dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
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 although it reported the intentions of hostile factions within the state, it took no executive action. Any executive action against treasonable groups concerned the GESTAPO. (e) The SD and The Party HOEPPNER stated that while the SD as such was a Party organization, it really served the Party and the State in equal proportion. The Party, however, lacked confidence in the SD and the State did not issue orders to it. Within the Party Organization SD agents kept the Gauleiters informed of the state of affairs but they were not actual members of their staffs. The function, for instance, of Amt III was to ascertain the moods and reactions of the people towards measures taken by the Government. It received no orders from the party leaders. In cross-examination the witness denied that it was the duty of Amt III to report on cases of "wavering" from the principles of National Socialism on the part of party leaders. The witness ROESSNER goes so far as to say that the SD did not interfere in politics at all but merely made general reports on conditions. 99 Col. Neave Rep. 3. Activities of the SD as an Information Agency This section of the report is devoted to (a) Evidence that Amts III, VI and VII were entirely separate organizations. (b) The nature of the reports made by Amt III, which was generally regarded as the most significant section of the RSHA, which, is also considered a part of the SD. (a) Amts III, VI and VII of the RSHA Evidence as to the structure and functions of Amts III, VI and VII of the RSHA was given by the witness HOEPPNER. His definition of their functions may be briefly stated as follows: Amt III collected information within the borders of the Reich; Amt VI collected information outside the borders of the Reich; Amt VII dealt with archives and records. These duties were independent of each other and the structure of the offices was very different, e.g., Amt III was highly
may be briefly stated as follows: Amt III collected information within the borders of the Reich; Amt VI collected information outside the borders of the Reich; Amt VII dealt with archives and records. These duties were independent of each other and the structure of the offices was very different, e.g., Amt III was highly decentralized and worked through branch offices and agents, whereas Amt VI, the foreign secret service, was highly centralized. There was no "collective purpose or feeling among the members of these groups". (b) Nature of the SD Reports With regard to the nature of the reports submitted by the SD, interesting evidence is given by the witness ROESSNER with regard to the various subjects which the investigations of the SD covered. ROESSNER says, for instance, that Group 3C of Amt III of the RSHA was divided into six sections dealing with the following subjects: Universities, education and religion, culture and art, press and radio, "culture" in occupied territories, and documents. Its function was to correct "misdirected culture". Public opinion and criticism by the public in the spheres of science ' and religion were investigated and reports and constructive suggestions made. Universities The section dealing with universities advised on the appointment of professors and lecturers. Their reports on individuals were only "general appreciations" for the benefit of the Reich Education Ministry which made decisions on university appointments. 100 Col. Neave Rep. The Church The SD advised on questions of religion among Germans in general. It also reported on education and the reaction of the people to the philosophical views of the party. The Prosecution's allegation that the SD took part in the persecution of the Church and was ordered to assist in its destruction is unfounded., The reports did not result in any measures against the Church and were not directed towards its persecution. (On the question of the SD's defense against the charge of persecution of the Church, see paragraph 7 below.) Racial Questions The witness EHLICH, who belonged to Section III B which dealt with problems of population and public hygiene said that the functions of his group consisted
not directed towards its persecution. (On the question of the SD's defense against the charge of persecution of the Church, see paragraph 7 below.) Racial Questions The witness EHLICH, who belonged to Section III B which dealt with problems of population and public hygiene said that the functions of his group consisted of intelligence reports on the "moral attitude and opinions of the people on events and the decrees of authority". His section was particularly concerned with "Volkstum" which he described as the study of the racial and cultural characteristics of mankind. The general directives given to his section were that (a) the SD had no executive but merely intelligence duties and (b) Section III B was to confine its work to observing "formations and peculiarities of racial life". In cross-examination the witness stated that the question of the re-settlement of Germans in Poland who before the war had been hostile to the Reich only concerned the SD insofar as it gave its expert advice to the GESTAPO who decided whether they were undesirable and should be thrown into concentration camps. In regard to the elimination of politically or racially undesirable people, the witness emphasized that the function of the SD was purely advisory and that final decisions on such matters were made by the GESTAPO or RSHA. Civil Servants The same principle applied to the selection of civil servants. Evidence on this matter was given by Dr. Alfred KOENGEN who belonged to a section which concerned itself with law and administration, Amt III A. The purpose of his testimony was to show that the SD did not check the trustworthiness of civil servants in respect to their agreement with National Socialist ideas nor did it 101 Col. Neave Rep. in any way influence the selection of Nazi leaders. He said that civil servants were appointed by the State. Information concerning them was supplied by the SD to the Hoheitstraeger for their decision. This decision was called a "Hoheitsakt" which had "constitutive value". The reports of the SD were only statements of fact and did not carry much weight. HOEPPNER stated the information given by the SD concerning the appointment or advancement of civil servants did not
the Hoheitstraeger for their decision. This decision was called a "Hoheitsakt" which had "constitutive value". The reports of the SD were only statements of fact and did not carry much weight. HOEPPNER stated the information given by the SD concerning the appointment or advancement of civil servants did not necessarily have to be acted upon by the Hoheitstraeger. Much of the information concerning civil servants came from reports by old members of the service. The information concerning a candidate was supposed to cover his past professional career, education, family and financial background. The principal object of this evidence was apparently to show that the SD did not aspire to put only those people into the civil service who were favorable to the regime. The SD merely gave information and no decisions. Their purpose was not merely to put only Nazis into leading positions, but persons who were best qualified as far as character and dependability were concerned. They did, however, report on high ranking officers of the Party and State. SD "Confidence Men" The agents employed by the SD to collect this information were known as V-men o; confidence men. A full description of their activities is to be found in the evidence of witness HOEPPNER. These confidence men were unpaid and according to the witness, acted from unselfish motives and only in the interests of the State. On these grounds he considered that the charge that the SD was a collection of spies and informers was refuted. Their work was not particularly secret and their existence was known to the whole nation. They did, however, use "cover numbers". In general, the purpose of this testimony was to show that they were not strictly speaking agents of an espionage service. They were drawn from all walks of life and some of the people recruited were those who took a critical attitude towards National Socialism. This was because the SD wished to get the reactions of the whole population and not merely of party members. It would appear that at the end of the war about fifty per cent of these confidence men were regularly employed and paid and the remainder were volunteers. They were not allowed to resign. 102 Col. Neave Rep. Cross-examination of this witness with regard to the
whole population and not merely of party members. It would appear that at the end of the war about fifty per cent of these confidence men were regularly employed and paid and the remainder were volunteers. They were not allowed to resign. 102 Col. Neave Rep. Cross-examination of this witness with regard to the book written by Dr. Werner BEST gained the admission that the book was correct in that up to 1941 the SD had been charged with investigating all forces which were of importance, for the domination of the National Socialist movement in Germany. HOEPPNER said, however, that this should not be taken to mean that the SD had any executive powers in that respect. Dr. BEST'S description was open to misunderstanding. 4. The SD and the Jewish Question The witnesses who covered this subject were EHLICH and KNOCHEN. EHLICH said that the SD did not deal with Jewish problems or carry out the extermination of Jews. They reported, however, on all sections of the population who were liable to be hostile to the regime. Asked by the Prosecution whether, since his Section (III B of the SD) was concerned with racial problems, this did not involve the Jewish question, the witness answered that the problem was only dealt with in the general sense of reporting intelligence. The EICHMANN Program Dr. KNOCHEN was questioned at length on the question of the deportation of Jews from France. These deportations were carried out on the orders of HIMMLER through the Jewish Department of the RSHA under Standartenfuehrer EICHMANN. EICHMANN had various deputies in France and his immediate subordinate was a man named Oberstandartenfuehrer DANNECKER. The relation between the SD and agents in the field employed by EICHMANN and DANNECKER to carry out their program is nowhere made clear by the witnesses. Referred to documents which appeared to show that the final solution problem was one of the aims of the SD and Security Police in France, the witness stated that the SD as such had nothing to do with this solution. The use of the term "SD", he assumed as meaning the RSHA. He explained a large number of documents as being due to the careless abbreviation of the term "SD" which should really have meant the GESTAPO, Security Police or
France, the witness stated that the SD as such had nothing to do with this solution. The use of the term "SD", he assumed as meaning the RSHA. He explained a large number of documents as being due to the careless abbreviation of the term "SD" which should really have meant the GESTAPO, Security Police or RSHA. The witness was cross-examined regarding the alleged burning and blowing up of synagogues in Paris in October 1941. It appears 103 Col. Neave Rep. that an SS officer was instructed by HEYDRICH to deliver explosives to an anti-semitic group of Frenchmen to carry out the outrages. Documents and reports from HEYDRICH and the German military command in Paris indicated that the orders carried out by SS Lieutenant SAMMER came from KNOCHEN himself. He, however, denied that this was so and said that the original orders came from HEYDRICH who wrote a letter of explanation which exonerated him (the witness). In any case, this blowing up of synagogues was not relevant to the charges against the SD. 5. The SD and Concentration Camps (a) The SD did not Commit People to Camps All the witnesses denied that the SD had any control over concentration camps or any executive powers with regard to the carrying out of the "bullet decree" , the Nacht und Nebel decree or the suppression of political and racial undesirables. HOEPPNER said that the SD at no time issued orders regarding the setting up of concentration camps, nor did it own or control any. Referred to a number of documents which ordered the Security Police and SD in Brussels and elsewhere to throw persons into concentration camps, HOEPPNER said that the Chief of the Security Police and SD in carrying out such orders would be acting in his capacity as Chief of the Security Police alone and not of the SD. The SD did not report on individuals who should be thrown into concentration camps. How far the GESTAPO or other organizations acted upon reports made by the SD is not entirely clear. In general it would appear that they were asked for their advice before decisions regarding particular cases were made by the GESTAPO. This was certainly true with regard to their investigations into the religious question. Various other documents with reference to committal orders were shown to this witness where the
clear. In general it would appear that they were asked for their advice before decisions regarding particular cases were made by the GESTAPO. This was certainly true with regard to their investigations into the religious question. Various other documents with reference to committal orders were shown to this witness where the SD was on the distribution list. He said such orders were sent to them for information only. No units of the SD were ever used as concentration camp guards and within the Reich, Amt III (Home Intelligence) never received reports on concentration camps. The witnesses BLAHA and MILCH (transcript of the Tribunal January 11th and March 11th, 1946) were in error in describing 104 Col. Neave Rep. that they had seen SD officials in concentration camps. As previously described the words "SD were often worn. on the sleeves of their uniforms by SS men and other formations. (b) The "Bullet Decree" The so-called "bullet decree" , 1650-PS, order on the treatment of prisoners, 569-D, the Document 15 14-PS, on the transfer of prisoners of war to the GESTAPO, did not involve the SD in their execution. The SD was, however, concerned with counter-intelligence among prisoners of war, e.g., the effect of prisoner of war employment on the population in general. EHLICH explained under cross-examination that the express letter concerning Russian prisoners of war who were to be shot in concentration camps, was only sent to the SD for information. (c) The "Nacht und Nebel" Decree The Nacht und Nebel decree only concerned the SD in the intelligence sphere. Its purpose was to report to the central immigration office which regulated the return of racial Germans to the Reich on the Volkstum principle. (See above) In France, according to KNOCHEN, concentration camps were managed by the French Government. The French police were responsible for sending people there and the SD never interfered with these camps or carried out tortures or executions. Reference was made in various documents submitted by the Prosecution to a number of arrests of members of the Resistance and to pitched battles in villages in various parts of France. The witness said that the large majority of alleged atrocities carried out were in fact military measures
out tortures or executions. Reference was made in various documents submitted by the Prosecution to a number of arrests of members of the Resistance and to pitched battles in villages in various parts of France. The witness said that the large majority of alleged atrocities carried out were in fact military measures to protect the troops. If any members of the Security Police and SD participated, this was on the orders of the local military commander. (d) The Commando Order The treatment of Commandos and paratroopers so far as it concerned the SD was fully discussed in the hearing of the witness KNOCHEN. The Commando Order of October 14, 1942, Document 498-PS, USA-501 was submitted. The execution of this order did not belong to the tasks of the SD in France. Here again, as on other occasions, he stated that the term "SD" was often mistakenly used to mean the GESTAPO or Security Police. He said that in general the expression "handing over to the SD" means handing over to Department 4 of the Security Police. The interpretation of the Prosecution's documents is, therefore, incorrect. 105 Col. Neave Rep. It is quite untrue that paratroopers of French nationality who landed in British uniforms were arrested by the SD or that the SD carried out any interrogation of prisoners of war or practiced third degree on them. In all the documents which referred to the handing over of prisoners to the SD and Security Police the reference to the SD is a mistake. All of these witnesses gave the same answer that the SD was not concerned or intended. 6. Activities of Einsatzgruppen Questioned by Defense Counsel concerning the task of his section of the SD in occupied territory, the witness EHLICH said that its function was to gather information about the population. He was acquainted with the activities of Einsatzgruppen and his section received reports from members of the SD who belonged to them. These were reports on the effect on the morale of the population of the shooting of Russian Jews and other measures. These reports never mentioned mass extermination but in any case this was a matter for the RSHA. In some cases the population were reported to "deplore" such shootings, in other cases they were said to
reports on the effect on the morale of the population of the shooting of Russian Jews and other measures. These reports never mentioned mass extermination but in any case this was a matter for the RSHA. In some cases the population were reported to "deplore" such shootings, in other cases they were said to have actually participated. There were no reports after 1943 received in this connection. Since the SD was merely an intelligence service it would not order shootings but merely reported their effects. Reports made by Einsatzgruppen Shown a report of Einsatzgruppen A, Document 180-L, he agreed he might have seen parts of it or have dealt with matters in it that concerned his section. The SD did not use gas vans. The Prosecution read him the affidavit of OHLENDORF concerning the activities of Einsatzgruppen D in Russia, in which it is said that approximately 90,000 men, women and children were liquidated. Most of these were Jews. Asked whether a report by the Chief of the SD did not show that members of the SD were concerned in the execution of Jews, he answered that as far as he knew such executions "did not belong to the orders which were furnished to the members of Amt III for their employment in the East". If members of the SD did take part in the execution of Jews they did not do that by way of their normal functions but on orders of the commander of their Einsatzgruppe. 106 Col. Neave Rep. Forced Labor In regard to forced labor and deportation, the witness declared the SD concerned itself only with German minorities and their problems. It had no authority to punish foreign workers and it was quite untrue as alleged by the Prosecution that they asserted any control over them within the Reich. They did, however, advise the Reichsfuehrer SS as to whether deportation should be carried out and as a result of the reports made by the SD the deportation referred to in Document 61-L was not authorized by the Reichsfuehrer SS. The witness HOEPPNER said that the decisive question with regard to the connection between the SD and Einsatzgruppen was whether these men during their attachment to the Einsatzgruppen could be said to be carrying out intelligence functions or police functions. HOEPPNER did not say exactly what
SS. The witness HOEPPNER said that the decisive question with regard to the connection between the SD and Einsatzgruppen was whether these men during their attachment to the Einsatzgruppen could be said to be carrying out intelligence functions or police functions. HOEPPNER did not say exactly what the difference was between the intelligence functions or the police functions. It is, however, reasonable to assume that he meant intelligence functions in the sense of reporting on the reaction of the population to such measures as distinct from police functions which were executive and would include the active operations of the Einsatzgruppen. He admitted that personnel of the SD served in the Einsatzgruppen quite as much as the personnel of the Security Police. 7. The SD and The Church In defining the functions of Group III C of Amt III of the RSHA, ROESSNER gave a long description of the relationship between the SD and the Church with reference to the charge that the SD cooperated with the GESTAPO and the party in persecuting the church and confiscating church property. The SD's function was merely to report on religion and education in general. There was no collaboration between the GESTAPO and the SD for the purpose of persecuting the church and in any case the Amt IV of the GESTAPO had an independent office dealing with church problems. It was true that a number of SD "church specialists" were transferred to the GESTAPO but only very few. He agreed that a quantity of records on church problems was sent to the GESTAPO from the SD but that did not mean the SD was assisting the GESTAPO to oppose or persecute the church. The function of Amt III was to observe and report on the criticisms of church-going population on the measures of the party. This was not in order to show that the church-going population was in 107 Col. Neave Rep. opposition to the party but to supervise the religious needs of the population "from the point of view of the party". The SD did not involve itself in the exploitation of church property or persecute the National Czech Church. It did not persecute Polish priests. He said that while the SD accepted the principles of National Socialism, they rejected the