Q In other words, in ' 35 you were lieutenant, in '38 you were a colonel, and in '45 you were a Brigadier General, is that correct? SD? Tribunal has declared that Offices III-VI and VII of the RSHA were criminal organizations?
Q You were chief of Amt - VII, were you not?
Q During what period were you chief this criminal organization? then again from December 1941 until July 1942.
Q Isn't it between November 1939 and May 1940, and November 1941 to March 1943, '41 until March '43? I was granted leave from my office VII, that is, I mean the activityother activity. I was granted leave from it by a representative appointed thereto, therefore, I was not responsible at that time.
Q But you were a chief in title, at least?
Q Then you were still the chief in title? with museums, archives, and libraries, and literature, and similar materials. With what matter was Section VII-B of your office concerned? churches of all denominations, and scientific socolism.
Q By scientific socialism do you mean Marxism?
Q Or Communism? docialism, or at least the field that can he called as such; that is practically the terminology that was used by Karl Marx, and which was used by him and other scientific lecturers. called it, or Marxism, did you also study the question of Communism? as it was part of the whole scientific complex, but no special question of Communism as a political organization. question? was included Also.
Q You did not answer my question. I asked if you had a special section concerned with the Jewish question?
A. No, there was no such special section.
Q. What was Section VII-B-I?
A. Department VII-B-I was non-existent. There was just a subdepartment of VII-B-I, that was free masonry and liberalism.
Q. You are sure it was not free masonry and Jewery?
A. Yes, I am absolutely certain, quite certain. cerned with liberalism?
A. According to my recollection and knowledge, it is absolutely certain that I was in charge of this office. There was no such section. It depended on what time you are referring to.
Q At any time did you have a section concerned with Judeism?
A. No, as such there was no department. There were plant, and it was within the church department to take up Jewish church history.
Q. Do you Know Hauptsturmfuehrer Ballensiefen?
A. Hauptsturmfuehrer Ballensiefen, yes.
Q Isn't it a fact that he was head of Section VII-B-2 which was concerned with Judeism?
A. I could not understand this question exactly.
Q. Isn't it a fact, that he was the head of Section VII-B-2 Which was concerned with Judeism?
A. well, obviously he was in charge of several departments in the Church Department. whether it was VII-B-2 or I, I can not remember, and I don't know what time you are referring to.
Q. Isn't it a fact that you had a separate sub-department concerned with political churches aside from the Jewish questions?
A. No, no sub-department on political church matters, just one small department on church and all its denominations.
Q. Do you know SS-Captain Morawsky?
A. Morawsky?
Q. Morawsky?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. wasn't he the head of sub-department concerned with political churches?
A. No, not for a moment, never for a moment.
Q. what political churches did you regard as opposing groups?
A. I have already said that the term political church matter was not used in my office, and that it said it was churches of all denominations, and that within these churches, the Christian Church, as well as the Jewish Church was the aim of the cultural research.
Q. In other words, you were concerned with the Jewish Church, out only from a point of view of cultural research, is that correct?
A. In any case at the period when I was responsible, that was the aim of our work, yes.
Q. Didn't the other SS men regard that as a little curious?
A. I did not understand the question.
Q. Well, you said that you were concerned with the Jewish cultural research matter; everybody else was concerned with exterminating the Jews, so isn't it a little bit odd that your department should be so different from all the others?
A. Will you repeat that? It is a well known fact that this office dealt with the cultural research of these churches, therefore, it was up to the office as such, and it also dealt with the historical research, and in addition to this, which I have already said, and which I can prove, that there were no matters of Jewish interest but the Jewish culture with which we dealth, because there was no expert and no scientist that could deal with this matter.
Q. In other words, you did have a subsection but no one dealt with the question, it was just an empty title?
A. Again I must repeat that Herr Ballensiefen was theonly man who was in this subdepartment, but dealt with churches generally, and his work, which he carried out at the period when I was responsible, and I can take responsibility for the truth of this, was cultural development of Jewry, and I can especially remember that in the period when he was subordinate to me he was mainly dealing with preparations for the establishment of assimilation between 1780 and 1815, and he wanted to write a thesis on this.
Q. For what purpose did you have this section on Jewry, just to take historical theses on it?
A. when it was instituted and at my time, this was its main and only task.
Q. Isn't it a fact that your purpose actually was to uncover whatever you could in Jewish history or elsewhere to be used to further the SS-Anti-Semitic actions?
A. No, never for a moment, at least not during the period of my position.
Q. Did they ever use your materials for that purpose?
A. Not during the time when I was in charge of the office. BY THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, that not for a moment would you even think of looking for material which might be used against Jewry in connection with its historical past. Does it shock you very much that any institution, office, branch or organization or such like should seek material for propagandistic purposes against the Jews?
A. No, your Honor, if that assignment would have been given to me while I held the office---
Q. Do you mean to tell us that in your department that you weren't interested in locating material which could be used against the Jews?
A. I do not understand, the nucleus of your question.
Q. Well, the actual basis of the question that Mr. Ferencz asked you if you did not have a department which was interested in locating material which could be used against the Jews, and you said horrifiedly, "No, not for a moment." Now, I am calling to your attention the basic policy of the Nazi party with regard to Jews, namely that the Nazi Party was going to make war on the Jews from every possible angle. You were a member of the Nazi Party, weren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes, and you were interested in carrying out the policies of the Nazi party, were you not?
A. Which question an I supposed to answer, whether I am innocent or whether I dealt, with this question at all?
Q. You are supposed to answer the questions which are put to you, and the reasons they are put to you is this, that you volunteered, and remember this witness, that you volunteered this. It was not put to you by the Tribunal and it was not put to you by Prosecution counsel. You volunteered here on the witness stand to prove yourself a champion of religious freedom. You told us a very dramatic story of how in the field you opened the churches, that you led the population to the churches, so it is a subject which you opened up, not which anyone else invited you to address yourself upon. So therefore, these questions are put only because you opened the door to such questions. So, now we come back to the question which was this namely; were you interested in advancing the policies of the Nazi Party?
A. I was certainly not interested during my tern of office to supply propagandistic material with which another practical propaganda point could be supported. That was not the task I was in charge of.
Q. were you interested generally in advancing the Nazi Party?
A. I carried out what was within my field of task, but I cannot say that during any time, any period since 1939, I was interested in order to support the National Socialist Party in all its aims, but within the course of years certain very strong differences between my own attitude and the developing aims of the National Socialistic Party came into existence. garding Jews, did you not? Please answer that question, yes or no.
A. Yes, I know this point of program.
Q. Very well, and as a member of the Party and a member of the SS you were sworn to carry out the policies of Hitler, were you not?
A. No, I had not taken the oath as to that, to carry out everything without conditions, everything that Hitler ordered.
Q. You did not take the oath of allegiance to Hitler?
A. Yes, I was supposed to be faithful to Hitler, but not-
Q. Did you take the oath of allegiance to Hitler?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes, and that oath goes something like this, does it not: "I swear - or I vow - inviolable allegiance to Adolf Hitler, I will follow whatever he says or whatever his leaders direct me to do." Generally speaking, isn't that what the oath says?
A. Yes.
Q. That you were to follow Hitler and his leaders regardless, that is, what the oath says, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q Very well, And the basic principle of Hitler's policy, one of the basic principles, was war on the Jews. That is true, isn't it?
A. No, that was not the basic idea.
Q. I said one of the basic policies of Hitler's program was war on the Jews. You mean to deny that?
A. No, not at all.
Q Very well. Then since you had sworn inviolable allegiance to Hitler, and that included necessarily hostility toward the Jews, now do you tell us that in your work you were not interested in using material which you would find against the Jews?
A. I can only say this, if I had done so, your Honor,--I cannot say here that the plan when the department was instituted, that the plan then was in existence.
Q We are not speaking of the plan. Mr. Ferencz merely asked you whether you would not be interested in material against the Jews, and you were horrified at that question. You said, "not for a moment," and that is what provoked this long exchange between the Tribunal and the witness. Now we are asking you whether it is not a fact that in your work that any material which you came across, either through research or accidentally, which could be used against the Jews would be very important in the discharge of your duty toward Hitler?
A. I had no opportunity to do so.
Q. The answer isn't very clear to me. I ask you whether you would not be interested in material which came to your attention, hostile to the Jews, whether you would not be interested in using that material or making it available for others to use against the Jews?
A. No, I had no interest, no personal interest in doing so.
Q. Therefore, to that extent you did not follow your allegiance to Hitler, you had reservations on the Jewish question?
A. It depends what is intended by the Jewish policy of Hitler. I-
Q. We understand you to say that you do not know now what Hitler's policy was against the Jews?
A. I do. Far be it from me to say that the Jewish question was kept a secret in Germany until 1942 or had a different importance or significance than after 1942, and what I have already said. The Jewish question in 1930 or 1935 had an entirely different importance and significance, and I personally state these matters only for the reason that when I entered the NSDAP I did not regard the Jewish question as a basic question of the NSDAP.
Its very shape too must pass now. But at random, in order to prove my opinion and attitude at that time, my tutors were Jews.
Q. I didn't understand you. Who were Jews?
A. In 1934 I was made a doctor, got my doctor's degree under the sponsorship of these people, and if I had been an Anti-Semite I would not. I would not have come to see these two people and I would not have been in charge of them, my two very best teachers. Today I only want to say, to tell-
Q. Two of your teachers were Jews?
A. They were not only my teachers, your Honor, but they were the people under whom I had to work. My doctor's thesis, my thesis to make my doctor's degree, to take the test, as it were, that means a tutor has a certain confidential position.
Q. That was in 1934?
A. 1934.
Q. And you had a great deal of respect for these two men?
A. Yes. I was in the university and in the school and in the lectures. I was invited to their homes, and I must say that this certainly cannot be a bad relationship.
Q. Yes, you had a friendship for these two Jews.
A. The relationship was that of a pupil to his teacher. That means I had respect for them. I regarded one of them particularly with tremendous respect.
Q. And this great respect that you had for these two Jews, did it continue after you left the university?
A. Certainly. For instance, I corresponded with one of these two, and I was in close contact with him for years after.
Q. Do you regard these two Jews as exceptional men, or did they in themselves typify Jewry?
A. They were just as much Jews for me as were others, and I had no experience at that time.
Q. Then if they carried out the general characteristics of Jews, then you would feel very much offended if they were persecuted, wouldn't you? Please answer that question. You would feel very much offended if these two Jews were persecuted, wouldn't you?
A. I personally tried to protect then as far as I could.
Q. Would you please answer that question. You would feel very much offended if these two Jews were persecuted?
A. I regarded it in any case as highly unpleasant that these people were concerned in new laws and regulations.
Q. Answer that question, would you feel personally offended that these two Jews whom you respected and admired so much were persecuted? Would you think it unjust, unfair, unchivalrous and improper in a civilization such as you find in Germany, would you regard it as unjust?
A. Yes, I was hurt personally here, especially in the case of one person who --
Q. All right, Now, do you feel offended when all their brothers and sisters, going up into the hundreds of thousands and millions were persecuted, do you feel hurt when all the other Jews, who were of the same characteristics and temperament as these two Jews as far as race is concerned, do you also feel offended when they were persecuted?
A. May I ask what you mean by persecution, by persecuting, when the period of the persecution begins?
Q. Now, Professor Six, a man who has been a dean of a university and a professor and a journalist and a newspaper man and a general and a soldier, with all of your experience for you to ask what is meant by persecution seems a little trifling. You know from personal insult up to deliberate killings. Now, that is what is meant by persecution. It ran the whole gamut from the simplest kind of an insult to the last grave crime of killing them while they were in a defenseless position and burying them in unmarked graves. That is the definition of persecution. Do you feel offended when all the Jews were persecuted? Do you feel as much offended about that as you did about these two Jews you knew?
A. When on the 9th of November, 1938, I saw and I heard the Jewish synagogues were burned down, I was ashamed as a German, I must say that. I waited for the man Goebbels not to remain for a day longer in his office than necessary, and I must say it was a tremedous shock for me when I saw that he would remain in office, and not only, that but he was justified in his measures. If that is what you want to know, your Honor, I can still say as a German I think it is a shame and a scandal that churches are being burned down.
Q. All right then, you did agree with Hitler's policy of persecution of the Jews.
A. If it is a mortal persecution as it actually happened to be, If it was intentional to carry out the Jewish question systematically into the channel into which it was carried and to carry it out in that manner, if that really had been the case, although I do not know whether it was the case, then it is not for me to say here that I condemned the solution as it was later on called.
Q. Do you agree or not agree with Hitler's policy against the Jews?
A. I did not agree with this shape of politics.
Q. Very well. Then you had that reservation in your oath to Hitler.
A. In only this, your Honor, as a going system.
Q. You did have that reservation in your oath to Hitler?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. when you were protecting the churches in Russia, did you also protect the synagogues?
A. I said in Smolensk there were no synagogues, and it is a fact that although these two churches were protected by me that was mainly for the reason that there were archives there and valuable treasures. I did not want to leave these churches open to plundering and spoliation.
Q. You were interested in the church because it was a depository of documents in which you were interested and not because it was sacred as a place of worship?
A. Why I was interested in this, was that the question?
Q. Yes, because you had told us that you had protected these churches, Now, you say you were protecting them from plundering because archives were located there. Now, I ask you, were you interested in saving these eeclesiastical edifices because they were the depositories of documents in which you were interested, and not because they were places sacred to worship?
A. I thought they were places of worship, and I thought one should return these places to people for this purpose. I believed that it was necessary and self-evident that churches that were wished for by the population as places of worship should be returned. I do not think it is my merit only that this was done, and I think a number of people did that, and I do not want to brag about it because I regard this as selfevident that it should be done.
Q. Well, you bragged about it on Friday, and have you changed your mind about it now?
A. No, but I do not Want to brag about it.
Q. How many men were in your command in Moscow, in your kommando?
A. In the Advance Kommando Moscow there were twenty-three people.
Q. In your organization did you have a chaplain?
A. In the advance Kommando Moscow, no. The advance Kommando's twenty-three men did not have a chaplain.
Q. Did you have a chaplain in your other organization, when you were with the Waffen-SS?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever conduct religious services yourself for your men?
A. I could not do so. I am not a clergyman.
Q. Did you ever offer them facilities for worshiping?
A. If a man intended to go to church and worship he could do so, he was free to do so.
Q. Your interest, therefore, in Moscow, in saving these churches, was an interest which did not arise out of any religious impulse in yourself, do I take it?
A. Religious impulse, your Honor, was put in front of me as it were. It was wished that churches would be put at the disposal of the population, and I thought it was the right thing to do, to grant this impulse.
Q. Are you -- You don't need to answer this question if you don't want to. Are you a religious person yourself?
A. Yes, I regard myself as a religious person. It didn't seem clear to me when you were discussing the terror in Russia which you witnessed whether this terror was being perpetrated by the Russian forces or the German forces.
A. What I mean to say, your Honor, was that I myself am of the opinion that in the course of time instead of a peaceful policy in Russia a power policy, a force policy, was developed as it was connected in Germany with the name Koch. What actually happened is not only a shock to me but it was also a shock to large parts of the German population.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry to have broken in on your cross-examination, Mr. Ferencz. You may proceed. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q. Six, you stated that when you saw the burning of the synagogues as a German it struck you as a shame and a scandel. I ask you now, when you became aware of the fact that such defendants as Ohlendorf and Naumann here were executing or ordering the execution of people, did that strike you also as a shame and a scandal?
A. I can say that all these measures which were instituted in Russia at the outbreak of the war came under an unambiguous and clear Fuehrer order, and I think I left no doubt when I said that each person was in severe dispute with himself, and there are people who had this tension and it remained until this very day, but at the moment in which I am confronted with an order to a supreme commander or political leader, I am confronted with a choice on the one side and a political order on the other side. This tension is not new and historically speaking there always has been such a tension, I cannot say now if I am confronted with an order not --
Witness, pardon the interruption. However, I would appreciate it if you would first answer the question and then you may give whatever explanation you see fit. Now, I am asking you a simple question. You stated when you learned of the burning of the synagogues as a German it struck you as a shame and a scandal. I am asking you as a German did it strike you as a shame and a scandal when you learned of the murder of defenseLess people?
Answer the question and then proceed with your explanation. Is you answer yes or no? Did it strike you as a shame and a scandal when you learned about the execution of defenseless people?
A You mean, women and children?
Q You recognize the circumstances. You have told us there was a general Hitler order to kill all the Jews. When you learned that that Was being carried out, did it strike you as a shame and a scandal?
A I am prepared to answer it, but I cannot answer, if you don't ask me the question, "when". These orders that Jewish children and women were to be liquidated, I never learned in Russia. I cannot answer that, if I never found out about it. I cannot say how I regarded it. It is a hypothetical question. Nazi and an SD officer that the Hitler order to kill Jewish women and children and men was being carried out. When you found that out, at any time, did it strike you as a shame and a scandal, the same as the burning of a synagogue struck you as a shame and a scandal?
Q Did you regard it as a shame and a scandal. Those are your own words, you remember, as regards the synagogues. called by Goebbels as a spontaneous action, out without disregarding the Order of the Chief of State, the fact that synagogues actually burned and that no steps were taken to prevent this, I regarded as a shame, as a German and as a human being, but I cannot regard an order as a shame. It is, after all, the contents of an order, but not the order itself. I cannot say that an order is a scandal. If the Chief of State issues an order, I can only regard it as a human being, and I am prepared to regard and to judge it as a human being, but I cannot say that an order is a scandal, an order by the Chief of State.
I cannot answer that question.
Q I am not asking you about the order. I am asking you about the results of that order, the actual execution of people. You must have learned about that at some time in your long career as a Nazi. When you learned that people were actually being killed as a result of a Hitler Order, did that affect you as much as the burning of the synagogues did?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, I think it would be well, if you stuck to his original phrase, "a shame and a scandal", so that we don't get off into other bypaths.
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, Your Honor. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q You used the words, "shame and a scandal", as regarding the burning of the synagogues. I am asking you now, when you learned that people were killed, that Jews were killed, did that strike you as a shame and a scandal too? children as a scandal and a shame, whether they were killed by partisans, or the Fuehrer Order, or by bombs. That remains exactly the same, whether the killing of women and children is a shame. If you want this answer immediately, I regard it generally as a shame.
Q I am not asking you generally. I am asking you very specifically, and I would appreciate a specific answers: When you learned that women and children and anyone else were being killed by you, were being killed by the German, as a result of the Hitler order, did you regard that as a shame and a scandal? regarded the killing of the Germans. I simply cannot make any difference between the one and the other.
Q Is the answer, "Yes", you regarded it as a shame and a scandal, when you thought about it, is that correct?
Q Way don't you answer the question specifically? I put the question specifically.
Why do insist on making it general?
THE PRESIDENT: Put the question specifically and get a specific answer. BY MR. FERENCZ: the Hitler Order, did you regard that as a shame or a scandal?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, or no. not enter my head, but my reaction did not work in this direction.
THE PRESIDENT: You are being a little slow in answer to the questions which were put to you, but you will observe that in every instance, the series of questions follow upon something volunteered by yourself. These questions are all prescribed and precipitated by the statements which you volunteered on the witness stand. Further you indicated very specifically that you regarded the destructions of the synagogues on November 8, 1938, as a shame and a scandal. Now the question put to you by Mr. Ferencz is simply this: Since you regarded the destruction of the synagogues as a shame and a scandal, did you also regard the execution of Jews as a result of the Fuehrer Order as a shame and a scandal? Now, please answer that Yes or No or tell us you feel dis clined to answer it.
Now, yes, or no, or indicate you do not want to answer that at all.
THE WITNESS: Must I answer this question, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: I have indicated that if you don't want to answer it, then the Tribunal will have to assume that you don't want to make a comparison between the destruction of an inanimate conglomeration of stone, brick, and mortar, and pulsing live human beings. Now, if you don't want to answer the question, the Tribunal does not demand that you answer any question. You are indicted and you voluntarily take the stand. No defendant is compelled to take the stand, if he does not wish to, but once he takes the stand, he is subject to cross-examination and then, if he volunteers statements, certainly those statements are open to inquiry end the witness stated that he regarded it as being a shame and a scandal that the synagogues were destroyed.
Now Mr. Ferencz very properly asked you "Do you regard the destruction, the killing, the executing of men, women and children, as a result of the Fuehrer Order, a shame and a scandal?" Now, please answer that, yes or no, but, if you don't want to answer it, then, say, "Please, I do not wish to answer that question" and we will pass on to something else.
THE WITNESS: The shooting of women and children -
THE PRESIDENT: No, no. Now, we don't want another long speech. You are very interesting and we enjoy these bookish lectures of yours, being a university professor, they are very interesting, but now we have spent a great deal of time on this particular question and we don't want any long speech. Now, once again, Mr. Ferencz, put that question and stop there, and the witness will answer, yes, or no, except, if he is disinclined to answer it, then, he will have to ask the Tribunal to excuse him from answering the question, and of course be excused from answering the question. BY MR. FERENCZ: ler Order, did you regard it as a shame and a scandal?
Q I shall come to one more question. When defenseless men were shot, did you regard that as a shame and a scandal?
THE PRESIDENT: Why does it depend? Now, he said, if defenseless men were executed, a man is defenseless, he is helpless, he doesn't have an are to defend himself, I think that is what is meant by "defenseless", I don't need to have that amplified. If defenseless men were executed under the Fuehrer Order, did you regard that execu tion as a shame and a scandal?
THE WITNESS: If it is the expression of the fuehrer Order, then not.
Q Well, we have an interesting situation then. If defenseless men are killed as a result of a Hitler Order, you say that you did not regard that as a shame and a scandal. If defenseless women and children were killed, then you did regard that as a shame and a scandal. Why do you make the distinction? yes or no. This is the first time I have been allowed to say anything for some time, but I want to say something on my side, to make an objection. If you don't force me to answer, yes, or no, I want to state, Mr. Prosecutor, the term, "defenseless men" has to be defined very closely and you told me that I would be allowed to give a clarification afterwards. At the moment, or at least, shall we say, when I now state the meaning of the term "defenseless", the question is whether he would have the possibility to find out the case, or whether he would have been able to examine the actual possibility -
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, I think we can shorten this. What Mr. Ferencz meant, and you are right in objecting to the word "defenseless", if it were taken apart from the context of what has been going on now for two days by this: a man, a Jew, who was executed merely because he was a Jew. He was not spoken of as an individual that was given a trial or who was proved to have committed sabotage, or who was an active partisan, or who was lead out and shot. That is an act of war. We do not mean that idea. It means a man who was shot merely because he was Jewish, not having committed a crime, merely because of his race. Did you regard the killing of such a man, such a defenseless person as a shame and a scandal? I think that answers your objection.
THE WITNESS: In this question -BY MR. FERENCZ: The Tribunal has clarified the question. Would you answer the Tribunal's question, please?