR MURRAY: I would like to offer in evidence, if the Tribunal please, Document Number 4053-PS, which becomes Exhibit USA-920. This document is a teletype message of the Foreign Office, dated 11 July 1941. 1 will read just one sentence from this one document: "Reference teletype Number 2110 of 5 July from Washington. Herr RAM"-that was Ribbentrop, was it not?-"Herr RAM requests you to submit immediately a written report regarding who among those arrested in New York on suspicion of espionage worked with the Abwehr and who with the SD." Witness, does not that look like the SD was carrying on espionage activities in New York long prior to the declaration of war on the United States?
HOEPPNER: One of- the first questions which Herr Gawlik presented to me was whether the foreign intelligence service was also designated as SD. I said "yes," and further clarification showed that the domestic intelligence service and the foreign intelligence service were different organizations. Whether the foreign intelligence service, the foreign SD, Amt VI, had anything to do with this matter I cannot judge, because I never worked in Amt; VI and understand nothing about these things.
MAJOR MURRAY: Of course, when they were all part of the SD I mean they were all members of the SD. I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you re-examine if you want to? Did the Soviet prosecutor want to ask any questions?
CHIEF COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE L. N. SMIRNOV (Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): Mr. President, I did want to put a few questions to the witness, but these questions are in connection with one new document-quite an interesting document-which we received only today, and for this reason we have not had the translation into English made up. Therefore, I do not know whether it would be appropriate for me to put this question now when I do not have an English translation to present to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we could do it in the morning. It would be translated by then. Perhaps you could do it in the morning?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Thank you very much, Mr. President, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, would you re-examine him now?
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I do not know whether I will not also have more questions after the new document is presented. That, of course, I cannot judge now.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if there is anything that arises from the new document, you could put the questions later on. You will have a further opportunity if necessary.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes. [Turning to the witness.] Were the SS uniforms with the SD sign also worn by persons who had nothing to do with the SD?
HOEPPNER: Yes, I have explained that repeatedly.
DR. GAWLIK: Were the SS uniforms with the SD patch also worn by persons who had nothing to do with the SS?
HOEPPNER: Yes, indeed.
DR. GAWLIK: Can you make any, explanation as to why individuals who had nothing to do with the SD wore the SD patch?
HOEPPNER: First, because all members of the Security Police also wore that uniform; secondly, because any man at all who served with an Einsatzkommando, or an Einsatzgruppe wore a uniform and the only uniform was the field-grey SS uniform with the SD patch.
DR. GAVTLIK: Why did they wear the SD patch?
HOEPPNER: Because it belonged to the uniform.
DR. GAWLIK: I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got this document before you, 3867-PS?
HOEPPNER: 3867-PS?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. You see what it says there: "I herewith enclose the ninth summary report concerning the activity of the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD in the U.S.S.R." That is the second paragraph; you see that-describing the report?
HOEPPNER: In my document book there are several loose documents. Is it the one of 27 February?
THE PRESIDENT: 27 February 1942, Page 17. Have you got it?
HOEPPNER: Yes, I have it.
THE PRESIDENT: First of all you see it says "...regarding report Number 9 concerning the activity of the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD in the U.S.S.R."-and then the first enclosure. Heydrich encloses the ninth summary report concerning the activity of the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD in the U.S.S.R.
HOEPPNER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you said, as I understood it, that you did not understand why the SD were there, because the Einsatzgruppen were A, B, C, and D?
HOEPPNER: Yes, indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what you meant, wasn't it, that you could not explain why the SD were there?
HOEPPNER: Yes, indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you explain why when distribution is set out it is to be distributed to the chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen A,,.B, C, and D, and also to the commanders of the Security Police and the SD?
HOEPPNER: May I make a statement concerning this report? If Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos of the Security Police and the SD are mentioned, then this designation is not accurate in this report, because that designation did not exist in the East. There were only Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D, and Einsatzkommandos Number 1, 2, 3, and so on.
THE PRESIDENT: Assuming that that is so, why then should the report be sent to the commanders of the Security Police and the SD in a separate distribution to them as well as the distribution to the chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen unless the SD has something to do with it? ,
HOEPPNER: I believe I was misunderstood somehow. It is a report about the activities of all the Einsatzgruppen which was summarized by the Chief of the Security Police of the SD and which then went to the individual Einsatzgruppen, as I assume, so that they would know what had happened in other Einsatzgruppen, and. so Einsatzgruppe D would know what had happened in Einsatzgruppen A, B, and C.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it isn't only sent to the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D; it is also sent to the commanders of the Security Police and SD. What I am asking you is: Why is it sent to the commanders of the Security Police and the SD if they had nothing to do with it?
HOEPPNER: Yes-probably Heydrich wanted the Commanderin-Chief of the Security Police and SD in Kraków and the Higher SS and Police Leaders to be informed of what was done in these Einsatzgruppen, because it was also sent to the Higher Police Leaders in Breslau and Dresden, et cetera, who certainly had nothing to do with the activity of the Einsatzgruppen-to the Reich Defense Commissioners in Königsberg, Stettin, Breslau.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, your answer is that Heydrich made a mistake when he described it as the activity of the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD; and when they sent out and distributed it to the commanders of the Security Police and SD, it was merely a matter of information; is that it?
HOEPPNER: Yes, indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you see the final distribution on Pages 46 and 47 or is that the distribution of a different report; it is a report on the 23rd of April 1942.
HOEPPNER: Yes, 23 April 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: And will you look at Pages 46 and 47?
HOEPPNER: Yes, indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: About eight lines down, you see, it was distributed to Major General Kaltenbrunner, Vienna.
HOEPPNER: Yes, indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: And the last line but two, it was distributed to Governor General, Reich Minister, Dr.Frank.
HOEPPNER: I cannot find Reich Minister Dr. Frick.
THE PRESIDENT: Frank-Frank, I said.
HOEPPNER: Yes, for the attention of Oberregierungsrat Dr. Schepers.
THE PRESIDENT: And the same is true on Page 18 of the report of the 27th of February 1942.
HOEPPNER: 27 February.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, on the 27th of February 1942, it was also distributed to the same people?
HOEPPNER: Yes, indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn. [The Tribunal adjourned until 2 August 1946 at 1000 hours.]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Witness, I request that you explain some of the testimony which you gave yesterday. Please give me very brief answers. First, you said yesterday that the SD had nothing to do with the working out of the plans of aggression and was not even aware of such plans.
HOEPPNER: Yes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: You further stated that the SD since 1934 and up to 1939, in other words during the period of the organization of the RSHA, was engaged in activities which were very far removed from carrying out any police functions and actually had the nature of a scientific research character; is that correct?
HOEPPNER: I did not talk of scientific problems.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: No, I said of a scientific research character. That is how you expressed it yesterday. Is that correct?
HOEPPNER: I explained that the SD had two tasks, one was the work of ascertaining living conditions in Germany and the other was more of a statistical and research nature directed against other philosophies of life.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: That is clear. Thank you. You further stated that the SD had no relations whatsoever to Crimes against Peace and Crimes against Humanity, is that correct?
HOEPPNER: Yes.