dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. GAWLIK: Will you now comment on Page 29 of the Prose-cution document? That is record Number 18. Will you look at the first two sentences. Can it not be seen from that that the SD handled Church matters in collaboration with the State Police and the Criminal Police? RÖSSNER: The document before me shows that the SD, Amt III, did not participate at all in this connection. At the time of this conversation in 1942, Amt III, according to the order of separation which was previously mentioned, was not allowed, on principle, to, handle Church matters.
DR. GAWLIK: Will you now look at Page I and Page 2. On the basis of these two pages, the Prosecution has suggested-I refer to Page 58 of the trial brief-that the handling of Church matters had until then been divided between the Gestapo and the SD, and that the SD files on Church opposition 'were then to be -transferred to the Gestapo but the SD was to retain material concerning Church influence on public life. Will you make a statement on this? RÖSSNER: I said already at the beginning, that the SD, Amt III, had never handled Church matters since its foundation. The former material that was to be given by reason of this order to Amt IV was general informational material which was not suitable for the executive police tasks assigned to Amt IV. By the way, the order submitted to me was formulated by Amt IV and therefore pays ,particular attention to the,point of view of Amt IV.
DR. GAWLIK: Now will you look again at Page 19, please, where it says, in summarizing, that in Church matters the struggle against opposition and the work in everyday life must go hand in hand. Does this not indicate a collaboration of SD and State Police with the common aim of a struggle against the Church? RÖSSNER: No, because Amt IV, to my knowledge, never had the fundamental task of a struggle against the Church. What is formulated here on this page is the personal desire of an inspector who had no actual right to give orders either to the Gestapo or to the SD.
DR. GAWLIK: Now look at Page 24, especially Paragraphs I and 4, where it says, "For the reasons stated, I request the 'In-formation Service on opponents' immediately to extend and inten-sify work in the field of Church policy." Also note immediately afterward: "As soon as channels of information have been established in this way..." Does it not seem from that that the SD had an intelligence service on opponents in the sphere of the Church? RÖSSNER: No; it indicates exactly the opposite. The decree in front of me is dated August 1941, that is to say, after the order separating the two services. If the SD, on the basis of this order of separation, had transferred to Amt IV its information service apparatus to be used as "Information Service on opponents," then this decree of August 1941 need not have given the order finally to begin the establishment of an Information Service in Amt IV. By the way, the order was given to a large number of State Police offices and, therefore, it cannot deal with an individual local case.
DR. GAWLIK: I refer you now to Page 27, which discusses the transfer of agents to the Gestapo, and a common leadership for these agents. What have you to say to this order of the inspector in Dilsseldorf? RÖSSNER: I must first again point out that this can be only a personal desire of the inspector, since he had no actual power to give orders. Practically, such a desire could never have been realized because, owing to the variety of the tasks, it was completely im-possible to provide common confidential agents of Amt III and Amt IV with practical assignments on specific questions. Each agent of the SD would have refused to undertake police tasks in addition to his regular duties.
DR. GAWLIK: On the basis of your activity, what can you say about the volume of the files which, as a result of the separation order of 12 May 1941, were handed over to the Gestapo by the SD. RÖSSNER: That must have varied considerably according to the -way in which cases were handled by the various offices. Sections with good information services would have had correspondingly more material which would then have been given to the State Police.
DR. GAWLIK: On the basis of your knowledge, were the files -which were handed over by the SD of any use for the police tasks of the State Police against individuals?
ROSSNBR: No, they certainly were not, as the method of inter-rogation for gaining intelligence on ecclesiastical problems on the part of the SD was entirely different. Particularly, it was never drafted to suit individual cases.
DR. GAWLIK: According to your knowledge, were the files that -were then handed over actually worked on by the State, Police? RÖSSNER: I cannot make any statement in detail, but for the reasons I have just given a large part of the material was never utilized any further, as it was completely useless for police tasks.
DR. GAWLIK: Did Amt III of the SD have the fundamental task and aim of persecuting the churches, or preparing a general persecution of the Church, and did it work at all for the perse-cution of the Church-that is to say, in the period between 1939 until the order of separation of 12 May 1941? RÖSSNER: No, Amt III never did at any time receive such a practical assignment, nor did it ever set itself such a goal.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, you remember that you told us before the adjournment that you had come to your last point.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes. I have only about six questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you can compress them into a short time.
DR. GAWLIK: Did Amt III regularly inform leading offices of the Party and the State on the questions pertaining to religious matters, with a view to a common persecution of the Church? RÖSSNER: No, the reports about religious matters in everyday life came in very slowly and incompletely in the last period because the department in Amt III had for years only one man to work on these matters.
DR. GAWLIK: What was the aim of the SD in informing other offices about these matters? RÖSSNER: Amt III, in addition to its ordinary reports, also pointed out in public reports that according to its opinion it was not a matter of a struggle for political power with the Church but, for the vital questions of religion affecting the German people, in conjunction with other cultural questions.
DR. GAWLIK: Did the reports of the SD lead to the prepara-tion or institution of measures inimical to the Church? RÖSSNER: No. On the basis of the reports of Amt III, on several occasions, strong criticism was voiced on individual measures against the Church, on the part of individuals or by various offices.
DR. GAWLIK: I have no further questions to ask.
M. MONNERAY: Witness, you said that you were drafted into the, SD in 1940? RÖSSNER: I did not say that I was called up but that I was detailed to the Reich Security Main Office on emergency duty.
M.MONNERAY: You forgot to state that you we're already a member of the SD before that. RÖSSNER: I was asked by defendant's counsel, as far as I know, since when I had been in the SD.
M. MONNERAY: Were you a member of the SD before 1940? RÖSSNER: I did not understand the question exactly.
M. MONNERAY: Were you a member of the SD before 1940? RÖSSNER: Yes. From 1934.
M. MONNERAY: You forgot that, did you not? RÖSSNER: Not as far as I know. Besides, I said it all in detail before the Commission.
M. MONNERAY: Is it a fact, Witness, that before the seizure of power by the Nazi Party, the SD was a secret and illegal organ-ization? RÖSSNER: May I ask again-did you say before the seizure of power?
M. MONNERAY: Yes, before the -seizure of power. RÖSSNER: I cannot say anything about that, as I was not a member of the SD.
M.MONNERAY: After the seizure of power, was the SD em-ployed by the Party and on the other hand by the State, along with the Gestapo, in order to fight opposition groups? RÖSSNER: As far as I know, the SD always had an entirely different information service task from that of the Gestapo.
M. MONNERAY: During the war, in the occupied territories, did the SD appear at the same time as the Sipo within the Einsatzkommandos? RÖSSNER: I can unfortunately give no testimony about the organization and activity of the Einsatzkommandos, as I was never in occupied territory as a member of the SD.
M.MONNERAY: Do you know Streckenbach? RÖSSNER: Yes.
M. MONNERAY: What were his functions? RÖSSNER: As far as I know, he was for some years Chief of Amt I.
M. MONNERAY: And Office Number I was in charge of organ-izational questions as much for the Sipo as for the SD, is that right? RÖSSNER: Yes.
M.MONNERAY: Therefore, he should know sufficiently the respective functions of the Sipo and the SD? RÖSSNER: May I ask again "who" knew the functions exactly?
M.MONNERAY: Witness, the question was quite clear. I was referring to Streckenbach. RÖSSNER: No, one cannot assume that, since under him the duties and organizational problems were worked on entirely sepa-rately, even in his Amt I. I cannot judge to what extent Strecken-bach knew and supervised the tasks of the SD.
M. MONNERAY: I should like to read to you Document F-984. It is an appeal by Streckenbach, published in the bulletin of the Chief of the SD and Sipo.
THE PRESIDENT: Has this already been offered in evidence or not?
M. MONNERAY: This document will be Exhibit RF-1540. It has not yet been offered in evidence, Mr. President. It is an appeal by Streckenbach to all the members of the Sipo and the SD, dated 7 September 1942. Extracts from this appeal read as follows: "Even before the seizure of power, the SD had done its share in contributing to the success of the National Socialist revo-lution. After the seizure of power the Sipo. and SD assumed the responsibility for the internal security of our Reich and opened up the way for the forceful realization of National Socialism in the face of all opposition. Since the beginning of the war our Einsatzkommandos are met wherever the German Army goes and are carrying on, each in its own sector, the fight against the enemies of the Reich and of the people." Further on, this appeal requests material and information about the activities of the Sipo and the SD: "For instance, in particular, articles, reports, or pictures are to be sent in on the following subjects: The history of the SD, its inception, its struggle to be acknowledged as the sole information agency of the SS and later on of the Party; difficulties and experiences when first setting up offices, records of the illegal activities during the struggle for power and reports about the development of the organization of the SD from its beginning until its full expansion after the seizure of power. Further, particularly important instances of intel-ligence activity before and after the seizure of power (illegal missions, et cetera)'~-and further on---"... common actions of the Gestapo and of the SD for the destruction of antago-nistic groups." Witness, this appeal by Streckenbach is contrary to your declara-tions, is it not? RÖSSNER: No, because there is not a word in this appeal about the actual tasks of Amt III-of domestic SD. Besides, the excerpt submitted to me does not indicate who actually drafted this appeal and formulated it. The name Streckenbach only means that he has signed it.
M. MONNERAY: Amt III can hardly have participated in it, because otherwise the tasks of this Amt III would have had to be described more or less accurately in this appeal.
M. MONNERAY: What other offices had the SD apart from Amt III? RÖSSNER: For the domestic SD there was only Amt III.
M. MONNERAY: Witness, I would be grateful to you if you would answer my questions. RÖSSNER: I thought I had just answered your questions, Mr. Prosecutor.
M. MONNERAY: I asked you what the offices of the SD were, and not what the offices of the domestic SD were. RÖSSNER: Under the general concept of SD, which had nothing to do with the concept of the domestic SD, there were also Amt VI and Amt VIL
M. MONNERAY: What were the functions of Amt VI? RÖSSNER: That was the Foreign Information Service.
M. MONNERAY: When one speaks of the struggle against opposition groups, in conjunction with the Gestapo, you no doubt think it means a struggle in foreign countries, do you not? RÖSSNER: That cannot be deduced in detail from the document which I have before me. M.MONN'ERAY: Again you are not answering my question, Witness. Can you imagine the Gestapo fighting against antagonistic groups outside the Reich? RÖSSNER: No. To my knowledge the Gestapo had a police task within the frontiers of the Reich.
M.MONNERAY: Very well. So when this appeal mentions a fight carried out by the SD on the one hand and the Gestapo oil the other hand and jointly, too, against hostile groups, reference is really being made to a fight which is going on inside the country, is that right? RÖSSNER: Yes, although nothing is said thereby about the task of the domestic SD.
M. MONNERAY: You told us several times, Witness, that the duties of the domestic SD, and no doubt all the more those of the SD outside the Reich, were very different from the task of the Gestapo and that of the Police in general, is that not so? RÖSSNER: I have said absolutely nothing today about the foreign division of the SD except in mentioning the existence of Amt VI. M.MONN'ERAY: Please, Witness, can you answer for the domestic SD? RÖSSNER: Yes.
M. MONNERAY: According to you, the Police was imbued with a police psychology? RÖSSNER: May I ask the prosecutor what he means by this statement?
M. MONNERAY: As opposed to the ideas of the SD, which were objective; is that right? RÖSSNER: I cannot say with what psychology the Police was imbued, because I was never a member of the Police.
M. MONNERAY: But you told us the SD was animated by objective, impartial, and scientific ideas. That is right, is it not? RÖSSNER: I never said scientific ideas, but always by an objective and critical spirit, and I would like to stress this for-mulation expressly.
M. MONNERAY: Was this also the spirit of the Police? RÖSSNER: I cannot, judge that for, as I said, I never belonged to the Police.
THE PRESIDENT: Put the question again, would you, M. Mon-neray?
M. MONNERAY: These impartial and objective ideas were also the ideas of the Police? RÖSSNER: I cannot state an opinion on this, as I was never a member of the Police, but only of the domestic SD, Amt III.
M. MONNERAY: Let us be clear about this, Witness. You gave us long explanations as to the differences between the SD and the Police, did you not? If you can give us evidence about this difference, you must at least know what the Police is. RÖSSNER: I have explained for certain spheres the difference between the SD tasks and the Police tasks, but I am not in a position to define all the duties of the Police, because I am not familiar with them. I spoke only of the principles of the work of Amt III and of concrete examples that I know from the departments in which I worked.
M. MONNERAY: Is it correct to say, Witness, that the young candidates who had to, or wished to enter the SD received exactly the same training as the young candidates who wished to enter the Gestapo or the Kripo? RÖSSNER: I am not acquainted with the training of candidates for the SD in detail. I know only that the head of Amt III repeatedly, from year to year, raised positive objections to a certain -planned uniformity of the training. How far his objections achieved a practical result, I cannot say from my own knowledge.
M. MONNERAY: Well, I shall put to you a paper for your infor-mation which seems rather incomplete on subjects with which you were always concerned. It is a circular published in the official bulletin of the Chief of the Sipo and the SD, dated 18 May 1940, which states that young candidates, young students of the Police and SD-in spite of the objective and impartial character of these -would have to be attached for a period of 4 months to the Criminal Police, for 3 months to the Gestapo, and 3 months to the SD. You y,7ere unaware of this, were you? RÖSSNER: No.
M. MONNERAY: Now you have told us also that the SD had very little to do with the official policy of the personnel and the Nazi Party. Is that right, Witness? Perhaps you now recall the fact that the Political Leaders of the Party had to give the German Government their opinion of the political outlook of candidates for Government posts. You know that, do you not? RÖSSNER: May I ask the Prosecutor to repeat his question? I did not quite follow it.
M. MONNERAY: When it was a question of promoting a civil servant of a certain grade, or of 'appointing a civil servant, the Political Leader-the Gauleiter or the Kreisleiter, for instance would have to furnish to the Government a sort of political appreciation of the sound outlook of the candidate; is that right? RÖSSNER: Yes, I said already this morning that this was the duty of the Hoheitstr5ger of the Party.
M. MONNERAY: And it was the, Chief of the SD who had to supply the political appraisal? RÖSSNER: No.
M.MONNERAY: Very well. I shall read to the witness an extract of Document F-989, which becomes Exhibit RF-1541-Page 2 of the extract. It is a circular of the Chancellery of the National Socialist Party concerning political reports supplied by Political Leaders. First of all, this political report is defined as follows: "The political opinion is an estimate of the political and ideological attitude and of the character.... "The political opinion must be true and correct that is to say it must be evaluated on the aims of the Movement." And afterward there is a short paragraph saying who will have to supply, this opinion: "In procuring the data for that estimate the competent Hoheitstrdger, the technical office and the SD must be heard. Political information can be given by all offices of the Party and particularly by the offices of the SD." RÖSSNER: I said clearly this morning that the SD was allowed to give information but never political judgments and that the SD itself paid special attention to giving as complete a personal picture as possible in these opinions which were supplemented by other inquiries. In the extract which is before me, moreover, there is no mention, so far as I can see, of personal information but only of information on the general lines of which I spoke this morning.
M. MONNERAY: In this document there is no mention of the political appraisal as a useful judgment of the political and ideo-logical attitude? RÖSSNER: Not in this document, no. It only mentions generally reports on prevailing conditions.
M.MONNERAY: Very well. I will ask that the witness be shown the original letter a little later. I continue. There was close collaboration between the SD and the Party, was there not? RÖSSNER: One cannot in any way speak of close collaboration. The relations between the SD and the Party, especiany between Amt III and the Party Chancellery, were to a great extent strained to the utmost in the last years. I would be very glad to illustrate this with concrete examples.
M. MONNERAY: I would like to read you another extract from the same circular, dated 21 August 1943. It says ... [The document was submitted to the witness.]
ROSSMER: That is the same extract which I have already received.
M. MONNERAY: "The SD is directed by the RSHA to keep the competent leaders currently informed on the, political events which take place in their sector .... On the other hand, by this practice the SD constantly drew the attention of the Hoheitstrdger to particularly urgent matters which demanded the latter's intervention." (F-989) Is that right? RÖSSNER: Here, unfortunately, theory and practice are com-pletely at variance. Amt III would, contrary to the usual practice, have been very glad in many cases to be heard by the Hoheitstrdger of the Party so that all the critical material could have been gathered. But in many cases this was not done for years, since the local representative of the SD was not received by the Hoheits-trdger.
M. MONNERAY: Very well, we will see by way of a few examples whether there was a difference or an inconsistency between practice and theory. Before the Commission you were shown Document R-142, Exhibit USA-481, concerning the control of the 1938 plebiscite by the SD. The collaborators of the SD, who were so honorable and so disinterested, had even falsified the ballot papers. And since this concerns an actual fact, you probably want to tell us that it is an isolated instance? RÖSSNER: I would like again to repeat most emphatically before the High Tribunal that this document does not refer to the SD but to one single subsidiary office among many hundreds of branch offices of the SD. There is not a single word saying that the Reich Security Main Office, Amt III..
THE PRESIDENT: Don't raise your voice, please. RÖSSNER: ... that Amt III in Berlin had ever given any order to make those reports.
M. MONNERAY: Well, I will show you another document which, no doubt, is another isolated case. This time reference is made to the city of Erfurt. It is Document D-897, already offered by the British Delegation when they were submitting evidence against the Political Leaders, Exhibit GB-541. This is a secret circular of 4 April 1938, coming from the Erfurt SD branch office and addressed to all subsections, requesting all outside agents to send in reports urgently on all those persons who they were sure were going to vote no. This document makes you smile, Witness. However, if you look a little further down you will see that the matter was a serious one, for the Chief of the SD, a conscientious man, as you call him, says as follows: "The tremendous responsibility of the operational point leaders is stressed once more particularly with regard to this report, as they must be fully aware of the possible con-sequences for the persons named in their reports." Witness, do you call this objective reporting? RÖSSNER: I am sorry, Mr. Prosecutor. You spoke just now of the Chief of the SD-and the document is signed by a local ScharFuehrer, a rank which is approximately corresponding to that of a private, first class, in the army. I do not think you can speak of the Chief of the SD. I am also sorry to have to state that this is certainly an exaggerated, isolated case, since to my knowledge it was never one of the assignments of the domestic SD to supervise elections.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Monneray, I think a good many leaders have already been examined on this document.
M. MONNERAY: Yes, Mr. President. I will also draw the attention of the Tribunal to Document D-902, already offered in evidence as Exhibit Number GB-542, on the same subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the witness know anything about this document? Because if it is already in evidence there is no use putting it to him unless he knows something about it.
M. MONNERAY: Yes. It has already been submitted in evidence and I understand, Mr. President, that you do not wish me to inter-rogate on that document.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if there is any particular reason for asking this witness questions upon this document, you may ask them; but there is no use putting a document to him if he has never seen it before, if it is already in evidence. I don't know what the document is.
M. MONNERAY: Mr. President, I wanted to ask this witness questions on both documents to show how little faith one can attach to his depositions since he declared before the Commission that it concerned an exceptional case; whereas, as a matter of fact, it seems that it was a general measure of the SD which was in force in many different parts of Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: If you want to cross-examine the witness as to the document, you can put questions from the document to him but you can't-at least the Tribunal doesn't want you to put the document to him.