dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
HOEPPNER: Above the Aussenstelle was the Abschnitt, not the Blockstelle, and, as I'said before, the different Aussenstelle some-times selected terms for subordinate offices which were not really officially recognized. Observers were, however, recognized.
DR. GAWLIK: Did Amt III issue any orders as established in this document?
HOEPPNER: No; under no circumstances.
DR. GAWLIK: Then is this a case of the head of the Aussen-stelle in Mogilno acting on his own initiative? I mean the head of the Blockstelle.
HOEPPNER: If Himmler did make this speech then it would certainly constitute an arbitrary act. The only thing that I cannot imagine is Himmler's saying, when making a speech to the camp commanders, that he expected something of all his informers.
HOEPPNER: I am not speaking of Himmler. I am speaking of the orders of the head of the Blockstelle.
DR. GAWLIK: But the instructions are in the speech by Himmler-or do you mean the instructions in the first sentence "to give especial attention to Poland"? The head of the Blockstelle in Mogilno will, of course, have cared for the Poles in the same way as he cared for the Germans. He was naturally interested in the general attitude and frame of mind of the Poles, and he reported to the Reich main office, to Group III D.
DR. GAWLIK: Then I show you Document 3876-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: How does this arise from the cross-examination?
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I have a few more questions in connection with the questions which Your Honor asked yesterday at the end of the session relating to distribution.
THE PRESIDENT: You are putting in some document which has not been referred to before?
DR. GAWLIK: The document was submitted yesterday by the American Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, well it was. I beg your pardon.
HOEPPNER: I have here the English text of the document.
DR. GAWLIK: Please look at Page 45 now, the distribution. Did commanders of the Security Police and the SD belong to the Ein-satzgruppen A, B, C, and D?
HOEPPMER: No, that is something different. The Einsatzgruppen were mobile units, which advanced together with the Armed Forces in the rear army area. The offices of the commanders were offices in the civilian administration. When an area was taken into civil administration, the office of the commander was set up.
DR. GAWLIK: How were -the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D organized?
HOEPPNER: They were divided into the Einsatzkommandos.
DR. GAWLIK: What names did these Einsatzkommandos have?
HOEPPN-ER: These Einsatzkommandos had no names at all. As I said yesterday, they were numbered from 1 to 10, as far as I can recall, possibly even to 11 or 12.
DR. GAWLIK: Please look at the distribution. There it says that .the chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D received copies for the commanders of the Security Police and the SD.
HOEPPNER: No, that is wrongly translated. It should be for the Kommandeure of the Security Police and the SD, not for the com-manders; that is the Kommandeure of the Security Police who were subordinate to the commanders of the Security Police and the SD. To make it more clear, the Einsatzkommandos were not led by a Kommandeure of the Security Police and the SD, but by the Kommandeute of Einsatzkommandos 1, 2, 3, et cetera. In the territory which was under civil administration, the situation was the same as in occupied France. There were offices of the Kommandeure of the Security Police and of the SD. That was something quite different from the Einsatzkommandos.
DR. GAWLIK: Who were the officers superior to the Komman-deure?
HOEPPNER: Of which Kommandeure?
DR. GAWLIK: Of the Security Police and of the SD.
HOEPPNER: The commanders of the Security Police and the SD.
DR. GAWLIK: Who were their superiors?
HOEPPNER: The Chief of the Security Police and the SD in Berlin.
DR. GAWLIK: Who was the superior of Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D?
HOEPPMER: That cannot be answered in one word. In reality the chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen had two superiors. In the first place, they were assigned to the army group in question, and had to take instructions from the chief of the army group. On the other hand, they received specialized instructions from the Chief of the Security Police and the SD. That is the very reason why I said yesterday that they were unique and different.
DR. GAWLIK: Now I ask you again. If the Kommandeure of the Security Police and the SD did not belong to the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, hasn't all this been thoroughly gone into already? I mean, we have got the document. We have asked the witness a number of questions and he has given his answers. You are now asking him the same questions over again.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I only have one more question with regard to the copies.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask your question then.
DR. GAWLIK: Why did the chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D receive copies for the commanders of the Security Police and the SD, if they were completely separate organizations?
HOEPPNER: Probably there were different organizations but in certain cases the people were the same; or, as I assume, this was not a clear way of expressing it. I had a German copy yesterday. Various words were used for "Commander." Sometimes it was "Kommandeur" and in the next line it was "Befehlshaber." Those are completely different functions. I had a German copy yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire. Dr. Gawlik, your next witness.
DR. GAWLIK: With the permission of the Court, I call as the next witness, Dr. Rössner. [The witness Rössner took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your name, please? DR. HANS RÖSSNER (Witness): Hans Rössner.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing. [The witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. GAWLIK: When were you born? RÖSSNER: 1910, in Dresden.
DR. GAWLIK: Describe briefly your professional career. RÖSSNER: After the customary schooling I graduated in 1930, then studied the German language and literature, German history, and Protestant theology. From 1936 on I was assistant at the Uni-versity of Bonn; from 1939 to 1940, military service; in 1940 deferred for the University of Bonn and emergency service in the Reich Security Main Office, Amt III.
DR. GAWLIK: Since when have you been a Party member? RÖSSNER: Since 1937.
DR. GAVVTLIK: What office did you have in the Reich Security Main Office? RÖSSNER: I was an expert, later section chief, in Group III C, Amt III.
DR. GAWLIK: Are you well acquainted with the tasks, methods, and aims of Group III C? RÖSSNER: Yes, I am.
DR. GAWLIK: Please wait a little before you answer. In addition, do you also know of the tasks, methods, and aims of Amt III? RÖSSNER: Yes, I also know these because they were fundamen-tally the same as those of Group III C.
DR. GAWLIK: What were the tasks and -aims of Amt III since 1939? RÖSSNER: Amt III was a domestic German information service. It had set its aims and tasks to a great extent itself and worked independently in the domestic German sphere of life, that is to say it took up important questions of domestic German life in various fields, such as economics, culture, administration, law, and others as far as information service was concerned, and in particular attempt-ed to collect and sum up criticism on the part of the population regarding mistakes, faulty developments, measures, etcetera, and to report on them.
DR. GAWLIK: Please give a few examples by way of explanation. RÖSSNER: For example, every week and sometimes daily, Amt III reported on the opinion of the population on German propaganda_ to the agencies concerned. Beyond that, in 1943 for example, Amt III, through its reports, prevented the closing of Ger-man universities in spite of Germany's total war effort.
DR. GAWLIK: The Prosecution has submitted, on Page 11 of the English trial brief, that Amt III had to carry out police investiga-tions in all phases of German life. Did Amt III have to carry out police investigations? RÖSSNER: Never did Amt III as long as it existed have any police tasks.
DR. GAWLIK: Did the SD, Amt III, have the practical task and the fundamental aim of giving information through its information center on actual and possible opponents of the Nazi movement? This refers to Page 17 of the trial brief. RÖSSNER: No. Amt III was basically not an information service on opponents, but on German domestic life.
DR. GAWLIK: What was the purpose of the information service reports of Amt III? In particular, was the main task to support the leaders of the Party and State as partners of a conspiracy and to keep them in power? RÖSSNER: No. Amt III never had such a task and did not set up such a task for itself. The task of the information service of Amt III was to furnish an extensive and objective picture of the domestic problems of German internal life and to present them in an open and direct manner.
DR. GAWLIK: Did the members of Amt III know that the leaders of the Party and the State were participating in a secret plan for the purpose of committing Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity? RÖSSNER: To my knowledge, the members of the Amt III did not know anything about this. All the material collected by the SD, Amt III was evidence to the contrary.
DR. GAVMIK: Can you answer this question for the members and honorary members of the subordinate agencies? RÖSSNER: Yes.
DR. GAWLIK: Did the close collaborators of the chief of Amt III know of such a conspiracy? RÖSSNER: No. Not even the closest collaborators knew anything about this.
DR. GAWLIK: On what is your knowledge based for your answer to the last few questions? RÖSSNER: I often participated in internal Gruppenleiter con-ferences with the chief of Amt III.
DR. GAWLIK: Were the tasks and aims of the Domestic Informa-tion Service known to all workers even in the subordinate agencies? RÖSSNER: Yes, the tasks and aims were known to the workers and honorary workers of the -subordinate agencies. They were con-tinually announced in the individual conferences, meetings, lectures, et cetera.
DR. GAWLIK: On what is your knowledge based by reason of which you have answered my last question? RÖSSNER: On numerous individual conferences and meetings where I myself announced the aims and tasks of Amt III.
DR. GAWLIK: In the reports made on a situation, were the names of the persons mentioned? RÖSSNER: No, not usually, since the SD was not interested in the names of individual persons, but in typical examples of questions regarding the different spheres of life.
DR. GAWLIK: In giving personnel data, was the aim being pursued to bring persons into influential State positions who would not oppose the execution of a plan for committing War Crimes, Crimes against Peace, and Crimes against Humanity? RÖSSNER: No, Amt III did not have any such aims. Such data and reports of the SD were kept separate on principle from the reports on the general' situations. The SD, Amt III, gave personnel data, but did not have permission to pass judgment on people. That was the sole task of the HoheitstrAger of the Party.
DR. GAWLIK: What was the purpose of giving out information on personnel data by the SD? RÖSSNER: This was to supplement the political judgment and purely specialized judgment of the individual Party offices and departments and present if possible a total picture of the per-sonality, character, professional ability, political attitude, and, personal way of living independent of any departmental point of view or of any power or political interests.
DR. GAWLIK: The Prosecution describes the tasks of the SD as follows: The task consisted in taking necessary steps to destroy the opposition or to make it harmless. Does this correspond with the actual facts and ideological aims of Amt III since 1939? RÖSSNER: No, by no means. I have already emphasized the fact that Amt III was not an intelligence service for gathering news about opponents.
DR. GAWLIK: When did Amt III give up this task? RÖSSNER: Amt III never had this task.
DR. GAWLIK: The Prosecution further submitted that the SD had an extensive spy net that would spy on the German people in their daily work, on the streets, and even in the sanctified halls of the church. This is on Page 66 of the English trial brief. Did the SD conduct such an extensive spy network as described? RÖSSNER: During the whole period of its existence, Amt III never worked with spies or a spy network in the domestic German sphere of life. The spy network would have contradicted all the basic aims of this internal German information service.
DR. GAWLIK: Did the SD for its -tasks use only regular officials? RÖSSNER: No, they were by far in the minority. The work of the internal SD was dependent upon the big staff of honorary workers from all parts of the country and all professions.
DR. GAWLIK: Can you give any figures? RÖSSNER: I cannot give accurate figures, but in the last few years we estimated the honorary workers at some 10,000. They worked on a completely voluntary basis and a large part worked on their own initiative for the internal SD.
DR. GAWLIK: From what point of view were the confidential agents chosen for the information service for German domestic spheres of life? RÖSSNER: Such a confidential agent had to offer proof that, free fr9m selfish interests, he would give clear and objective information on questions relating to his professional sphere, or to the population among whom he lived and on other concerns and worries and state-ments of criticism of the population with whom he came in contact. In addition, he had to be a person of decent character.
DR. GAWLIK: Did these agents have to be members of the Party? RÖSSNER: No, by no means. It was even desired to have as -large as possible a percentage of non-Party members among these agents of the SD so as to get a complete and independent picture of the total situation within Germany through these agents.
DR. GAWLIK: Did the agents have to be members of the SS? RÖSSNER: No, the percentage of members of the SS among these agents was, according to my estimate, still less than that of Party members.
DR. GAWLIK: What were the tasks of these confidential agents? RÖS
SNER: The task varied. In Amt III we had agents who were to give general information on the frame of mind, attitude, and opinions of the population on urgent questions during the course of the war years. Then we had another type of agent who gave information on their professional cares and worries and on questions relating to the specialist fields into which they hail insight.
DR. GAWLIK: What was the task of the SD Arbeitskreise? RÖSSNER: In the so-called SD Arbeitskreise the agents of the subordinate agencies were called together in an informal way. In these Arbeitskreise questions and problems concerning technical matters and measures of the Party and State agencies were dis-cussed with absolute sincerity and frankness. The results of these discussions and criticism were summarized and then sent to Amt III in Berlin. The main prerequisite was absolute objectivity and absolute frankness and criticism.
DR. GAWLIK: Did the agents or the Arbeitskreise work under any special cloak of secrecy? This question refers to the trial brief, Page 16. RÖSSNER: I do not know what you mean by the expression, "cloak of secrecy." I can answer that these agents never acted under any special personal secrecy and these Arbeitskreise which I just mentioned had no special obligation for secrecy. Usually taking place in some university, they were publicly known as Arbeitskreise.
DR. GAWLIK: Were there, aside from those employed, other agents of the SD? RÖSSNER: Yes. In the last few years of our work there were more and more representatives of the most various professions and walks of life who on their own initiative came with some worry, criticism, or some positive suggestion to the SD) in order, on the basis of a personal confidence in the SD, to be able to turn over their worries to it.
DR. GAWLIK: Now, I show you Prosecution Documents 1650-PS, D-569, and 1514-PS. They deal with the Kugel Decree concerning the treatment of Russian prisoners of war and the turning over of prisoners of war to the Gestapo. It is the first point of the charge, VI (c), against the SD. Was the SD Amt III competent for executing this decree? RÖSSNER: No, the SD was not competent because Amt III, from the beginning, had no executive power.
DR. GAWLIK: Can you give any further explanation of the individual documents? RÖSSNER: The documents all refer to the Secret State Police, the Gestapo. One document merely mentions the chief of Amt III. The document of the Armed Forces also refers to the Gestapo.
DR. GAWLIK: Was the SD, the Domestic Information Service, used to carry out these decrees? RÖSSNER: No, this would have been in contradiction to its tasks.
DR. GAWLIK: Did the SD, the Domestic Information Service, participate in the deportation of citizens of the occupied territories for forced labor? RÖSSNER: No, this was an executive task for which the SD, Amt III, was not competent.
DR. GAWLIK: Did the SD have the power to inflict punishment on forced laborers? This question refers to Page 1941 of the English transcript (Volume IV, Page 268). RÖSSNER: No, this also would have been an executive task.
DR. GAWLIK: Did the SD, through its reports, contribute to deportations? RÖSSNER: No, quite on the contrary. Amt III repeatedly showed up the negative effects of such measures.
DR. GAWLIK: Did the SD have any control over the forced laborers brought into the Reich? RÖSSNER: No, this control would also have been an executive task which Amt III did not have.
DR. GAWLIK: Now, I show you Document 205-PS. This is a memorandum on the general principles for the treatment of for-eigners employed in the Reich. Did the SD have any part in the drafting of this memorandum? RÖSSNER: Yes, to my knowledge the SD, Amt III, had a part in the drawing up of this memorandum. It made its material available in setting up directives for a positive treatment of foreign workers. This material, which was used in this memorandum, corresponded, moreover, to the basic principles of the domestic SD in the treat-ment of national questions in the European area.
DR. GAWLIK: What is your knowledge based on as to the drawing up of this memorandum? RÖSSNER: Part of the material comes from Group III C, in which I myself was section chief.
DR. GAWLIK: Did the SD, Amt III, have the right to make confiscations? This question refers to the part of the charge VI (K) of the trial brief. RÖSSNER: No, the SD had no right to confiscate. This also would have been an executive task.
DR. GAWLIK: Did the SD Domestic Information Service partic-ipate in the confiscation and distribution of public and private property? RÖSSNER: No.
DR. GAWLIK: On Page 51 of the trial brief, it says, referring to Document 071-PS: "In connection with the planned confiscation of scientific, religious, and art archives, an agreement was reached between Rosenberg and Heydrich on the basis of which the SD and Rosenberg were to co-operate closely in the confiscation of public and private collections." Was there any such close co-operation between the SD and the staff of the Defendant Rosenberg, his agencies, or any of his deputies? RÖSSNER: No. In this document we are again confronted by the customary mistake concerning the Security Police and the SD. Such co-operation, if it existed, would have had to be known to me, since Group III C would have been competent for it.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I now come to my last point. Shall I begin it?
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any questions to ask upon it? It looks as if you had, so perhaps we had better adjourn.
DR. GAWLIK: There are 34 questions. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.] Afternoon Session
DR. GAWLIK: I come now to my last point, the persecution of the Church, trial brief Section VII B. I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the SD is charged with being active in this regard only until 12 May 1941-Page 60 of the English text of the trial brief. My taking of testimony limits itself to the time from the establishment of the RSHA in 1939 up to 12 May 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Which does that mean, May 1940 or May 1941? DR. GAVY'LIK: The 12 May 1941-Page 64, the last section but one of the trial brief, where it states that the political treatment of the Church was divided between the Gestapo and the SD and from that point on was taken over entirely by the Gestapo. Did Department III C handle Church questions? RÖSSNER: No.
DR. GAWLIK: Did. any other department in Amt III handle Church questions? RÖSSNER: No. Since the establishment of Amt III, no Church matters were handled in that office at all.
DR. GAWLIK: What was handled in Amt III? RÖSSNER: In Amt III, Group III C, only general religious mat-ters in various realms of life were handled.
DR. GAWLIK: In what manner were the matters regarding religious life handled? RÖSSNER: The principles of the handling were the same as for any other sphere of life. It was the task of Amt III to observe all the religious wishes, cares, proposals, and tendencies of the Ger-man population and the influence of the German religious move-ments and the Christian creeds on the opinion, spirit, and attitude of the German people in the Reich, and to report on them.
DR. DR. GAWLIK: GAWLIK: The Prosecution has stated that the persecution of the churches was one of the fundamental purposes of the SD and the Security Police. Did the SD have this basic purpose in common with the Security Police? RÖSSNER: To my knowledge as responsible head of a depart-ment, no such common purpose existed. Did the SD on its own initiative have and realize any such program? RÖSSNER: No. That would have been against all the principles of our work.
DR. GAWIAK: Did the SD, Amt III, actually engage in the perse-cution of the churches? RÖSSNER: No.
DR. GAWLIK: Was the SD, Amt III, in any way involved by the Gestapo in an alleged persecution of the Church? RÖSSNER: No. Between the Gestapo and Amt III there was a complete separation of materia~ personnel, and organization.
DR. GAWLIK: Was the SD involved in the persecution of the Church by any other office of the Party and State? RÖSSNER: No. The SD worked quite independently in this sphere. No offices of the Party or of the State were entitled to give direct assignments to the SD.
DR. GAWLIK: Were the regular and honorary members of the SD under any supervision as regards their attitude toward the Church and induced to leave the Church by threats or other means? RÖSSNER: No. I know nothing about that, and it would also have been contrary to our fundamental conceptions. Until the end, a large number of regular and honorary officials were and remained members of the Christian churches. I might mention that the Chief of Amt III himself left the Protestant Church as late as 1942.
DR. GAWLIK: Did the SD, Amt III, have veiled aims and did there exist any secret proceedings in the fight against the Church? This question is relevant to Page 58 of the trial brief.
ROSSMER: Neither in this sphere nor in any other sphere, of activity of Amt III were there any concealed aims or secret proceed-ings. As head of a department I would have had to know of them.
DR. GAWLIK: I submit to you Prosecution Document 1815-PS. Will you look at Page 59, please? RÖSSNER: May I ask-the document does not go up to Page 59-is it Page 29 or 39?
DR. GAWLIK: 29, either 29 or 39. RÖSSNER: I have both pages here.
DR. GAWLIK: Will you look at Page 1?
ROSSMER: I have Page 1 here.
DR. GAWLIK: There it says that the former officials should be detailed to the Gestapo for the time being. Was this order given on the ground that the organization, the tasks, aims, and activities in the sphere of church affairs were the same in Amt III of SD and Amt IV of the Gestapo? RÖSSNER: This order was given for an entirely different reason. Since Amt III and Amt IV were entirely different offices, the trans-fer of the former SD employees to Amt IV would have taken too long, and for that reason this planned transfer was undertaken in the form of an order so as to save time for the work.