I found the following. These Slovenians, who until then had lived in a Serbian state centrally governed, had expected from the Germans, at least, a certain autonomy, but certainly cultural autonomy instead of this, that part of the country around the capital of Laibach had been made part of Italy, incorporated in Italy. Cultural autonomy was never mentioned, but rather they tried very hard to make them German.
And now came the decisive fact. In order to Germanize these people successfully, the Higher SS and Police Leader had arranged for the resettlement of all Slovenians of the territory near the border, fifteen kilometers wide along the entire border to the north of Laibach, and actually brought it about. He had the illusion that such resettlement and that settlement of Germans in that territory around the border, the two Slovenian parts, namely, the new Italian and the new German part, would be separated that way, and that the part belonging to the Reich would then become Germanized in peace. These measures had causedthe determined resistance of the population. This again caused the Germans to make reprisals, and therefore a continuous development resulted which caused a state that was something like civil war. The most impossible order which I found was to the effect that the children of band members who had been shot be taken from the remaining families and be brought into German families to be Germanized. They were to be taken in separately through the Security Police in the internment camps. I objected very strongly to this policy which I considered quite impossible. could not influence, being a political action, but in spite of great differences with my superior, the Higher SS and Police Leader Roesener, I managed directly and indirectly to influence all agencies in order to bring about a change. The settlement of the children away from their families I prohibited immediately and reported about it to the Reich Security Main Office with the request that the order be rescinded which Himmler must have given under some mistaken opinion. In the interests of calming down the situation as I stated in this report, I would have caused a preliminary change of the actual situation.
The Gauleiter, Dr. Reiner, was on my side. The Higher SS and Police Leader prohibited me to talk to him alone. Under some pretense I traveled to Berlin then and saw to it that the Reich Security Main Office supported me, who also approached the Reichsfuehrer.
Apart from the Gauleiter then, according to my suggestions, the resettlement of Slovenians from the whole territory was stopped, and instead of the reprisal shooting a proper legal system was announced. The Gauleiter announced this new line of German policy, during a spread in Kreiburg. I am convinced that I have saved the lives and the homes of thousands of Slovenians. That is what I did as a result of this order.
DR. LUMMERT: May I conclude my evidence with this?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Dr. Durchholz for the defendant Schulz. Your Honor, I ask that I amy address a question to the defendant Blume in connection with the document which the Prosecution used in the cross-examination of the defendant Schulz. It is Exhibit 177, Document No-4957. I would like some explanation here. On Page 1 of this document, as of 9 November 1941, Himmler owing to special merits, promoted the defendant Schulz to SS-Oberfuehrer. May I remind you that a promotion of other defendants came about at the same time, as the documents presented show. BY DR. DURCHHOLZ: tives which Himmler gave concerning promotions, can you tell us anything about it?
A Yes. After the beginning of the war, Himmler gave an order that suggestions for promotion within the Security Police were only to be submitted to him if they showed quite clearly that the person to be promoted had proved valuable in his assignment. If not, a statement was to be given why he had not been active on an assignment as yet. The term Assignment Einsatz, meant any activity as part of the German Wehrmacht or as part of the Security Police in any of the occupied territories. The result was that in the personnel department of the Reich Security Main Office any suggestion for promotion was stopped for a while if it did not fulfill these requirements.
It was always the task of the person submitting the promotion to complete this. Q Can you tell me now when a promotion in an SS rank,of a policeman was effected, a man who was a professional police official, was he then regarded a member of the SS? system of officials, on special holidays, as for instance, the 9th of November. Q The last question. Was the Russian campaign of special significance for this promotion which was proclaimed on 9th November 1941, would the promotion also have been pronounced if the person concerned had been in another campaign? any occupied territory as part of the Security Police and the Army.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you have your witness available?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: The witness is outside and is waiting to be called in, but I suggest perhaps after the recess so that it is not interrupted.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I would only have one question. It is in connection with the question of Dr. Durchholz. BY MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: November, 1941?
Q At that time had you seen the application for the defendant Schulz? own knowledge, is that correct?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: During the recess the defendant will be returned to the defendants' box and the Schulz witness will be placed in the witness box so that we can begin with that witness when we reconvene in fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
5 November 1947_M_MSD_8_1_Spears (Lea)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. WOLFGANG LAUE, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE SPAIGHT: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat 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.)
JUDGE SPAIGHT: You may be seated.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your honor, Dr. Laue is a character witness, but also an eye witness who can report about the conduct of the defendant, Schulz in the last phase of the activity of the defendant as a high police official and officer. I will give the tribunal facts through the witness which will show the character of the defendant in situations in which another man certainly would have acted differently than the defendant did. BY DR. DURCHHOLZ: person.
A My name is Dr. Wolfgang Laue; and I was born on the 23rd of July 1905 in Mainz; I am a German citizen; and I live in Muehlthal near Rosenheim in Upper Bavaria in the U.S. Zone.
Q Witness, what official position did you hold lest? Regierungspresident with the Reichcommissioner in Salzburg. by the IMT?
A No. I was a member of the National Socialist Party since May 1933, and I held an honorary rank in the SKK, but I did not belong to any organizations declared criminal by the IMT, therefore, on the basis of the automatic arrest of higher officials, I was interned; and after this automatic arrest order had been revoked in July 1946 5 November 1947_M_MSD_8_2_Spears (Lea) I was released from the American internment camp at Ludwigsburg.
Q How long have you known the defendant Schulz? day after the invasion began.
Q What position and what rank did Schulz hold in Salzburg?
A Schulz was BDS, that is, commander of the Security Police; he was also representative of the higher SS and police leader Roesele for the jurisdiction of the District of Salzburg. In the last weeks a change in the organization took place whereby Herr Schulz became SS and police leader for the Reichdistrict of Salzburg.
Q Do you know that on the ocassion of the attempt on Hitler's life on the 20th of July 1944 any arrests were made in Salzburg?
A No. I know nothing about whether on the 20th of July 1944 or immediately afterwards arrests were made in the District of Salzburg on the occasion of this attempt.
Q How did Schulz act in the matter of the Officer Corps?
Herr Schulz had a friendly and good and even cordial relationship with the officer corns. conducted himself on the 20th of July, 1944, and immediately afterwards, as far as the officer corps is concerned? the officers of the General Command during the time of the 20th of July, 1944. Later too nothing changed in the cordial relationship between Herr Schulz and the Officer Corns. He always protected the honor of the Corps on every occasion, even after the 20th of July, 1944, I do not know of a single case in which Herr Schulz interfered in any job of the Army or exerted any pressure on they Army.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durchholz, just what is the theory behind your story of the great cordiality between the Defendant Schulz and the Officer Corps? Just what do you intend to establish by that?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, the Defendant Schulz was the highest police officer in the District of Salzburg, and, after the attempt of July, 1944, the Police leaders had rather great power concerning the arrests after this attempt. Through this description of the relationship between Schulz and the Officer Corps I would like to prove that he did not make use of this power which we held.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, are you endeavoring to implant the thought or idea that Schulz to that extent approved of the attempt on Hitler's life or, at any rate, did not want to participate in any punishment of the group that was responsible for the attempt?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I want to prove by this that the Defendant Schulz protected the Officer Corps which had been severely attacked on the part of the Party.
THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would give very specifically just what you are attempting to establish, how this affects Schulz's character and what it has to do with the charges against him.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: It is supposed to prove the conduct of the Defendant Schulz, namely, that he did not make use of his full power as a police officer in the sense that the Party wanted him to. In other words, he did not misuse his power.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: One moment please. The prosecution has submitted that we are not charging the Defendant Schulz after November 1, 1941, with having obtained criminal knowledge or having criminally participated in crimes committed by one of the three organizations of which he is indicted with having been a member, so that for this reason the questioning of the witness on these lines is completely immaterial.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, the point which just came up has already been answered. I shall come to other points, but I would like to ask that I be permitted to continue the questioning of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durchholz, we will certainly permit you to question the witness. What we ware only hoping to learn was just what objective you were aiming at from this testimony.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I only wanted to prove by means of this witness what the Defendant Schulz has already told us about these events. Then in my final plan I want to make statements that the Defendant Schulz from the beginning of his police career to the end of his activity in Salzburg conducted himself on the same level and that there ware many instances in which the Defendant Schulz in his capacity as High Police and SS Officer never acted in the way in which the indictment charges him as a member of that organization. From this conduct I shall draw conclusions for his conduct in Russia. That is the purpose of the interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand then, that during this period of turmoil following July 20th, 1944, that the Party hierarchy was eager that all Higher SS and Police Officers arrest indiscriminately and condemn the Officer Corps but that the defendant refused to go along with that demand on the part of the Party?
Is that what we understand your object is?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. DURCHOLZ:
Q I am coming now to a different point. Witness, did the Defendant Schulz have anything to do with prisoners of war in Salzburg? second part of the year 1944 the Higher SS and Police Leader at the same time became commander for the prisoners of war. Since Herr Schulz was the representative of the Higher SS and Police-Leader and since the Higher SS and police Leader never spent any time in Salzburg, he conducted the affairs concerning prisoners of war in the District of Salzburg.
Q Could you tell us how many prisoners of war were there? war,camp Pungau, now St. Johann in Pungau, there were many thousands of prisoners of war. There might have been about 30,000 prisoners of war in the District of Salzburg, all told. these prisoners of war?
A. Yes, I know a number of such facts. In the repeated conferences in which Schulz and I participated, representations were made that the work performed by the prisoners of war was not sufficient and that the prisoners of war were being treated too well; that the prisoners of war during an air alarm were merely-brought into the air raid shelters and that they took away the scarce space from the civilian population. I still remember exactly what Schulz answered against these very severe representations. He referred to the Geneva Convention which he insisted on keeping. Herr Schulz saw to it that the prisoners of war would continue to go into the air raid shelters and that no changes were allowed in their good treatment.
treated in the District of Salzburg? as was true for the prisoners of war. There was an order to take the foreign workers from the so-called Alpine Fortress. By Alpine Fortress they meant the mountainous area south of the City of Salzburg. I do not know exactly what agency was supposed to handle this evacuation. Perhaps it was the police, because this was the only agency which was competent for this job. At any rate, no foreign workers were evacuated and Herr Schulz had objected to that. Salzburg? police? 1945 two enemy airmen who had bailed out and had jumped into the Salzach River were saved by members of the police. I remember this exactly because this conduct of the police had been criticized by the Party. events which lead to the non-defense of Salzburg in his capacity as High police Officer? decisive manner: the surrendering of Salzburg without defending it. I can give detailed testimony about this, because I had collaborated with Herr Schulz very closely in this question and I think that I can ask for the same recommendation in this matter for myself. I would like to testify between the following phases: First of all that he induced the city not to defend itself....
MR. HOHLICH HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the Defendant Schulz in the witness-stand has explained the story of the surrender of Salzburg in detail.
I do not think it necessary that the witness just repeat what the Defendant Schulz had said. The prosecution is willing to concede that what the Defendant Schulz has said about the surrender of Salzburg is true.
THE PRESIDENT: with that acknowledgment on the part of the prosecution, Dr. Durchholz, you can see that it is unnecessary to continue this line of questioning.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, after the prosecutor has explained that the considers the statements of the Defendant Schulz about these points correct, I think I can.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, correct.
DR, DURCHHOLZ: I think I do not have to have the witness confirm these facts. I merely wanted to prove to the Tribunal that the statements of the Defendant Schulz are correct, even in this point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I have no further questions to out to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Any cross-examination?
MR. HOHLICK HOCHWALD: No cross-examination by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will be escorted from the witness box and excused.
(The witness was excused.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer are you ready now?
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Steimle will be taken to the witness box.
JUDGE DIXON: Defendant, raise your right hand and repeat after me:
"I swear by God, the Almighty and Omnicient, that I will speak the pure truth, and will withhold and add nothing."
(The witness, repeated the oath.)
JUDGE DIXON: You may be seated. BY DR. MAYER:
Q. Dr. Mayer for the defendant Steimle. direct examination. The examination will be divided into three main parts. First, the brief biography and then the Russian camp assignment chronologically; secondly, a discussion of the documents; and third, the activity of the defendant in Office VI of the Reich Main Security Office.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. BY DR. MAYER:
Q. Witness, may I first remind you to speak slowly and to watch that the questions have been completely translated before you begin your answer to them.
A. My name is Eugen Steimle.
Q. Please give a short biography.
A. I was born on 8 December 1909 and the seventh child of a small farmer in New Bulach in the Black Forest. I attended grammar school for four years. As a result of some efforts on the part of my teacher, and made possible by the financial support of an older brother, I got to attend high school and in the year 1929 I graduated. Since my father was not in a position to send me to the university I had to rely on scholarships and extra work during vacations and on aid during my student days.
From 1929 to 1935 I studied history, German history, French language and literature. In 1935 and 1936 I passed the two prescribed State examinations for teachers at higher schools. I married in the year 1936 and I have three children.
Q. Please describe briefly your political career down to your joining of the SD?
A. Already during my time in school I was very much interested in politics and history. I watched domestic and foreign events closely at the end of the 20s and after 1930. As far as one can speak of a political opinion at such a young age I had such an opinion. I was an adherent of the foreign policies of Stresemann. Domestically I did not have any set opinion, that is in the sense of rejecting the Republic. I was not in favor of returning to a Monarchy. At the time National chauvinism was not considered right in our family. Nevertheless, I as well as the major part of my generation was moved by the domestic political split, the weakness and economic distress of Germany as well as the decreasing prospect of Germany to overcome the Versailles Treaty. An almost Nihilistic realism became evident in my generation. We saw no absolute values any more and a pessimistic resignment was very common. A State without life, an economy without any prospect for recovery, the class struggle within our people - these are matters which moved us very deeply at that time. We suffered especially from the struggle between the great number of parties and we judged the Weimar Republic by the unemployment prevailing at the time. I personally from my political interests observed the increasing strength of the Communist party and I busied myself with those ideas. This was especially possible during my studies at the University of Berlin in the years 1931 and 1932. I arrived at a complete rejection of International Communism perhaps because of the tendency which existed in my home. On the other hand I was in favor of every social thought in the sense that it should be achieved, that every human being was to get as great a benefit as possible from the economic property of his country.
My thoughts led me to believe that in a poor country one could not adopt a "Laisser faire" attitude to overcome distress but that poverty can only be overcome by plan and for this we needed National unity. This was the necessary premise which changed such a condition. For these reasons I became a National Socialist, less so under the influence of any particular National Socialistic personality but rather by way of theoretical thinking through of this idea. When I joined the National Socialist Party in May 1932 I believed in the possibility that if all National forces are gathered together in the interest of social improvement that the German economic distress could be overcome. In this sense I also believed in revision of the Versailles Treaty.
Q. I would like to interrupt you.........you mean a peaceful revision?
A. Yes, a peaceful revision. However, I joined the Party on the first of May 1932. My activity was restricted first to paying Party dues. In October 1932 I was asked to join the student union as a Party member which happened SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH JOINING THE students SA. I served as an SA man until in March 1933 I suffered a short accident which forced me to take a leave from the SA for an extended period of time. After that I belonged to the staff of SA Standarte without doing any service there but I was active in the National Socialist Student Union in which I held the rank of student leader at the University of Tuebingen. Later I held the position as Student District Leader in Wurtemberg. I was called to these positions without previous knowledge. Both of these functions were on an honorary basis, that is, without remuneration. I worked in these offices merely out of my enthusiasm as a student and out of patriotism.
Q. How did you come to join the SD?
A. I met Dr. Scheel in my student work. Dr. Scheel was leader of the SD Sector Southwest in 1936. This sector comprised the districts of Wurtemberg, Baden, Halls and Saar. Dr. Scheel suggested to mo that after I passed my examination of assessor, I join the SD and that I take over a position to be determined later in the district of Wurtemberg. I held several conferences with Dr. Scheel about a job with the SD. Up to that time I had had no contact with the SD and did not know its jurisdiction. Dr. Scheel described the SD to me as a function of the SS whose job it is to observe the political development in domestic and foreign respect in order to be able to inform the leading agencies about what was going on. It was clearly evident that this was not police work of individual cases and not of the prosecution of individuals but that it was supposed to give a survey about the tendencies in all branches of public life. Personally I was especially interested in building up a foreign information service which at that time was in a very embryonic stage.
Q. When did you join the SD?
A. First of April 1936.
Q. Was that connected with your membership in the SS, too?
A. Yes, I was taken into the SS a few weeks after the beginning of my activity in the SD. I became a member of the SS within the SD. I did not become a member of the General SS, the Allgemeine-SS.
Q. Did you have to go through any training in the SD before taking up your position?
A. I was active to get Information in the above mentioned Southwest Sector of the SD. I did not get to know the SD Main Office at that time. My membership in the SD depended entirely on my cooperation with Dr. Scheel.
Q. Did you have the intention of pursuing your SD work as a career?
A. No. I had myself furloughed from school service temporarily and had the intention of returning to that later on.
Q. Did any financial consideration play any role in your membership in the SD?
A. No, my starting salary in the SD was either the same or less than that of student assessor.
Q. What motivated you then to join the SD?
A. As I have already stated I was very much interested in politics from my early days on. At that time the SD seemed to me a good opportunity to get to know in detail the domestic and foreign political problems of Germany. As seen from the Stuttgart circle I believed that via the SD I could exert positive information on the political development of the German State. The other positive criticism which was the SD's function was often used and we made use of such criticism. My political tendencies which moved me to join the SD were supported by my disinclination to take up a civil service career at the age of 26.
Q. What functions did you carry on in the SD?
A. From April 1936 until September 1936 I was Staff Leader of the SD Sector Stuttgart which at that time occupied 12 people full time. From September 1936 until my transfer to Office VI of the Reich Main Security Office in February 1943 I was leader of SD Sector Stuttgart.
Q. Of what did your activities consist as leader of this Sector, especially after the outbreak of the War?
A. As I have already explained the job of the SD was to observe all branches of public life such as culture, economics, etc. May I make reference here to what my co-defendant Ohlendort has already stated?
Q. As SD leader in Stuttgart did you have anything to do with foreign information service, too?
A. Yes, especially after the outbreak of the War. Then the Reich Main Security made an attempt to build up a functional foreign political service. In this matter a department of my sector was entrusted with the job.
Q. How many SS leaders were subordinated to you as department chiefs?
A. Until the outbreak of the War my sector had about 20 full time department chiefs. Waffen SS or Army or were just taken away. They were replaced by people on War emergency status.
Q. What was the area for which these 20 leaders were competent?
A. This area comprised the province of Wurtemberg with about 3-1/2 million inhabitants.
Q. Did you or your SD sector during the War occupy yourselves with combating so-called State enemies?
A. No, as already stated this was not the job of the SD.
This is clearly evident in the organization of an SD sector which had no department or no expert to combat enemies of the State.
Q. What was the relationship of the Gestapo in the district of Wurtemberg to your sector?
A. The two organizations were completely independent of each other. Whereas the SD sector was under Office IV for the domestic service or under Office VI for foreign service the superior agency for the Gestapo was Office IV, the so-called Gestapo Office.
Q. Could the Gestapo give instructions or directives?
A. No, just as little as I could give directives to the Gestapo.
Q. Did you or your collaborators have the power to conduct interrogations or make arrests?
A. No, this was not within our job.
Q. Could the so-called reports of yours result in arrest?
A. No. These reports did not deal with individual people but with events - objective events.
Q. Can one designate the SD as an auxiliary organ of the Gestapo?
A. No. Both organizations were active in entirely different fields and locally in Wurtemberg, completely independent of each other.
Q. When did you hoar of the so-called assignment of the Security Police and SD for the first time?
A. Some time after the campaign in France, units were activated in Stuttgart which moved into France and which were composed of State Police, Criminal Police, and SD. As far as I know this was the first organizational get-together of all those three units in the person of the Unit Commander whereas the branches worked independently of each other under his direction.
Q. According to what you know then were these Einsatz units given now jobs which went beyond the jurisdiction of what was known to you to be the job of the State Police, Criminal Police, and the SD?
A. No.
Q. When did you receive the order to go to Russia?
A. At the end of August 1941.
Q. Where were you at that time?
A. In Stuttgart.
Q. Do you know how this order came to be given?
A. Yes. As the order was given to me by teletype I also found an explanation why I received it. In the years 1939-1940 I tried to in various ways to join the combat troops.