dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
particularly towards the end of the war, were drawn from persons who were only nominally members of the SS. It is, however, admitted that the TOTENKOPFVERBAENDE prior to the war guarded concentration camps, but they were transferred to form the WAFFEN-SS in 1940. It is claimed that the SS main office gave no orders to guards in concentration camps nor did they receive any reports. Amtsgruppe D of the WVHA worked entirely independently and numerous other personnel including Higher SS and Police Leaders who were involved in the concentration camp command, held only honorary membership in the SS. 90 Col. Neave Rep. The defense tried further to establish two points with regard to concentration camps: (1) That the SS courts tried a considerable number of offenders accused of ill-treatment, according to their disciplinary laws. (2) That HIMMLER was originally in favor of investigating conditions but eventually gave way to POHL and GLUCKS of the WVHA, as a result of which the cloak of secrecy surrounding the camps could not be penetrated. REINECKE said that inmates of concentration camps were under the civil law. This had been ruled by the Reich Ministry of Justice. The members of the staff of concentration camps were under the jurisdiction of the SS and police courts. It had always been the duty of SS courts to prosecute crimes committed in concentration camps, but in the latter part of 1943 and until the end of the war, a series of special investigations started. These crimes were first discovered as a result of the trial of KOCH, commander of the Buchenwald concentration camp. It soon became evident that other irregularities were occurring and that the SS and police courts would not be able to cope with the prosecution of so many crimes. As a result a committee of experts was appointed who were composed of members of the criminal police with an SS judge attached to each committee. Apparently these investigations were more successful than GLUCKS, the Chief of Amtsgruppe D and his chief POHL considered was desirable. In 1944 HIMMLER requested that the investigations of the SS courts be discontinued due to the fact that the discipline of the prisoners was being endangered. HIMMLER did not continue to render any assistance to the investigations. REINECKE said
Amtsgruppe D and his chief POHL considered was desirable. In 1944 HIMMLER requested that the investigations of the SS courts be discontinued due to the fact that the discipline of the prisoners was being endangered. HIMMLER did not continue to render any assistance to the investigations. REINECKE said that among the people who appeared to be connected with such crimes were camp commanders and their staffs and medical personnel. He informed the Commission that in his opinion there were very few guards responsible. Most of the orders for which their subordinates were prosecuted were issued by GLUCKS, POHL, GRAWITZ, Chief of the Medical Staff, and MUELLER of the RSHA. In all, 400 cases were investigated by the SS and police courts and a decision was reached on 200. Five camp commanders were prosecuted, two of them being sentenced to death. Cross-examined REINECKE said that he had no knowledge of the order of the Reichsfuehrer SS that certain anti-social elements such as Jews and gypsies with more than three year sentences were to be "worked to death". It was suggested to him that it was odd that the Highest SS and judicial authorities were informed of this 91 Col. Neave Rep. and he knew nothing about it. He answered that such things could only have taken place within the sphere of administration of concentration camps and as he had testified it was impossible to penetrate the secrecy surrounding them. He admitted that the men who were guarding concentration camps belonged to the SS. He never heard any of the guards mention atrocities and said that the reports received by the SS and police courts were carefully and expertly drawn up. There was, however, a case in Buchenwald where it was found that the evidence of witnesses regarding a certain incident had been fabricated with the assistance of the Commandant himself. 4. Denial that the SS committed atrocities against Civilians, Prisoners of War or Partisans in Occupied Territory Giving evidence regarding conditions on the Eastern Front, ULLRICH, Commander of the Panzer Division Viking, which has been accused of many atrocities by the Prosecution, said that relations between the troops and civilian populations were good. People were usually apprehensive on hearing of the arrival of the SS but this
Giving evidence regarding conditions on the Eastern Front, ULLRICH, Commander of the Panzer Division Viking, which has been accused of many atrocities by the Prosecution, said that relations between the troops and civilian populations were good. People were usually apprehensive on hearing of the arrival of the SS but this was soon alleviated when they observed that they conducted themselves in a proper manner. He denied that there was any destruction of villages except as a matter of military necessity. Efforts were always made to transport civilians back to the rear during the fighting. The Division Viking was never used in anti-partisan warfare. It was considered that anti-partisan measures were a matter of military necessity in order to protect the troops at the front and to keep the road open for reinforcements. ULLRICH said he had never seen or heard of cooperation between the SS and police troops in the Polish Campaign although he was willing to concede that HIMMLER was telling the truth in Document 1918-PS, USA-304 (a speech in Metz). In this speech HIMMLER declared that the Security Police assisted by the SS had to be "tough" when shooting thousands of leading Poles. Questioned regarding the Commissar Order, HAUSSER said that the order was only passed at first to higher commands and in 1941 the WAFFEN-SS had no high command of its own. He did not receive this order until much later. In practice the order was never carried out. This according to ULLRICH was because most prisoners 92 Col. Neave Rep. had no insignia of rank and it was difficult to distinguish commissars from other prisoners. The WAFFEN-SS were of the opinion that the order was against all their principles of discipline and human rights. Evidence was given regarding the Commando Order of October, 1942. The witness GRAF who was head of the interrogation division of the Fifth Mountain Corps, said that commandos captured on the Dalmatian Coast were correctly treated and third degree methods were not used to obtain military information. He said he knew of the existence of letters from Colonel Jack Churchhill and Colonel Skipwith of British commando units expressing thanks for the correct treatment that they received. In the Balkans Tito's bands were properly treated according
correctly treated and third degree methods were not used to obtain military information. He said he knew of the existence of letters from Colonel Jack Churchhill and Colonel Skipwith of British commando units expressing thanks for the correct treatment that they received. In the Balkans Tito's bands were properly treated according to international law even those who did not wear uniforms. SS troops were severely punished for excesses towards the civilian population and examples were often made. German troops were frequently tried for stealing or appropriating the property of the civilian population in Russia. Witness denied that HIMMLER'S speech at Kharkov in April 1943 in which he said that Russians should be taken dead or alive, represented a point of view that was common in the WAFFEN-SS. The general view in the WAFFEN-SS was that killing was only permissible in actual combat. Statements like "anti-semitism is the same as delousing" were considered by witness to be in "bad taste". He admitted that this speech was made to about 50 commanders of his WAFFEN-SS of the troops stationed around Kharkov. He was not prepared to admit that his commanders passed these statements on to the troops but agreed that HIMMLER may have made a similar speech to units of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd SS Panzer Divisions. THE SD The Defense called six witnesses before the Commission: ALFRED HELMUT NAUJOCKS, who was employed by Heydrich to carry out the attack on the Gleiwitz Broadcasting Station in 1939 (Document 2751-PS) STANDARTENFUEHRER DR. KNOCHEN, who was Chief of the Security Police and SD in France from 1942 until 1944. OBERSTURMBANNFUEHRER, HOEPPNER, who was in charge of Amt 3 A of the RSHA. 93 Col. Neave Rep. DR. ALFRED HOENGEN, who worked in a section of the SD concerning law and administration (Amt IIIA of the RSHA). DR. HANS EHLICH, Chief of Section III B of Amt 3 of the RSHA. (population and racial questions). DR. HANS ROESSNER, who was in Group III C of Amt 3 of the RSHA which dealt with science, education and religion. According to his preliminary statements, Defense Counsel sought to establish the following points through these six witnesses: 1. The SD was a party information agency developed to report on the morale, opinions and conditions
in Group III C of Amt 3 of the RSHA which dealt with science, education and religion. According to his preliminary statements, Defense Counsel sought to establish the following points through these six witnesses: 1. The SD was a party information agency developed to report on the morale, opinions and conditions of the people in all their "spheres of life", (Amt III). It reported foreign intelligence (Amt 6) and carried out various forms of research (Amt 7). 2. The SD was not a police force. It grew up and worked independently of the SS and the GESTAPO. It had in general no executive powers and no powers of arrest. 3. It only dealt with Jewish problems in an advisory and research capacity. Its function as far as the Einsatzgruppen and concentration camps are concerned was similar. It carried out investigations on religious questions but played no part in the persecution of the Church. 4. Both in Germany and in occupied territory the term "SD" was used in a very general sense to denote other departments, such as the RSHA and the GESTAPO and Security Police. A considerable number of people who were really members of the SS and other organizations wore SD on their uniforms and were called "SD men". Consequently, many of the crimes with which the SD proper is charged were really committed by other groups. 5. The number of persons belonging to the SD who could have known about the Eichmann program, about Einsatzgruppen or about concentration camps was extremely small. 6. About half the agents employed by the SD were volunteers and half were paid as regular agents. Most of the evidence on behalf of the SD concerns activities with which they were charged under Article 6 of the Charter. There is very little evidence on the question of knowledge of criminal activities or voluntary membership. The following is a resume of the evidence of the witnesses called on the question of whether or not the SD was a group designed to engage in activity defined as criminal under Article 6 of the Charter. 94 Col. Neave Rep. 1. Meaning of the Term "SD" Several of the witnesses asserted that the term "SD" was used in a very general sense to include not only other organizations but also groups of people who did
was a group designed to engage in activity defined as criminal under Article 6 of the Charter. 94 Col. Neave Rep. 1. Meaning of the Term "SD" Several of the witnesses asserted that the term "SD" was used in a very general sense to include not only other organizations but also groups of people who did not belong to the real SD. The witness KNOCHEN, for instance, explained away documents in which the expression "handing over to the Security Police and SD", or merely "to the SD" was used as not meaning the SD at all but the Security Police itself. The relevance of such evidence seems doubtful except insofar as witnesses were able to explain specific documents. Presumably the evidence of the witness NAUJOCKS to explain the nature of the term "SD man" was to show that the SD itself was a limited organization. The wide use of its name may have given the impression that its members are accused of crimes committed by other organizations. It does seem clear, however, that the large number of persons referred to by KNOCHEN who wore the SD insignia on their uniforms were in some way or other attached to the office of the SD and Security Police in Paris. (a) The Term "Sicherheitsdienst" The witness HOEPPNER states that the term Sicherheitsdienst, or SD, could mean (a) an SS formation known as the SD. (b) a special information agency. The SD considered as an SS formation was entirely different from the various departments of the RSHA which formed the SD as a special information service of the party. Amt 3 (Home Intelligence), Amt 6 (Foreign Intelligence), and Amt 7 (Research) of the RSHA comprised the information agency. The SS formation consisted of units of the ALLGEMEINE SS and Security Police. There responsibility attaching to these ,vas, however, no collective different organizations. The term Sicherheitsdienst as applied to the above two divisions should also not be confused with the Reichs Sicherheitsdienst, a special organization set up for the protection of the Fuehrer". (b) " SD Men " (See also Evidence for the GESTAPO) The witness NAUJOCKS was called by the Defense to show that the statement in his affidavit to the Prosecution in November 1945 that he and other "SD men" had
a special organization set up for the protection of the Fuehrer". (b) " SD Men " (See also Evidence for the GESTAPO) The witness NAUJOCKS was called by the Defense to show that the statement in his affidavit to the Prosecution in November 1945 that he and other "SD men" had carried out the fabricated 95 Col. Neave Rep. incident on the Polish border in 1939, was based on a misunderstanding of the term "SD man". (See 2751-PS, USA-482.) NAUJOCKS explained the misunderstanding as follows: All people working in offices under HEYDRICH as Chief of the Security Police and SD were called "SD men". This was a general description. An "SD man" was anyone HEYDRICH could 'trust politically. Re-examined by the Defense the witness agreed that the following definition of "SD man" is correct: (1) A member of the Home Intelligence Service (Amt III of the RSHA). (2) A member of the Foreign Intelligence Service (Amt VI). (3) A member of Amt VII of the RSHA (Research). (4) A member of the so-called SD of the SS, together with, in some cases, all members of the RSHA and some members of the GESTAPO and criminal police. In addition to this there were, of course, those people who were especially trusted by HEYDRICH. The witness KNOCHEN observed that a large number of people in France who had nothing to do with the SD wore the SD insignia on their SS uniforms. There were even cases of French citizens describing themselves as members of the SD, and some of the crimes by them may have been charged to the SD. KNOCHEN said that in his department of the Security Police and SD there was an estimated total number of 2,500 personnel. Only ten to twelve persons were members of Amt III of the RSHA and, consequently, of the Home Intelligence Service. There were 30 to 35 people who belonged to Amt VI, the Foreign Intelligence Organization of the RSHA. In other words, only 60 to 65 people belonged to the official SD offices, Amt III and Amt VI, whereas 2,400 to 2,500 wore the uniforms of the SD in France. (c) Documents referring to the "Security Police and SD" or "The SD" The same witness was shown a large number of documents relating to the Commando Order of October the 14th, 1942, and to the treatment of paratroopers and
and Amt VI, whereas 2,400 to 2,500 wore the uniforms of the SD in France. (c) Documents referring to the "Security Police and SD" or "The SD" The same witness was shown a large number of documents relating to the Commando Order of October the 14th, 1942, and to the treatment of paratroopers and members of the French resistance. These documents said that captured persons should be handed over to the SD. 96 Col. Neave Rep. KNOCHEN, who was previously Chief of the Security Police and SD in Paris, stated that the term "SD" was often mistakenly used to mean the GESTAPO or Security Police. This mistake was frequently made by higher commands. 2. The SD Grew Up from 1932 Onwards as an Independent Party Organization Separated in Varying Degrees from (a) The SS, (b) The GESTAPO, (c) The Police, and (d) The Party. (a) The SD and The SS Although it is true to say that there was a so-called SS formation known as the SD, which has already been referred to, the statement that the SD was properly part of the SS is really incorrect. The SD in the sense that it consisted of Amts III, VI and VII of the RSHA was (1) A Party Organization. (2) Very few of its members belonged to the SS. (3) It was unique in the sense that it grew up "unofficially" and was not established by legal decree. The Book "Ten Years of Security Police and SD" (Document 1680-PS) seems to imply that the SD was furthermore part of the SS. The witness HOEPPNER, however, says that the SD was merely a special intelligence organization created in 1932 by the Reichsfuehrer SS. This should not be taken to mean that it was a sub-division of the SS or that it carried out SS tasks. The exact position of the SD formations in the SS was not made clear by any of the witnesses. According to HIMMLER the SD was the "great ideological intelligence service of the Party and in the long run, also of the State". During the time of the struggle for power it was the only intelligence service of the SS. With regard to the last part of this sentence HOEPPNER observed that one could only consider the relationship of the SD to the SS in the light of the development of the SD from 1932 until it officially became Amt III of the
for power it was the only intelligence service of the SS. With regard to the last part of this sentence HOEPPNER observed that one could only consider the relationship of the SD to the SS in the light of the development of the SD from 1932 until it officially became Amt III of the RSHA in 1939. (See below.) The witness ROESSNER was cross-examined on an extract from the National Year Book of 1941 in which it is stated that the SD was a political intelligence service created in accordance with the "racial and ideological selection required by the SS". The 97 Col. Neave Rep. witness denied this, saying that the SD had specific functions which are described below. The only thing correct in this book is that HEYDRICH was simultaneously Chief of the Security Police and the SD. (b) The SD and The GESTAPO The witness HOEPPNER who gives much the best evidence on the structure of the SD, declared that from the point of view of organization there was no direct relation between the GESTAPO and the SD. The principal differences which he explained were (1) The GESTAPO was established by State ordinances. (2) The SD grew up by no fixed rules and was not a State but a Party authority. Similarly the fact that HEYDRICH was Chief of the Security Police and SD did not mean that the Security Police was the same as the SD. The aims and activities of the GESTAPO and SD were quite different. The function of the GESTAPO was executive as far as political aims were concerned, whereas the SD merely collected intelligence both at home and abroad. The SD had no power of arrest and was not interested in individuals but in general problems. While admittedly there was a sort of general office collaboration between the SD and the GESTAPO, the SD did not report to the GESTAPO on individuals and they did not mention names in their reports on groups or sections of the population. The book by Dr. BEST (See report on Evidence for the GESTAPO submitted by the Prosecution as 1852-PS) is according to this witness, quite incorrect. The SD was never a tool of the GESTAPO nor was it a "General Staff" of the GESTAPO. I (c) The R.S.H.A. HOEPPNER, when cross-examined, was shown 361-L, where HEYDRICH was stated to have
for the GESTAPO submitted by the Prosecution as 1852-PS) is according to this witness, quite incorrect. The SD was never a tool of the GESTAPO nor was it a "General Staff" of the GESTAPO. I (c) The R.S.H.A. HOEPPNER, when cross-examined, was shown 361-L, where HEYDRICH was stated to have brought the various offices of the Security Police and SD under one head, the RSHA or Reichs Security Main Office. The Prosecution put to the witness that the setting up of the RSHA created a greater centralization of the main offices and, therefore, brought the GESTAPO and SD together. The witness stated this was incorrect. He said that by an order dated June 1938, the functions of the SD and GESTAPO were specifically separated and the establishment of the RSHA in no sense changed the functions of the SD as a separate organization. Most of the witnesses throughout the hearings emphasized the distinction between Amts III, VI and VII of the RSHA and Amt IV which was in fact the GESTAPO. 98 Col. Neave Rep. KNOCHEN said that the same separation of functions applied to occupied territories, in particular to the Office of the Chief of Security Police and SD in France where the Sections of that office bore the same titles ~s the different Amts of the RSHA, e.g., Section 4 of the SD and Security Police in Paris corresponded to Amt IV of the RSHA in Berlin. It would appear that SD agents operating in the field made their reports to the appropriate department of the local office of the Security Police and SD. The offices of Security Police and SD in occupied territory then transferred their reports to Amts III, VI or VII of the RSHA according to the subject. It is denied that the SD agents made reports directly to Amt IV or any branch of the GESTAPO offices except where they were asked for their "expert advice" before the GESTAPO took a decision. (d) The SD was not part of the Police The Defense have tried to show that the SD was not a police organization and it did not belong to a uniform police system. They say that the allegation by the Prosecution on the 26th of February, 1946, that the SD had police functions is quite incorrect. It concerned itself only with discovering what public opinion was and