DR. GAWLIK: Yes, your Honor.
DR. KOHR: Dr. Kohr for the defendant Blobel, as representative for Dr. Heim. I make a motion to have the defendant Blobel excused also, and that he be brought to Room 57 also. There seems to be a mistake here. The motion was already made yesterday afternoon, but the defendant Blobel was brought in here erroneously. It is necessary that in order to prepare the defense he be brought to Room No.57 to discuss the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: You would like to do that immediately, would you?
DR. KOHR: Yes, Your Honor. Yes, I would like to have it done immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant ---
DR. KOHR: It was a mistake, He was already excused for today, but he had to appear anyhow.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, we will rectify the mistake. Immediately the defendant Blobel will be excused, and taken to Room No. 57 so as to be in conference with his attorney.
DR. KOHR: I thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
DR. RIEDIGER: Dr. Riediger for the defendant Haensch. Your Honor, the situation with Haensch is similar, on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal yesterday Haensch has been excused for the proceedings of today, and, tomorrow, but he was never brought in anyway, and I ask that he be dismissed, and that he be brought back for a discussion on his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: You also want him taken to this Room No. 57?
DR. RIEDIGER: No, if it is possible, to his cell, because he has to work himself.
THE PRESIDENT: And you want that done immediately?
DR. RIEDIGER: If possible, yes. If this does not create any special difficulties.
THE PRESIDENT: I see no difficulty whatsoever. The defendant Haensch will be excused so that he may be interrogated by his counsel, and will be taken from the defendants box, immediately.
DR. RIEDIGER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand we are having some mechanical difficulties which are very brief in duration, we hope so, and we will suspend for two or three minutes. We are ready Dr. Aschenauer,
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, Dr. Reinhard Maurach was to testify yesterday in Court, and was to give an expert opinion founded on the subject of what were the results from the attitude and the war practices of the Soviet Union sofar as International Law is concerned, and, what in his opinion this has to do with the war emergency state -- war with the presumed emergency state, Your Honor, I have come to the conviction that the Tribunal would get a better and a clearer picture of this if this man would give in writing an expert opinion in the form of an affidavit. Therefore, I ask that this expert opinion be admitted as an exhibit.
MR. FERENCZ: If Your Honor, please, we have not as yet received any copy of the exhibit offered by the Defense ... However, if it pertains solely to questions of the Russian attitude towards International Law, and, is not more closely connected with the charges in this cass, we object to it as not being relevent.
THE PRESIDENT: This is a repetition of the objection made bythe Prosecution yesterday, and the Tribunal indicated yesterday that we were disposed to hear the Professor in order to ascertain that his testimony would be relevent. The Tribunal is further disposed now to receive the Professor's opinion in a written form, so, therefore, the objection of the Prosecution is overruled, and you may have the Professor prepare his expert opinion in writing, and to submit to the Tribunal as an exhibit on behalf of the defendant Otto Ohlendorf, and at the same time we will entertain a motion on the part of the Prosecution if itsees fit to have it excluded, if the Prosecution at that time again insist that the evidence as adduced by the exhibit it irrelevant.
MR. FERENCZ: One mere point, Your Honor. As concerns this exhibit we waive our objection to net having received it in advance, but request the defense counsel be instructed that as regards the calling of witnesses to the stand, and the introduction of additional. exhibits, the Prosecution be notified twenty-four hours in advance.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Aschenauer, I am presuming you are familiar with the rule, and in announcing it to you I would like the defense counsel to be reminded that the rules require that the Prosecution be informed twenty-four hours previously with the presentation of witnesses, or of an exhibit, with the nature of the testimony to be presented by that witness, or in the exhibit.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Before I call the witness Spengler, I would like to make a statement that I renounce the witness, Justus Baier. I want to use the witness Spengler completely. The witness Spengler is a character witness, and an export witness, but in order not to take the time of the Tribunal unnecessarily, I will do without the witness Herr Baier, and I shall be satisfied with submitting the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will accept the procedure.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I call Dr. Wilhelm Spengler as a witness.
DR. WILHELM SPENGLER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat after me: speak the pure truth, and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
JUDGE SPEIGHT: You may be seated. BY DR. ASCHENAUER. draw your attention to the translation difficulties, and I want to ask you to speak slowly, and to watch the lights, as these mean interruptions and slowing down. The first question. First give the Tribunal information about your person, and about your education and your profession.
A My name is Dr. Wilhelm Spengler, and I was born on 19 March 1907 in Ratholz in the Allgaeu. I am the son of a teacher, Wilhelm Spengler, and his wife. I attended public school in Buchsheim, near Memmingen, in Suebia. The High School in Memmingen, I graduated from High School in 1925 in Augsburg. Having grown up among the confusion of the First World War, and in view of the chaos and the spiritual and ideological world dissolution of the war epoch, and on the relative construction of values -- (interruption) A (continuing) It was up to me to look out for myself, and to find my own spiritual basis for my life.
For this reason I studied European cultural history for six years, and literature and philosophy at the Universities of Munich and Leipzig.
I got a Ph.D. and in 1932 in Leipzig also I passed the State examination for teaching at a High School on the subject of German, History and Philosophy, with the aim of a scholastic career.
Q Witness, did you reach your goal?
A No. This shows the desperate situation of the scholastic German youth in these years. The Commissar State Examination in Saxony for teachers, Professor Hoehn told me that despite my good examinations, I could not be employed because of an oversupply of teachers. That is, I could not get a definite position for fifteen years, that is 1948. This situation as assistant teacher jobs, did not provide enough for my life and too much for death. I could not do any more as young man, than my graudation with honors and my PhD, and my state examination was excellent, qualified me, and nevertheless I was on the street without any employment. Just to show you this general situation I mention these results of my examinations.
Q From where did help finally come to you?
Q Now, Witness, we come to your political career. Did you belong to the Nazi Party?
A No, I did not belong to the Nazi Party at that time. If in my whole student years there was something which could not arouse my interest, then this was politics. The confusion and the talks of the dozens of parties was for me so much more of a reason for me to concentrate only on my studies. how did you come to this contact? instructor at a university. I became the aid of Professor Hoehn in Jena. I heard from him for the first time that such a thing as an SD was to be formed, and he told me that leading agencies of the Party in Berlin, to which he had connections, had in mind to form an objective information about spiritual life, about sciences, about the situation at universities, and that they wanted to have a picture of how these various cultural groups thought about the formation of the National Socialist State.
He asked me whether I would be prepared to give him such information.
Q How did you decide that? by the State, and since I could not count on any definite position until 1948, but since here I saw a possibility that I might find work and work objectively, and express my feeling, even critically, that I could be useful in this job, and since I could work at a central agency and could occupy a policy-making position, I said to myself -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. Now, you have been telling us what you had been doing. Now you tell us the conversation you had with yourself. Now, in this very interesting dialogue between you and yourself, what are we to gain from that which will help us in deciding the case of Otto Ohlendorf? In other words, Dr. Aschenauer, I am afraid that you are allowing this witness to go into too much detail with regard to his own life. What is the relevancy of this?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I want to clarify the following questions by means of this witness: According to what points of view did Ohlendorf carry on his activity in the SD: secondly, what was the effect of the opposition of Ohlendorf; thirdly, by means of the SD and in the SD, Ohlendorf had humanitarian goals, and he defended these goals against anyone without any regard of his own person so that therefore he made enemies and incurred serious threats.
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Aschenauer, this witness is giving us the story of his life, not of Ohlendorf's life.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I had to come back to the time which this witness himself lived through in order to show the Tribunal what this man lived through and what his own opinion is. Your Honor, I had to go into these things because in the cross-examination, it is up to the Prosecution to also examine the character of the witness. Therefore, I have asked these introductory questions, and I shall not come back to these questions. My next theme will be the SD work, which was Ohlendorf's aim, and I must, by describing this SD work, form the basis for Ohlendorf's opposition against the totalitarian state.
THE PRESIDENT: A rapid outline of conditions at any given time is acceptable, but a long detailed account of the witness's life is really superfluous, so let's try, Dr. Aschenauer, to get immediately to the situation insofar as involved your client.
Q (By Dr. Aschanauer) Then, Witness, I shall ask you some questions about the SD. What was your first concrete job in the SD to which Ohlendorf belonged? entire German literature since 1913 and therefore had attremendous source material of cultural life and contained data about persons and organizations and corporations of all kinds, I developed an SD library. I gave a picture of the present-day literary editions, new books, and this Professor Hoehn whom I had mentioned who worked in the young SD Main Office in Berlin, and was in charge of cultural affairs there, asked questions about cultural life and information about general problems to this library service. This library center pictured cultural development of the persons and organizations. Among my student friends I had gathered around me a small circle of collaborators and specialists. Professor Hoehn at that time, did you know him? in 1936 as an economic expert in the cultural office in the Central Department II/2, and he struck me very quickly.
Q Now, why? the wearer of a golden party badge, never did I hear from such a man such polished and critical remarks about the development of National Socialism. He made this criticism about the various economic fields, and he showed that the actual activity of these economic departments in the life of the German citizen is not the realization of National Socialist aims, but that it is a decadence from the original idea, a divergence from the original idea.
It is not the realization of a national organized life in the nation, but the culmination of the old capitalistic economic forms, but now by means of the authority of the Party. He also gave me concrete examples for this criticism out of the daily work for the justification of this criticism. ask you to speak more slowly. Witness, what was the effect of this criticism in the office, how was his attitude judged in the rest of the office?
A The effects were various. Some of these people saw in him a man who had a very clear philosophical picture of things which to him meant National Socialism, and who from this picture had criticized actual conditions, and who had the belief that by this criticism he could reform these actual conditions, but the others saw in him, even at that time, an intellectual pessimist and one who only sees things in a very dim light.
Q: Witness, what connections do you know of which caused Ohlendorf to become Chief of the Domestic Service of the SD?
A: These connections took place in the first half of the year 1939. No clear picture of what this SD was to be and was to become, had as yet been developed, for in the beginning, in its embryonic beginnings, immediately after the so-called assumption of power, a part of this SD, the so-called Central Department II/1. was the legitimate enemy information service of the Party and was to inform about the status of enemy tendencies and ideologies within the total structure but already in 1934, '35, Hoehn began to build his cultural department into a reflection of the spiritual and cultural life, of the life of law and administration and of economics, and his successor. Six, also strove to develop a general information service about these matters. developed as the latter Office IV of the RSHA and had achieved complete independence. From the beginning on, as far as the enemy information service and observation was concerned, the Gestapo had available its own investigation offices and its own information service. That means that the concept "enemy" in the SD which was developing became smaller from year to year, and in 1938 the development was given a final coup de grace in the sense that the enemy observation disappears even as an informational task. This was finally completely excluded from the SD and was given to the competence of the Gestapo alone. This was decided in the so-called decree of separation of functions. From this period of time on the SD, and this is true for the entire Office III of Ohlendorf, on the SD has had nothing to do whatever with concrete enemy information.
This became the competence of the Gestapo alone. Including all connecting questions on informational measures.
Q: Witness, what became of the Office of Cultural Affairs which had been directed by Hoehn and later by Six, that is to say of the Department II/2, of the so-called Domestic Field (Lebensgebret).
A: From this remaining apparatus Ohlendorf now developed Office III, and from 1939 on until 1945 Ohlendorf gave this office its character and its aims and its goals and its ideas.
Q: Witness, can you tell us about the ideas, the loading ideas, according to which Ohlendorf performed his SD work, can you describe this to us briefly?
A: Since I was active in this office of Ohlendorf from the beginning and was active until the end, and since I was the department head of Culture and Science in this office, I can doubtlessly describe this backbone of the office, this Office III, and I must say this right now, Ohlendorf had a religious central idea about human beings which was the center of his thinking, and which he emphasized to us one hundred times during conferences.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you have used the phrase "religious central idea". Do you mean, by that that he was a member of a church and was given to religious worship, or are you using that phrase in a generic sense?
THE WITNESS: It was his inner philosophical religious philosophy.
THE PRESIDENT: You say it was an inner philosophical business. Did you look into his soul?
THE WITNESS: It was an inner philosophy which he
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you keep saying "inner". What sort of spectacles or apparatus did. you use to look into his inner soul?
I am very anxious to know how you looked into his inner soul.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, he always told us his thoughts repeatedly and repeatedly and he developed then over a number of years.
THE PRESIDENT: As far as Otto Ohlendorf's inner soul is concerned and his outlook upon life in general, he expressed that attitude from the witness stand with a clarity that you have not yet approached. I don't think that anyone could tell us in better language than Otto Ohlendorf spoke himself just what he thought and felt, so now in your testimony please give us objective facts, what Ohlendorf did, what he said, but don't try to tell us that you roamed about in the inner recesses of his soul, because we don't know that you are capable of doing that.
Q: (By Dr. Aschenauer): Witness, give us practical examples according to which Ohlendorf performed his SD work.
A: I can give concrete examples from the work of this Office III. The contempt for all intellectual things and academicians, on the part of the NSDAP, is well known. Throughout long years of information service the organization of the spiritual man and of cultural accomplishments in the framework of a people has always been brought out again and again, but finally we succeeded to change this evaluation of schools and intellectual things. Goebbels, on the basis of these reports, finally declared himself prepared, by means of a decree of the press conference of the Reich government, to avoid any contemptuous evaluations of sciences or scholars and teachers and to avoid such remarks in press, theater, radio and literature, and to forbid such remarks. I think it was in the fall of 1943 Goebbels invited the high school principles to convene at Heidelberg and he tried to establish contact with the scholars aria to get them to agree to the Party program.
This would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of the Information Service of the SD in which the justification of these intellectuals was always emphasized again and again. When Goebbels became the representative of the Fuehrer for total war, the high schools and universities were to be closed immediately. On the order of Ohlendorf almost all German universities took it upon themselves to defend their scholastic activities and thus we were able to avoid that the intended closing down of all schools would be undertaken in general and would only be done in single instances.
Of course, one cannot state in detail how many young scholars and how great a fraction of the succeeding academic generation were enabled to carry on their work and that they were not destroyed by the war through this measure. When the Speer Ministry decided that research was not inportant for the war, and since scholars were drafted to the Army withoug any questions, the continuous support and collaboration with the Reich Research Office, through this cooperation it was brought about that a Fuehrer decree was issued and this Fuehrer decree ordered that the drafting of research workers would be stopped and that 5,000 research workers and scientists would be brought back to their research institutions from the front lines. If a spokesman for the American foreign office -
MR. WALTON: If it please the Tribunal, I fail to see the relevancy of this line of testimony. I have listened very carefully and I object to this line on the grounds that it does not pertain to the issues involved in this case. If, however, this witness is a character witness, I make no objection, to him stating his opinion of the character of ohlendorf, but I do object to the record showing a dissertation on the cultural history of Germany from the year 1931 to 1945. We are not interested in the cultural history of Germany or in the Information Service of Germany during the war years.
THE PRESIDENT: In this trial?
MR. WALTON: In this trial, yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, it must be obvious to you with all the zeal with which you naturally manifest in behalf of your client, and justifiably so, that what this witness is talking about now has no relevancy to the issue and can be of no assistance to this defense. It is just merely a discussion on something which is of interest, but not in this trial, please try to bring the witness directly to the Defendant Otto Ohlendorf, what he did, what he said, and how what he did and said affected him, in so far as the charges in the indictment are concerned. And let me suggest, Dr. Aschenauer, at this juncture for all defense counsel in the preparation of witnesses please, do not fall into the groove or pattern which has apparently been marked out for this witness.
Try to adhere directly to the issue and give the Tribunal facts which will illuminate the issue and not illuminate the whole world as scholastic learning
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, the Defendant Ohlendorf is charged with Count 35 membership in a criminal organization. This activity, this work, which the witness has described as the work of the Defendant Ohlendorf was the activity of the Defendant Ohlendorf in Office III, for which he has been accused. In my presentation of evidence I shall come to the opposition of Ohlendorf against the totalitarian state. For this reason, I also had to use part of the time to explain what Ohlendorf did in his Office III. This is nothing else but the admissible exculpation proof.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the defendant is charged, in Count III with membership in the SS. Now how does this testimony that Goebbels sent all the students to the front in any way exculpate the defendant from membership in the SS? Now Ohlendorf was or was not a member of the SS. If he was not, that simple statement suffices. If he was, then it must be shown that he was unaware of the criminal purposes of the SS as outlined in the decision of the International Military Tribunal. If that can be shown, then he was exculpated insofar as that count is concerned. Now, will you please try to adhere closely to that very definite narrow issue.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, may I say a few words to that? The Control Council Law No. 10 admits proof of exculpation. It says here that a man can be exculpated if he did not know the criminal intents of the organization. I ask, Your Honor, isn't it a proof of his exculpation if a man worked against the aims seat down by Himmler and other people, namely, the totalitarian state. I want to hear-the proof of exculpation and, therefore, to this restricted extent, I thought I could give the Tribunal a basis on which I could build later on.
If it is sufficient to the Tribunal, I shall continue and discuss the contradictions which arose.
THE PRESIDENT: The difficulty is very obvious. The witness has prepared himself to testify along a certain line and he is having a hard time to deviate from this program which he has already outlined for himself. That is the reason I wanted to admise other defense counsel not to let other witnesses prepare themselves in this manner. He is covering entirely too much territory. We have said that whatever Ohlendorf said and did, which is in any way relevant to Count 3 or the other counts will be admissible. Now let us try to keep in mind the Defendant Ohlendorf at all times. Let us proceed.
Q (By Dr. Aschenauer): Witness, please describe the controversies of Ohlendorf and the leading personalities and give the reasons. disagreements of Ohlendorf on the one hand and Heydrich and Himmler on the other hand. Here we find diametrically opposed disputes in their various goals. Himmler and Heydrich had the aim to take the entire SD and incorporate it very closely into the Security Police and to take the SS and Gestapo, the Criminal Police, and the SD and make out of all of them a State Protection Corps. Opposed to this incorporation of the SD into a State Protection Corps, Ohlendorf objected for years as strenuously as a lion. The final disagreement between Himmler and Ohlendorf ends with a dispute between Himmler and Ohlendorf on the subject of this State Protection Corps. Shortly after Ohlendorf returned from Russia, during a discussion with Himmler, Ohlendorf protested against such a State Protection Corps, which was to protect the Nzai reality, and he objected so severely that Himmler did not want to hear any of this bullying. The incorporation of the SD into such a State Protection Corps was in disagreement with Ohlendorf's basic plans, namely, the position which he had set up for himself, namely, to work for the people, for the nation, for its citizens, and for their wishes and desires, their needs, and their criticisms, and not to work for the totalitarian state.
I may perhaps have exaggerated a little bit -
THE PRESIDENT: No, no. Don't exaggerate. Let's have the facts just as you know them.
THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, Your Honor.
Q (By Dr. Aschenauer): What were the reasons for the dispute with Ley? that is the regimentation of the German man from the cradle to the grave. From those who developed the DAF, beginning with the DAF kindergarten down to the DAF vocational education, even about the regulation of leisure time, in the DAF man was being regimented from cradle to the grave, and he was ordered about from cradle to the grave.
Q. May I interrput you, Witness. I ask you to be brief and only give the essential facts.
A. Against these policies of Ley, Ohlendorf made reports for years and was considered an opponent by Ley himself. Ley complained so continuously and bitterly to Himmler about these SD reports and Himmler did not approve of the work of Ohlendorf, but criticized Ohlendorf as an intellectual beast. He even limited and restricted the Information Service so that Ohlendorf from the middle of the war on was able only to send to Himmler about 1/10 of this critical work against the Nazi reality. Thus the Reich Press Chief, Dietrich, complained about these reports, because the Ohlendorf reports showed the actual popular opinions about these press reports and the Army reports. Thus Goebbels wanted to have Hitler dissolve the SD because when Goebbels gave his speech in the Sports Palace to open total warfare, a speech in which he called on the people with questions; "Do you want total war?" in the extremely critical SD report an out the -
MR. WALTON: May I renew my former objection, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Now we are going to hear a blow by blow account of Goebbels' speech in the Sports Palace and how the audience responded to his various rhetorical questions. Now how does that help us in deciding the question of the guilt or innocence of Otto Ohlendorf?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I don't want to come back to this complex of questions and I shall go into the Jewish question, which is the basis for the prosecution indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q. (By Dr. Aschenauer) Do you know the attitude of Ohlendorf towards the Jewish problem?
A. Even though the Jewish problem did not belong to the field in which Ohlendorf worked, I can, nevertheless, testify to his concrete opinions and his conduct, as far as the Jewish question is concerned, because in reference to the general political situation about the Jewish problem Ohlendorf would express himself on this problem, and also acted on it.
Ohlendorf's attitude towards the Jews can be gathered from his attitude towards the concept, "people." Jews were people for Ohlendorf also, not German people, that is, but foreign people, but because they were people they were for him justified from the world order and world situation.
Q. Witness, what practical conclusions did Ohlendorf draw from his attitude?
A. Following his practical attitude Ohlendorf judged events of the so-called Crystal Night in November 1938 and he rejected these events in his reports by the Group III D. He stated his attitude against the wearing of the Jewish star, because this was a contradiction to the dignity of the human being. In his economic reports he also stated his objection against the boycott of Jewish business, in 1835 already when the Jews in Germany who held a great number of key positions in the medical field, press field, legal field and so forth, had to leave these positions, because the figures highly exceeded the small percentage of the Jewish population with the German Reich.
Q. Witness, what do you know about a minority statute for the Jews which Ohlendorf worked out?
A. The most important step which Ohlendorf took about the status of Jewry and their position in Germany was his request to Heydrich around 1938 or 1939, to effect a minority statute for the Jews in Germany so that such a minority statute would lay down the rights for this alien group which happened to live in Germany and that such a statute would regulate those rights of the actually undetermined status of Jewry. I know that with this suggestion to Heydrich which Ohlendorf made spontaneously on his part, because he was not even competent to deal with these questions that Ohlendorf was thrown out when he made that suggestion. I witnessed his bitterness, how aroused Ohlendorf was about this brusque refusal, of Heydrich to listen to him. The events did not let Ohlendorf rest in peace afterwards either. Despite the brusque re fusal which he got, about a half year or three-quarters of a year later, Ohlendorf made another attempt to have this minority statute established as a legal regulation, just like the other minorities in Germany had their own autonomy.
Here the result was exactly the same. Heydrich simply refused --
Q. Witness, do you know whether Ohlendorf voluntarily reported for the Eastern campaign, or whether he was ordered to report?
A. Ohlendorf did not report voluntarily for the Eastern campaign. He was ordered to report. Ohlendorf at that time was only honorary head of the office and in his main position he was manager of the Reich Group Trade so that for the time being Ohlendorf was not able to report as Heydrich and Himmler requested, because he was made indispensible for the Reich Group Trade, but during the Polish campaign various incidents must have happened about which I did not hear in detail, but which induced Himmler to rebuke Ohlendorf, which came by way of Heydrich down to Office III, and reads about as follows: Ohlendorf's weaklingsand cowards did not prove satisfactory in Poland. It was about time that these men would be committed in combat and Ohlendorf above all. Heydrich then asked Ohlendorf several times and asked him personally when he would report for the campaign. Ohlendorf objected for the following reasons: He had never worked in the field of the State Police; that he had no experience in Police matters, and, in addition, Ohlendorf had never been a soldier; beyond that, it was against Ohlendorf's nature to direct various units of the State Police and the Criminal Police.