dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
HOFFMANN: I think I remember that it was, but I cannot tell you exactly.
DR. MERKEL: Who carried out the arrests of those people against whom an order of protective arrest had been issued, in case these people were still at liberty?
HOFFMANN: Either the officials of the Gestapo directly, or possibly also the constabulary and the local Police authoriti6s.
DR. MERKEL: Who escorted the trainloads of prisoners to the concentration camps?
HOFFMANN: As far as I remember, this transportation was handled by the general Police administration in regular prisoner transport cars which traversed the entire Reich area according to a regular schedule.
DR. MERKEL: Did you or your office know anything about the true conditions existing in the concentration camps?
HOFFMANN: No.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by "regular schedules"? Do you mean special transports or do you mean ordinary trains?
HOFFMANN: They were special cars for prisoners which were used by the general Police administration between the individual prisons and which also carried ordinary prisoners. These cars were attached to the regular express and passenger trains, and in these trains.. the prisoners were transported. There were no special transports.
DR. MERKEL: Were the concentration camps under the Gestapo?
HOFFMANN: No. Concentration camps were under the inspector of concentration camps at Oranienburg and, as far as I know, this inspectorate was under the SS. Economic and Administrative Main Office.
DR. MERKEL: The very document just submitted by the Prosecution, 2521-PS, also speaks for this fact, does it not, since the return address is the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office at Oranienburg and it is addressed to the camp commanders of all the concentration camps?
HOFFMANN: Yes.
DR. MERKEL: Did you know about the annihilation of Jews at Auschwitz?
HOFFMANN: No. I only heard about these things after the surrender.
DR.MERKEL: Did you know that Eichmann's activity was directly connected with the biological extermination of the Jews at Auschwitz?
HOFFMANN: As long as I was in office and before the surrender, I heard nothing about problems of that kind.
DR. MERKEL: When did you first receive reliable knowledge about these things?
HOFFMANN: After the surrender.
DR.MERKEL: I have no further questions for the witness.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United States): Witness, you spoke of a decree under which the Gestapo were permitted to use third-degree methods in Denmark, right?
HOFFMANN: Yes, indeed.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Was that decree in writing?
HOFFMANN: That was a written decree by the Chief of the Security Police and the SD.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And was it signed?
HOFFMANN: Yes. But who signed it...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Who signed it?
HOFFMANN: As far as I recall, the first decree was signed by Heydrich and the second one by Mueller on behalf of someone, but I cannot say for certain on whose behalf.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What was the date of the first decree?
HOFFMANN: I believe it was 1937.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What month?
HOFFMANN: That I cannot tell you anymore.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What was the date of the second decree?
HOFFMANN: 1942.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you see both decrees yourself?
HOFFMANN: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr.Biddle): What was in the first decree?
HOFFMANN: The contents of the first decree provided that for the purpose of uncovering organizations hostile to the Reich, if no other means were available, the person involved could receive a certain number of blows with a stick. After a specified number, a physician had to be called in. This order could only be used for extracting a confession for conviction in individual cases. Approval for this had to be obtained in every case from the Chief of the Security Police and SD.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr.Biddle): Wait a minute. Was the decree limited to any particular territory, or did it cover all the occupied territories?
HOFFMANN: The decree of 1937 applied to the Reich territory, but I believe it then applied automatically to the activities of the Sipo in those regions where it was stationed. I cannot remember any limitations.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Were there any other methods of third degree which were allowed as well as beating in this first decree?
HOFFMANN: According to the second decree the only measures approved were those which were milder than blows with a stick-standing at interrogations, or fatiguing exercises. They are enumerated in the decree, but I do not remember them all.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You remembered one of them standing up, for instance. What was the provision of the decree with respect to standing up during interrogations?
HOFFMANN: I personally never attended such an interrogation.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you that. I said, what was the provision with respect to standing up?
HOFFMANN: It only said that the person involved could be required not to sit down during the interrogation but had to stand.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And how long were the interrogations? How long were they actually?
HOFFMANN: The decree did not mention that, but...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I said, how long were the interrogations? How long were they actually?
HOFFMANN: Well, under certain circumstances they naturally lasted very long. It was only in that way that standing up was' a severe measure.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr.Biddle): Was the number of strokes that could be used mentioned in the decree? Did it say how many times a man could be struck with a stick?
HOFFMANN: As far as I recall, this measure could be applied only once to the same individual; that is, it could not be repeated. And the number of blows, in my opinion, was specified in the decree.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And then the doctor was called?
HOFFMANN: No, I believe it was this way. If a fairly large number of blows was provided for in advance, then the physician had to be present immediately.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And what was the number of blows that was to be permitted, do you remember- that?
HOFFMANN: As far as I recall, 20; but I cannot tell you that exactly.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And both decrees covered all of the German Reich, including the occupied territories, is that true?
HOFFMANN: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr.Biddle): And the decrees were effective in France, as well as in Denmark, isn't that true?
HOFFMANN: Yes, later. In the second decree, the power of approval of the Chief of the Security Police was delegated to the commanders. That was in 1942.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So that after that the commanders could order beatings without going to the head of the Security Police?
HOFFMANN: Yes, after 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR.MERKEL: Mr. President, I should like to make one small correction-a little misunderstanding which I think I can clear up. While examining the witness, the Tribunal has just mentioned a commander in the occupied territories. I should like to be permitted to ask the witness whether he meant the commanders of the Security Police or the commanders-in-chief of the Security Police. They are two entirely different persons.
HOFFMANN: As far as I recall, the commanders-in-chief.
THE PRESIDENT: That's all. Thank you very much.
LT. COMDR. HARRIS: If the Tribunal please, I would like to put one question to this witness, following the questioning of the Tribunal. I believe that the witness testified that in this second decree there was no provision for beatings. [Turning to the witness.] Did I understand y ou to say that, Witness?
HOFFMANN: No, I said, beatings and-but from now on still further measures which, however, were milder in nature than the beatings.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought when I took it down, that he said there were milder methods in the second decree, standing up and tiring methods.
LT. COMDR. HARRIS: Yes, Sir; that is what I understood but I now gather that the witness admits that under both decrees beatings were authorized; and that is all that I wish to establish.
DR.MERKEL: I have no further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: What is it you want, Colonel Karev?
COLONEL D. S. KAREV (Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): The Soviet Prosecution will request the permission of the Tribunal to present new documents concerning the criminal activity of the Gestapo.
TTHE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly
COL. KAREV: First of all, I want to submit to the Tribunal a document, Number USSR-258, containing excerpts from a list of hostages shot by the German Police in Yugoslavia. If the Tribunal considers it necessary I shall quote just two sentences out of this document. At the end of Paragraph I of this document it says: "The executions were effected according to the decisions and by order of the chiefs of the Gestapo or the SD." Then I shall draw the attention of the Tribunal to Item "C" at the end of the second page, which states as follows: ". . according to different information, lists, death records, et cetera, the following number of victims has been established up till the present time..." I omit here a detailed enumeration of the victims and merely draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that 237 persons were shot or hanged in the year 1942, altogether at the very least 1,575 persons. Then I submit here Document Number USSR-465, which is the notification issued by the German Police about destroying a number of villages in Slovenia and of shooting all the men of those villages for helping the partisans. I draw the Tribunal's attention just to these two sentences again at the beginning which say: "On 20 July 1942 the village of Hrastnigg and part of the villages of Kanker and Savoden were destroyed and the entire male population shot. The remainder were deported. The measure was taken because all adults had helped the partisans or at least by silently assenting had supported their activities." One more sentence of the document, saying that in addition to all the measures taken here by the Gestapo, a number of civilians had to be shot as hostages. The third document is USSR-416. I shall not read it. It is a list of Yugoslav and Allied subjects compiled in the year 1938. It states that Yugoslav subjects were frequently arrested without having been suspected or guilty of a crime.
COL. KAREV: Next to every one of the 4,000 names listed there was a note as to whether the Gestapo was responsible for the arrest or another authority-the Reich Security Main Office. At any rate the document was found in the archives of the Gestapo in Yugoslavia. The fourth document is Number USSR-418. It contains a copy of an order of the German Police captured in Yugoslavia with a decree of Himmler to arrest all persons who had expressed joy in connection with the tragedy overtaking the Germans at Stalingrad and to transfer them to a concentration camp. I think, Mr. President, there is no need to read it all. The next document is Number USSR-71. It is very brief and consists of a telegram sent by the German Police referring to officials of the diplomatic service, attach6s, diplomatic couriers, consuls, et cetera. The telegram was sent one day prior to the German declaration of war to or invasion of Yugoslavia, which in itself is a violation of international law. Document Number USSR-316 deals with the same subject concerning the application of this telegram to diplomatic couriers, consuls, et cetera. The last document is USSR-518. It is the testimony of the former Lieutenant General Krappe of the German Armed Forces which states that the Gestapo killed their own agents for the purpose of keeping things secret and that thereupon an investigation before the superior had taken place. This is all that I wanted to submit. If it is possible, I would like to request the Tribunal to permit me also to quote several other USSR exhibits referring to the criminal activity of the Gestapo. These documents had been submitted in connection with other questions, whereas they were not given due consideration with regard to the Gestapo. May I read them to the Tribunal? Or will the Tribunal dispense with them?
THE PRESIDENT: These are not documents which have already been put in evidence, are they?
COL. KAREV: No, Mr. President; these documents have been presented and accepted by the Tribunal, although not in connection with the activity of the Gestapo but with regard to other questions; therefore, I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to some excerpts which so far were disregarded, although the documents themselves were presented to the Tribunal before.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that the appropriate time for you to deal with these documents will be when the case is argued on behalf of the Prosecution, if they are documents which have already been put in evidence.
COL. KAREV: They will; thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, the witness may retire. Have you had all your witnesses?
DR. MERKEL: Yes, Mr. President. If I understood Your Lordship correctly, the presentation of documentary evidence is to take place after all the witnesses of all the organizations have been heard.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the object of that being that all the documents can then be dealt with together, as some of the documents are not yet available. So we -will go on with the next organization.
DR. MERKEL: I should like to ask just one more thing. In my submission of documents may I refer to the documents which have only now been brought forth by the Prosecution and possibly introduce evidence to refute them? This concerns the documents which have been introduced today for the first time.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say "refute" you mean criticize the documents and argue upon them, I suppose.
DR. MERKEL: To argue upon them and possibly -introduce contradictory evidence against the new documents which were submitted today by means of new affidavits of one kind or another, or even documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The time for you to "refute", as you say, or to argue upon the documents which have been put in today by the Prosecution will be when you make your final argument. At the end of the oral evidence for all the organizations, all the organizations will offer their documentary evidence and comment upon it shortly, and then they will have time within which they may argue the whole case and at that time you will be able to argue and "refute," as you put it, the documents which have been put in today.
DR. MERKEL: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Now I call upon counsel for the SD. Will you please call your witnesses now?
DR. GAWLIK: I have interrogated seven witnesses before the Commission. I do not have the complete transcript yet and will hand it in later. With the approval of the Tribunal I shall call the witness Hoeppner. [The witness Hoeppner took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?
ROLF HEINZ HOEPPNER (Witness): Rolf Heinz Hoeppner.
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: First, I shall put a few preliminary questions in order to prove that the witness has the necessary knowledge to answer questions on the subject. When were you born?
HOEPPNER: On 24 February 1910.
DR. GAWLIK: Since when have you been a member of the SD
HOEPPN-ER: Since the beginning of 1934.
DR. GAVILIK: What activity did you carry on before then?
HOEPPNER: Before that I studied and performed preliminar3 legal service.
DR. GAWLIK: What law examination did you pass?
HOEPPNER: I passed the first and second state legal examinations.
DR. GAWLIK: What was your position in the SD?
HOEPPMER: First I was an honorary assistant and adviser in an Oberabschnitt, later Stabsfuehrer in a Leitabschnitt, then Abschnittsfuehrer and finally Gruppenleiter in the Reich Security Main Office.
DR. GAVTLIK: What group did you head?
HOEPPNER: I directed Group III A, law administration and communal life.
DR. GAWLIK: In what other spheres of duty did you work in the SD?
HOEPPNER: In the beginning, during my honorary activity, I worked on press matters. Later, on personnel and organizational questions, and as Stabsfuehrer and Abschnittsfuehrer I was responsible for the entire sphere of duty of the Security Service in my jurisdiction-
DR. GAWLIK: Now I shall turn to my first topic. I want to prove that the SD as an intelligence organization and the SS formation in the SD were completely different organizations. What doles the abbreviation SD mean?
HOEPPNER: The abbreviation SD means Sicherheitsdienst (Security Service).
DR. GAWLIK: What different meanings did the word have?
HOEPPNER: The word Sicherheitsdienst has two completely different meanings. First, it means the special SS formation SD, and second, the Security Service as an intelligence service.
DR. GAWLIK: Was the foreign intelligence service also characterized as SD?
HOEPPNER: Yes, it was also characterized as SD, and, indeed, as the SD-Ausland.
DR. GAWLIK: Was Amt VII known as SD also?
HOEPPNER: Yes.
DR. GAWLIK: What was the activity of Amt VII?
HOEPPNER: Amt VII occupied itself with questions on archives and library matters and, as far as I know, it had a number of special scientific duties.
DR. GAWLIK: Was the SD as an SS formation completely different from the SD domestic intelligence service, and the SD foreign intelligence service?
HOEPPNER: Yes.
DR. GAWLIK: To whom was the special SD formation of the SS subordinate?
HOEPPNER: The special SD formation of the SS was subordinate to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD.
DR. GAWLIK: Who belonged to this special formation?
HOEPPNER: This special formation consisted of, first the members of the intelligence branch of the Security Service, who came from the General SS. Secondly, there belonged to this special formation those who, after they worked in this int6lligence service, w, ere taken into Amt VII, and thirdly, there belonged to this special formation the SS members of the Security Police, that is the State Police and the Criminal Police, and finally, the members of formations who had a certain working connection with the Security Police.
DR. GAWLIK: Were there other persons as well who belonged to this special formation and who were not active with the Security Police or the SD?
HOEPPNER: Yes, by that I meant the fourth group which I just spoke of, who were taken into the SS as customs border guards.
DR. GAWLIK: Did this group of persons have any kind of common task?
HOEPPNER: No. The situation with respect to this group of persons was merely that they were first registered in the SD Main Office and later, after the Reich Security Main Office was founded in September 1939, in Amt I of this Reich Security Main Office.
DR. GAWLIK: Now, I come to the second topic: the relationship of the domestic intelligence service, Amt III, to the foreign intelligence service, Amt VI, and to Amt VIL Did Amter III, VI, and VII represent different organizations, or one unified organization of the SD?
HOEPPNER: They represented different organizations. I might give the reasons for that in a few words. First, the spheres of duty of these three offices were completely different. Amt III was concerned with the domestic intelligence service, Amt VI with the intelligence service abroad, and Amt VII with questions regarding libraries and archives. Second, the set-up of these organizations was completely different. In Amt III, domestic intelligence service, the chief value of the organization lay primarily in the regional office (Aussenstelle) and in the sector (Abschnitt). The method of world was therefore decentralized. Perhaps I might give the reasons for that in a few words: Amt VI, foreign intelligence service, involve a strong centralization of duties. Amt VII had nothing but a central office.
DR. GAWLIK: Was there any discernible connection between these offices, III, VI, and VII, with a general common purpose?
HOEPPNER: No. The aims of these offices were far too varied for that. The members of these offices hardly had any connection with each other.
DR. GAWLIK: Now I come to the third topic, the development of the SD until the establishment of the Reich Security Main Office and particularly to the question, whether during this time it was one of the duties of the SD to collaborate with others on a common plan and conspiracy. When was the SD domestic intelligence service established?
HOEPPNER: The SD was established in 1931-32.
DR. GAWLIK: From its formation up to the end of the, war did the SD have the same duties, the same purpose, and the same activities? HOEPPNER, One could not say that by any means. The duties and objectives varied even-changed very much according to the political alignment. While the Security Service had the task of helping the General SS up, to about 1933 or the beginning of 1934, there was no longer any reason for this task after the parties 'with which the National Socialist Party had competed were dissolved and, therefore, there was no longer a legal opposition party, and the combating, that is, observation or repelling, of an illegal opponent became the task of the Gestapo.
DR. GAWLIK: What different periods are there to be distinguished from its establishment until the end of the war?
HOEPPNER: I just mentioned one period, the one from 1931 to about 1933 or 1934. The second period began in 1934. As an event, or perhaps better, as a sample of particular importance, I should like to begin with the order of the Fuehrer's deputy that the Security Service ...
DR. GAWLIK: Witness, first of all just give us the various periods. I will then question you briefly about specific periods.
HOEPPNER: The first period was from 1931 to 1934, the second was from the middle of 1934'until the formation of the Reich Security Main Office, and the third comprises the period from the-establishment of the Reich Security Main Office to the end of the war.
DR. GAWLIK: What was the aim-what was the aim, the duties, and the activity of the SD in the period from 1931 to 1934?
HOEPPNER: The task of the Security Service from -1931 to 1934 was that of a formation of the Party, namely, that of assisting the SS in their task of guarding the Fuehrer and protecting public meetings, by supplying the SS with as much information of rival opposition parties as possible from its intelligence service.  For instance, what measures were being planned by other parties, and whether speakers were going to be attacked, or whether any meetings might be disturbed, and so forth.
DR. GAWLIK: At this time had the SD already been developed into a powerful, professional, thoroughly trained espionage system by its leader Heydrich? Mr. President, in this connection I should like to refer to the trial brief against the SS, Page VIII B of the English text, VIII B at the top, Lines 1 and 2. [Turning to the witness.] Please answer the question.