dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
M. MONNERAY: Witness, you told us, concerning radio, that the SD furnished also very objective reports without any political intentions behind them; is that right? RÖSSNER: Yes. Every week we sent in reports about the reception of the radio programs by the German population, a objectively as possible, including all critical opinion.
M. MONNERAY: I have submitted to the Tribunal a Document 3566-PS; already produced in evidence as Exhibit tJSA-658, which established that in this domain also the SD had a mission which was not merely objective reporting. Witness, what was the work of Department III B 3? RÖSSNER: I cannot say that from memory as I no longer remember the individual departments; in any case, it had nothing to do with radio as that was the task of III C 4.
M. MONNERAY: Is it right to say that they looked after questions concerning race and health? RÖSSNER: I answered just now that I no longer remember the duties of that office.
M. MONNERAY: Did you have anything to do with or did you receive reports through your colleagues on the general situation of the foreign workers in Germany? RÖSSNER: No. I personally had nothing to do with these matters. The question was quite beyond the scope of my duties.
M. MONNERAY: I should like to show to the Tribunal Docu-ment 1753-PS, which becomes Exhibit RF-1542, and which contains a report from one of the departments of the SD, concerning the possibility given by the RSHA to German doctors to practice abor-tion on female workers from the East, if they requested it.' This report establishes that the statements of the SD on this matter are in no way objective statements, but that they definitely take a favorable view of the official policy of the Nazi State. I submit another document, Document Number 1298-PS, which becomes Exhibit RF-1545, concerning slave labor by workers in Germany. In this document the person who wrote the report, who was an agent of the SD, after having mentioned the numerous desertions of foreign workers, recommends practical measures, such as reprisals against relatives by withdrawal of ration cards, and so forth. Witness, you call objective reports those which do not of them-selves support the policy of the Police, don't you? RÖSSNER: Yes, for this is a report of one of the many sub-sidiary offices which existed under the Reich Security Main Office in order to obtain a cross-section of public opinion in which, of course, the opinions of members of the Party would also be registered. Moreover, I would like definitely to refute the assertion of the prosecutor that it involved any agent of the SD. Amt III, as long as it existed, never had any agents in the field of domestic political intelligence, as I already stated this morning. I must again state 'that, concerning the technical questions which are dealt with in these documents, I can only take a subjective attitude because they did not concern my department. I still maintain my fundamental declaration concerning the duties of the SD, even in the face of these documents.
M. MONNERAY: But, Witness, this document was not addressed to the RSHA for general use; it was addressed to the Office for the Allocation of Labor. It is therefore a report dealing with the execu-tion of those measures which are suggested, is that not so? RÖSSNER: From the document which I have before me, it is not evident from what SD office it came.
M. MONNERAY: I am going to show you a photostatic copy of this report. [The document was submitted to the witness.] RÖSSNER: This also does not indicate in any way from which SD office the document was sent.
M. MONNERAY: Do you admit that the report is addressed to the Office for the Allocation of Labor? RÖSSNER: Yes, but at the same time I would like to point out that under the signature it says, "Secretary"; and the SD, as far as I know, never had any secretaries. There should be an SD or an SS rank shown there.
M. MONNERAY: And -the document says, "I am sending you herewith a copy of the report from the domestic SD." RÖSSNER: Yes.
M.MONNERAY: In the occupied territories the SD was repre-sented by organizations under Amt III and Amt VI, is that not so? RÖSSNER: No, Amt III-here, again I can speak only for Amt III-had no organizations which were directly subordinate to it, but only individual SD agents of Amt III who carried out the specific SD tasks in the occupied territories.
M. MONNERAY: Amt VI of the RSHA looked after the SD abroad, did it not? RÖSSNER: Yes.
M. MONNERAY: And it had its representatives within the Ger-man police organizations operating abroad, did it not? RÖSSNER: About this I can say nothing because I never worked in that office.
M. MONNBRAY: I offer to the Tribunal in evidence Documents F-973 and F-974. The two documents will become Exhibits RF-1544 and 1545. These are information sheets and agents' reports sent by the office.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on. Have they been translated? Have copies been given to the German counsel?
M. MONNERAY: It has not been given to the interpreters because I am not going to read the whole document. The original is in German. It is a report made out on a printed information form sent out by the SD agents to the competent services of the Gestapo, con-cerning the Jewish question; and thereby the relations existing between the two offices can be established, contrary to the state-ments of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Have these documents been translated into the various languages?
M. MONNERAY: Only into. French, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know the rule is that they must be translated into four languages. You must read it then, if that is so.
M. MONNERAY: With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall read only one of the two documents, Section VI, Number 1.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Monneray, we have been a long time, and we have now apparently got to the stage that we have got to read this document, all these documents, which are of very remote importance. We have got to read them through because they have not been translated. It is taking up a long time; and it does not seem to be achieving any great result.
M.MONNERAY: Mr. President, I shall pass directly to the last point, concerning the resettlement of population. Do you know, Witness, if the SD participated with the Gestapo in sending people into concentration camps? RÖSSNER: I cannot say. From my personal knowledge, I can only say in general that Amt III had no executive duties at all and was, therefore, not empowered to send any people into a concentra-tion camp.
M. MONNERAY: Do you know that the SD collaborated with the Gestapo to ascertain which Poles were capable of being germanized and which of them, on the other hand, should be sent to concentra-tion camps? RÖSSNER: No, I have no factual knowledge of any of these questions.
M. MONNERAY: I would ask permission merely to read an extract of Document R-112.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this new?
M. MONNERAY: It is a document which has already been offered in evidence, Exhibit USA-309.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you must not refer to it because the witness says he does not know anything about it.
M. MONNERAY: I would like merely to read the passage from this document which establishes, contrary to the statements of the witness who does not know these facts, that the SD did in fact collaborate with the Gestapo in selecting Poles to be germanized.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is anything in the document which shows that the witness is not telling the truth you can put that part of the document to the witness.
M. MONNERAY: The document refers to Amt III B of the SD and does not indicate any element which directly affects the witness. Therefore, it bears only on the general question of the activity of the SD and does not affect the witness personally.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Monneray, the witness has just said that Amt III did not have anything to do with deportation of populations If this document shows that it did, then you can put that fact to him
M. MONNERAY: That is why, Mr. President, I was asking per. mission to read a passage of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: You can put the document to him.
M. MONNERAY: It is a letter of 1 July, signed by Streckenbach It emanates from Amt III B 1 and it is addressed to the Gestapo office of the SD, in the newly occupied territories of the East. TU document says, on Page 2, first point: "The State Police (head) offices must immediately ask the branch offices of the DVL, the SD (head) Abschnitte and the Kripo (head) offices for all available material on persons belonging to Department 4." Third point: "The chiefs of the State Police (head) offices and the leaders of the SD (head) Abschnitte, or their permanent representa-tives (in SD-chiefs of Department III B) must participate in the racial examinations in order to see for themselves the people involved." On Page 3, the fourth point: "After the racial selection, the chiefs of the State Police (head) offices and the leaders of the SD (head) Abschnitte, or their permanent representatives (in SD-chiefs of Department III B) will verify in common-- this is underlined in the docu-ment-"the material available and will, if necessary, ask the Reich Security Main Office, Amt IV C 2, for arrest and con-signment to a concentration camp. In particularly difficult cases the documentary files will first of all have to be sent to the RSHA, Amt III, III B." On Page 4, the last paragraph of this order, signed by Streckenbach: "In execution of the current control of re-Germanization, the SD (head) Abschnitte in the old Reich territory..."
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. As far as I understand the document it clearly applies to Amt III. Well, why do you not put it to him?
M. MONNERAY: I should like to ask the witness afterward if he still maintains that Amt III had nothing to do with the Gestapo and had no authority to carry out arrests and send people to con-centration camps. First of all, I would like to finish reading the last paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, go on.
M. MONNERAY: 11... the SD (head) Abschnitte in Reich terri-tory proper will carry on in a similar manner with the super-vision of Poles capable of being germanized and reporting on them to the Reich Security Main Office and the Higher SS and Police Leader; they should afford all assistance to the advisers on Germanization." The report is signed Streckenbach. Witness, this order really emanates from Amt III of the Reich Security Main Office, does it not? RÖSSNER: Apparently some mistake has occurred, Mr. Pros-ecutor, because according to the document before me the document does not come from the RSHA at all, but from the Reich Com-missioner for the Preservation of German Nationality. After the date of 1 July 1942 there is III B 1, it is true, but it has the letter-head "Reichskommissar fuer die Festigung deutschen Volkstums," an office which is completely separated from the RSHA.
M. MONNERAY: Well then, Witness, is it correct to say that according to this order signed by Streckenbach, the services of the SD, in common with those of the Gestapo, were to check their files and to request, if necessary, the arrest of people concerned and have them sent to concentration camps? Will you please answer "yes" or "no"? RÖSSNER: Unfortunately', from my own experience I can give no information about that. In any case it is clear that the Reich Commissioner for the Preservation of German Nationality could give no orders to the SD, Amt III. Therefore, this document does not reveal at all what the SD did in practice in this matter. On this subject the competent expert should be questioned.
M. MONNERAY: You did not answer the question. According to this text, is it correct to state that the SD actively collaborated with the Gestapo in these matters? RÖSSNER: I believe ...
M.MONNERAY: "Yes" or "no"? RÖSSNER: I cannot answer the question with "yes" or "no," but I think I have already answered it when I said that the Reich Com-missioner for the Preservation of German Nationality could give no orders to the SD. I cannot judge, therefore, what the SD actually did, as these are two entirely different offices. As far as I know, the competent Gruppenleiter has already been heard before the Commission.
M. MONNERAY: You are still not answering the question. Is it true, "yes" or "no," that according to this text the SD collaborated with the Gestapo in screening people and, if necessary, had them arrested and sent to concentration camps? RÖSSNER: I am sorry I must again repeat my answer to your second question. Since the Reich Commissioner could give no direct orders to the SD I cannot answer by "yes" or "no" as to whether the SD, on the basis of this order by the Reich Commissioner, actually collaborated with the Gestapo-and this is surely what you are aiming at.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the document speaks for itself and now I think the Tribunal had better adjourn. [A recess was taken.]
M.MONNERAY: One last question, Witness, concerning this Document R-112. Who was the Reich Commissioner for the Preser-vation of German Nationality? RÖSSNER: That was a supreme office.
M.MONNERAY: Which was under the authority of the Chief of the SD and the Chief of the German Police, is that not so? RÖSSNER: Himmler.
M. MONNERAY: Do you maintain that this letter of I July, which came from Himmler's offices and was addressed at the same time to the Gestapo offices, the SD offices, and the Criminal Police offices, does not correspond with the real state of affairs? RÖSSNER: From my own knowledge I can only point out once more that ther e are two completely different agencies concerned. To what extent the formulation of the document coincides with the actual work of the SD, I cannot, I repeat, judge from my own knowledge.
M.MONNERAY: I have no more questions to ask.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik-wait a minute.
LT. COMDR. HARRIS: May it please the Tribunal, we would like to offer, merely as a supplement to our last exhibit, a new docu-ment which has just come to our hands, which is Document 4054-PS and becomes Exhibit USA-921. The only significance of this docu-ment is that it shows that the SD was running agents in Los Angeles, California, shortly before the outbreak of war between the United States and Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: You have got a copy of this, Dr. Gawlik? Have you got a copy of it?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to re-examine?
DR. GAWLIK: I have no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire. And I think that finishes your evidence, Dr. Gawlik-that is all of your evidence, isn't it? That is all of your evidence, isn't it? Wait a minute. You have no more witnesses, have you?
DR. GAWLIK: I have no more witnesses, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: In what order is it that the counsel for the organizations wish to proceed now?
DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Reich Cabinet): It has been ruled that the witnesses for the Reich Government will be examined now.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR.KUBUSCHOK: I call the witness Dr. Franz Schlegelberger to the stand. [The witness Schlegelberger took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name please?
FRANZ SCHLEGELBERGER (Witness): Franz Schlegelberger.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Onmiscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing. [The witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: Sit down.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, from what year on were you em-ployed in the Ministry of Justice?
SCHLEGELBERGER: To begin with, I was judge in a common court of pleas, then in a court of appeals, and from 1918 I was first an assistant and then a Geheimer Rat (Privy Counsellor) in the ministry.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: When did you become State Secretary?
SCHLEGELBERGER: In 1931.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: At what time, after the death of the Reich Minister of Justice Guertner, did you carry on the affairs of the Ministry of Justice?
SCHLEGELBERGER: From January 1941 until August 1942.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Were you a member of the Party?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Originally I was not a member of the Party and I never requested admission into the Party. To my great surprise I received a letter from the Chief of the Fuehrer's Chancel-lery on 30 January 1938, saying that the Fuehrer had decreed my admission into the Party. Of course I could not reject this letter, and I should like to call myself an involuntary member of the Party.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Were you in very close personal contact with Minister Guertner so that you were constantly kept informed by him of all questions, not only of the Ministry of Justice, but also of all general government questions?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes.
DR.KUBUSCHOK: Was Guertner already Minister of Justice in the Papen Cabinet?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Was Guertner previously Minister of Justice in Bavaria?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did the activity of the entire Government which met for cabinet sessions in the first period of the Hitler Cabinet-I mean the time up to the promulgation of the Enabling Act-differ from previous practice?
SCHLEGELBERGER: No, the bills were thoroughly discussed and divergent opinions were debated.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did this change after the Enabling Act was issued?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes. The March elections and the adoption of the Enabling Act by the Reichstag had greatly strengthened Hitler's position. At first Hitler was quite reserved, modest, toward Von Hindenburg, or perhaps even embarrassed. Now he was filled with the thought that he was the executor of the popular will. Perhaps that can be explained by the facts that Hitler had directed all his activities to winning over the masses; that he now saw success; that he believed he had judged the will of the people correctly; that he considered himself the personification of the people's will; and that he wanted to realize the people's authority.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did the combining of the position of the Reich Chancellor with that of the Reich President in August 1934-beyond the general state-legal effects-have any influence on the position and functions of the Cabinet?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes; I see in this law the last step in the concentration of all the power in the person of Hitler, and I judge this law as particularly important because it was generally ap-proved by the plebiscite.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Was this development also expressed in the law of 16 October 1934 with regard to the oath of allegiance for the ministers-was the duty of obedience toward the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor now established for the ministers?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes; and this law meant that the minis-ters, like other officials, were now bound by directives.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did the ministers still have the possibility of resigning on their own wish?
SCHLEGELBERGER: No.
DR. KLTBUSCHOK: Did later laws further restrict the activity of the Cabinet?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes. I am thinking of the law on the Four Year Plan and on the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Were considerable parts of the govern-mental activity decentralized and assigned to special offices? I am thinking' of the appointment of Gauleiter, Reich 'commissioners, chiefs of civil administration?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Yes; the Gauleiter were appointed Reichs-statthalter (Reich governors) and Reich defense commissioners. The Plenipotentiary for Administration was created, and the Pleni-potentiary for Economy and Plenipotentiary General for the Allo-cation of Labor.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Through the law on the unity of the Party and State, of I December 1933, did co-operation between agencies of the Party and State arise in practice or how did conditions develop in fact?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Whoever had believed in this co-operation was soon sorely disappointed. From the very beginning considerable dissension became apparent between the State offices and the Party offices and I can say from my own experience that an extraor-dinarily large part of the work became necessary because State agencies had to overcome the influence of the Party offices.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: For what purpose and under what conditions was the Enabling Act submitted to the Reichstag in March 1933?
SCHLEGELBERGER: The Enabling Act, which is called "the law to relieve the distress of People and Reich," was issued because the cumbersome machinery of the Reichstag worked too slowly and laws had to be created speedily. The Enabling Act was intended as a temporary solution only and for that reason it was limited to 4 years; later it was repeatedly extended.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: For what reasons were special courts estab-lished and what special circumstances prevailed in these procedures?
SCHLEGELBERGER: Special courts were already established temporarily during the Briming Cabinet in 1931, and now they ,7~ere created again because in this way it was planned to deal quickly with things which demanded urgent solution. This could be-achieved only by excluding recourse to the law; but in order to do away with unjust procedure and unjust sentences, a number of clauses were introduced; that is, first, the resumption of sus-pended proceedings in favor of the defendant was facilitated; secondly, the plea of nullity to the Reich Court was allowed, which meant that the Reich Court could quash a sentence and substitute another; thirdly, an appeal extraordinary to the Reich Court was instituted, by means of which a completely new trial could be started; finally, an ex officio defense was instituted. I may emphasize that the special courts and the legal facilities which I have mentioned were as much for the defendants as they were against them, that these special courts were regular judicial courts and not exceptional courts, and that they were conducted by three professional judges.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What have you to say regarding the law of 3 July 1934, by which the measures of Hitler taken on 30 June 1934 were legalized?
SCHLEGELBERGER: According to Hitler's statement and cor-responding to the text of the law, this concerned exclusively the SA men who, according to Hitler's statement, which wag credible at the time, had intended a revolt. To that extent, the law was absolutely justifiable, because revolt meant a state of emergency in the sense of the term generally recognized in Germany. It was quite another thing with those victims of the incident who were not among the members of the revolt. Hitler stated that these cases should be prosecuted by the courts. A number of trials were started and ended in severe sentences. In a number of cases, how-ever, Hitler used his legal right of veto-for example, in the case of Klausner and Edgar Jung-and as a result of the veto these cases could no longer be legally tried.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did you and the Reich Minister of Justice Guertner know of the Nuremberg Laws before the decision was made at the Reich Party Rally?
SCHLEGELBERGER: No. I had already left the Reich Party Rally and learned of these laws, on the way, through the newspapers or radio. The Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, as I know for certain from him himself, was not informed beforehand of the intention to issue these laws.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was the purpose of the taking-over of the administration of Justice by the Reich?
SCHLEGELBERGER: This was primarily due to the general trend of centralization but beyond that, the Reich Ministry of Justice carried out this measure with the greatest energy. The Ministries of Justice of the Under were all directed by National Socialist ministers and probably state secretaries, and this caused a number of embarrassing situations. The taking-over of the administration of Justice by the Reich had the effect that now it came into the hands of a Minister of Justice and his state secretary who were not National Socialists.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was the relationship between the Party agencies and the Ministry of Justice?