Q. Well, then you would have refused to obey the Fuehrer order?
A. Well, I probably would not have been able to do so. I would have had to commit suicide. And I consider all that possible according to the experience I had with the reaction of the human conscience.
Q. If Hitler had told you personally, standing at your side, to execute this ten-year-old boy, would you have followed his order?
A. I don't think so, your Honor - that the authority would have been so strong that I would have overcome my feelings.
Q So, then, you didn't adore Hitler to the extent that you would have committed murder?
A Surely the allegiance would have been broken. In any case, that would have been the beginning.
Q You would have executed a woman, but not a child?
A I really don't know, your Honor. I only said that I imagine that easier, but whether I could really have done this I cannot say now.
Q Now, Jews have been executed for burning houses, is that right? weren't they?
Q All right. We understood you to say that you had a bad conscience for only executing part of the order. Does that mean that you regretted that you had not obeyed entirely the Fuehrer order?
A Yes. This feeling of guilt was within me. The feeling of guilt about the fact that I, as an individual, was not able, and considered it impossible, to follow a Fuehrer order. you would have felt more at ease if you could have gone along with the entire order? received an order which I could have understood, or its consequence, and results, and thought it to be absolutely necessary, because then this order would have been supported by my feelings so that my rejection could have been overcome by reason and by feelings, just like it is with a soldier who also has to kill.
Q Well, now, you don't compare the duty of a soldier to kill in battle with the function that you were called upon to perform, do you? for the moral conflicts and strain, which could become so great that one had to try to evade the order.
had not lived up to the full extent of the Fuehrer order?
A Yes. The order was so forceful as an order for me. regrets to Hitler that you were unable to execute the entire order which he had given to you? the reasons which caused no to do so. allegiance to him? allegiance which you had made to him? would never have been convinced that this relation which seemed ideal to me would have brought me into such conflicts. him? not obey him to the full extent.
Q Yes. But in spite of this modification in your mind you want on from 1941 to 1945, still being faithful to him?
A That is in development, of course. Criticism awoke slowly owing to this first event, and solely criticism was expressed.
Q By you?
Q Were you criticising Hitler after 1941? order which I considered wrong.
Q What order was that? this order. That was in 1944.
Q But you went on still being faithful to him, did you not?
Q Well, you still were faithful to Adolf Hitler? it was my conviction that Hitler was as important as the German fate, and also when adoration and love began to vanish, I still had the feeling that I had to do my duty. did you not?
A Yes, your Honor; I did not lose that feeling immediately. victory to Germany, as he had up to 1941?
Q So you still had an admiration for him, up until the and?
Q I am speaking generall, now... You still had a great admiration for him as a leader and as a statesman? suicide and left you and the rest of Germany to face the problems alone?
Q Did that admiration still continue for him...did you still regard him as a great man?
A Concerning this action, no; but concerning all that had happened before, what he had done, and achieved, that remained. And when one comes to think of it, -- what other way out could he have found?
Q Well, then, you agreed with what he did.. to leave you and all your brother defendants and all of Germany to face the problems which were upon Germany, without his great assistance as a statesman? have helped any more, your Honor.
Q So that your admiration still went on...because he was up against a situation that he could not overcome?
ings decisively. Only a factual investigation of everything that happened could clarify matters for me. I would have considered it my duty to consider what I thought and felt, at the time, based on what has become generally known, to examine everything in my mind, and surely I would not try to revise my judgment and to change it, if I was convinced that I had followed an idol. luck, but he was still a great figure in your mind and heart? thing that happened is the logical consequence of positive and negative matters.
Q Now, please answer this one question. Did you still admire him after April 1945, or not? could not have happened, not even concerning Hitler.
Q Well, then, you did not admire him after he committed suicide?
A There are some things, your Honor, which remain... and must, in my opinion be recognized as an achievement.
Q Well, then, you still do admire him? things which he did.
Q Yes; you still regard that he was a great man and had done a great deal for Germany? have opportunity to examine everything that has happened. now... you went through the war, you lived in Germany, and you had two and one-half years to reflect on what has happened. Now do you still regard Adolf Hitler a great man on the stage of history, and that he did accomplish many wonderful things for Germany, and, therefore, falls into the category of a great man?
Do you believe that today? become more critical of events which occurred... I can only give a judgment when I have looked into things.
Q Well then, you can give one of three answere: one, you do admire Hitler as a great man, a statesman and a leader; two, you do not admire him as a great man, a statesman and a leader; three, you have your doubts as to whether he was a great man, a statesman and leader. Now, which one of these three answers will you choose? which purported to be an excerpt from a newspaper published on 29 March 1938 regarding the annexation of Austria to Germany. You are familiar with that newspaper, are you? cardinals? was represented by these ecclesiastics, favored the union between Austria and Germany? its opinion on this political matter?
Q And you had faith in the church?
A I myself was neutral. I was not a member..... church?
A May I have that again, please? I beg your pardon, your Honor, I did not quite understand. regarding union between Austria and Germany. You were very much pleased with this statement. You had faith in the church in expressing this statement of approval?
Q Yes, and you had a great deal of respect for the church?
Q Well then, why did you leave the church?
A I had left the church before, your Honor. The reason was that my religious ideas I could not combine with the dogma of the Protestant Church. it expressed a political judgment which agreed with your political judgment ?
A No, your Honor. My step was a private and personal step. As the functions and tasks of the church and their meaning for the education of the people and for the moral attitude of human beings was never doubted by me, I, therefore, believe that the declaration by the bishops in Austria was very welcome, because I realised that in the Eastern Territory, the Ostmarks in particular, the influence of the church towards the moral attitude of the people was a very strong one and that, therefore, the development of the state and the annexation could only be guaranteed if the church assisted. you because this is entirely a political matter. not avoid taking an interest in this.
Q It was a political act on the part of the church. It had nothing to do about a man's soul and his answerability to God, did it? the soul and a church should and can take an interest in this.
Q But you didn't think enough about the church for you to remain in the church. You left it yourself, didn't you? was like this: formerly the Protestant Church, to which I had belonged, for example, had among their principles a host of great spirits. For example, I had a clergyman who confirmed me who considered art and natural feelings very important and in his sermons he touched on all the great minds in German literature and philosophy.
That was a world where I liked to live. Later on the church developed to the opposite and became very orthodox and then I could not follow any more.
Q Therefore, to that extent you condemned the church? convinced-
Q You withdrew from the church? was when the church of Austria, insofar as represented by these bishops, approved of the annexation of Austria by Germany. important to me even then.
Q Now, just one final question. He asked you of your estimate of Hitler today, and we concluded from what you said that you entertained great doubts as to whether he was a great man or not. If he were here today, if he were in this courtroom, would you express that to him, that you have great doubts about his having done any good for Germany?
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. The defendant will be withdrawn from the witness stand.
DR. LUMMERT: I beg your pardon, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless you have some further questions.
DR. LUMMERT: In the meantime I have looked at the document which Mr. Ferencz gave me, and I request that I may be permitted to ask him which is the section of this document which he read out yesterday?
Mr. Ferencz just told me that he did not read anything out of this document but that he merely showed the entire document to the witness, but I believe Mr. Ferencz has given the contents of a part of this document. That is what I understood, is that right?
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, I believe the defense counsel was here during the cross-examination when I asked the witness whether he had received an order from Himmler concerning the execution of whole families of persons who were believed to be partisans, and I showed him this document to refresh his memory.
DR. LUMMERT: In that case, may I address a short question to the witness? May I state first that this document is not expressly addressed to the Defendant Blume, but thedocument contains an order by the Reichsfuehrer--SS Himmler of 25 June 1942 and is headed, "Order for the Suppression of Band Activity in the Territories Oberkrain and Untersteiermark." At one place the name of the Defendant Blume is mentioned. There it says, "SS-Standartenfuehrer Blume," Under the command of the Security Police, there was a certain General Roesener. His name was mentioned before. Under his order Blume was in charge of the Security Police tasks at the time during this partisan combating, and then the order says here, as Mr. Ferencz told us yesterday, that they were to act without consideration even against family members of any man and that the second aim was that the population who meant well be relieved of the pressure of the hands and to give them a feeling of security under the German Reich. BY DR. LUMMERT: the time you got this order about the treatment without consideration of family members, in particular of children, whether you carried this out or whether you did not carry it out, or what way cut you found. that I am very proud of my time in Slovenia. May I give the reason very briefly? The wording of this order I do not remember any more, but I knew the task I was given at the time, namely, to fight with all means at my disposal the band activity in Slovenia, inasfar as it meant the Security Police section. I did not interpret this order to this effect, that I had to carry out measures of suppressing people, but I considered it necessary immediately to find out the reasons why these people who had greeted our soldiers with flowers when they arrived, had brought them into the mountains with arms, chasing them there.
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.