A. Yes, yes.
Q. They were happy to the extent that they came and thanked you, they wrote you letters, they sent you flowers. Is that right?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Yes....now, do we gain from all this that the Danish people were very happy about their country being occupied by Germans?
A. No, that is not the case.
Q. Very well. Then you were the exception?
A. Not I, personally, was the exception, but I would say the authority, the office of the Plenipotentiary of the Reich and the population, - the line that was kept as far as administration goes, was only borne by the thought of the idea to settle any harshness that might have cropped up. After all, Your Honor, we were not at war with Denmark. They were conditions of occupation, and they were all regulated by contract, and it was our task, or at least we saw it as out task, to take care that the points of the contract were kept, also on the part of the occupation power, that was the German Wehrmacht and the German police.
Q. You were not at war with Denmark?
A. No.
Q. Well were you at war with Norway?
A. Yes.....there conditions were different.
Q.Were you at war with the Netherlands?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you at war with Belgium?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, how do you distinguish between Denmark and these other countries?
A. Your Honor, officially we were not at war with Denmark. When the occupation of the country took place......
Q. Were you officially at war with Holland?
A. As far as I know, yes.
Q. Well, distinguish to me between Denmark and the Netherlands-insofar as German official action is concerned.
A. I am not acquainted with conditions in the Netherlands, but in Denmark it was thus that as soon as the country was occupied --it wasn't that war was declared.
Q. Well, was war declared against any country -- with the exception of two or three? Was war declared against Russia?
A. Your Honor, that, of course, depended on the attitude of each individual country.
Q. Well, now, listen ... witness, the Tribunal has no desire at all to enter into any political discussion; but when you make a statement, then you must be prepared to explain it. If the statement seens in conflict with the general historical knowledge of any situation, then we must know whether you stand by that statement. That is the way we can determine the credibility of a witness. Now, you say that Germany was not at war with Denmark?
A. Yes.
Q. And you stand on that?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, for the purpose of understanding why you make the remark, when history indicates that Germany invaded Denmark and performed all a nation does in the manner of waging a war in order to occupy and control a country, -- when you tell us that there was no state of war there, then we would like to have you tell us why you make that statement and differentiate between Denmark, which was invaded in the same way as Luxembourg? If you can make that distinction, tell us; if you cannot, say nothing, and we will pass to the next subject. Can you distinguish between the invasion of Denmark and the invasion of Luxembourg?
A. Yes.
Q. In a few words, tell us the distinction.
A. I see the difference in the following: In Denmark an independent government remained in force even after the occupation, an independent government, headed by the king. The entire administration of the country remained, and was, until 1945, Danish. In the other occupied territories it must have been different. I did not want to explain anything else, Your Honor...anything else, when I said that we were not at war with Denmark - which was the case, as the administrative structure.
Q. Very well. We only wanted an explanation as to why you came to that conclusion, and you have given us your explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: BY DR. RIEDIGER:
Q. Witness, what was your own attitude concerning the Jewish policy of National Socialism?
A. When I joined the NSDAP in 1937 I, as everybody else, did not think that any power acts would be carried out towards Jewry. Evidently, the years of distress after the first World War had opened up the question for some solution concerning the communal life -- a life, that is, of German citizens and Jewish citizens. As has been mentioned here before, the percentage of the Jewish element in public positions was in no relation of the Reich. If one wants to express it in that way now, the Jewish question did not exist, but nobody thought of using force in solving the problem. Added to this, during the post war years Jews immigrated, after 1918, into the Reich in great numbers, and also these Jews were soon in leading positions in German economic life and became very influential in these circles; and this of course, was regarded with dismay by the German citizens.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I have the impression that Hannsch has not been able to follow, for quite some time now--and I would like to request that the session be interrupted now.
I have been aware of it for some time...that he has not been able to answer my questions, and I think that tomorrow morning he will be able to follow.
THE PRESIDENT: You would want us, then to recess because you fear that at the present moment the defendant Haensch is not in the best physical and mental state?
DR. RIEDIGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, in view of that request made by Dr. Riediger, the Tribunal will now be in recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty o'clock.
(The Tribunal recessed until 0930 hours 3 December 1947.)
against Otto Ohlendorf, et al., defendants, sitting
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II. Tribunal.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, before I proceed with the direct examination of the witness, I would like to thank the Tribunal for stopping proceedings yesterday regarding the Defendant's bad state of health. The defense is in a very delicate and difficult position because even in the evening the witness was in a very bad mental state. The responsibility, of course, is a large one. I had the feeling all the time during the proceedings yesterday that the witness did not react properly and even today I have my doubts and almost misgivings, but I do not want to create the impression that the defense in any way whatsoever wants to interrupt the proceedings. Especially I do not want to create the impression that the witness wants to evade being questioned. the direct examination has been concluded, that the witness should be examined by a physician, as the result of this examination would clear up the state of health of the witness. I myself as a layman cannot take the responsibility and I cannot judge the state of health of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Your request, Dr. Riediger, is entirely a reasonable one and the Tribunal will be pleased to act upon it. You may now proceed with the direct examination, conclude it, and then in the meantime we will have had some COURT II CASE IX doctor prepared to examine the defendant just as soon as your examination is completed.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, if I may take the liberty to suggest that even the cross examination could be carried out later on, because I could imagine that if the physician examines the defendant immediately after his examination in Court he would get the proper picture concerning his state of health.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, it is your recommendation that we proceed normally, you concluding the direct examination and Mr. Hochwald conducting the cross examination, and then we have the medical examination?
DR. RIEDIGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed, Dr. Riediger. BY DR. RIEDIGER:
Q. Witness, we concluded yesterday's session with your attitude towards the Jewish question raised by National Socialism. How did the problems look regarded from your point of view?
A. I may say first that at that time, especially in 1933 and the years following 1933. I did not occupy myself immediately with the Jewish question. I want to say this for a possible clarification, but if I think back to that time then, I can only emphasize one thing again and again. The question was not so much in the foreground at that time when the power was taken over by the National Socialists and during the following years. At least it was not as important as it looks today. The matter which took up all our interest at the time was the elimination of unemployment and the attempt to get a new order, but I have already said COURT II CASE IX yesterday, the problem as such, that is, the Jewish problem, did exist, of course, insofar as after the last World War it had shown that the two parts of the population, the Jewish sector that is, and the Gentile sector in the Reich, came into collision with each other more and more, and this had as its reason in my opinion, the following:
After the last World War there was an especially strong immigration into the Reich from the East which now, in quite a disproportionate manner, took positions in public life.
Q. Did you discuss these matters at the time with Jews themselves?
A. Yes. Therefore, I remember it now; especially concerning the question of immigration after the last World War. I remember discussions in my own home town with a physician, Professor Klineberger, and I also had discussions with an old Jewish lady with whom I lived during my referendar period, a certain Mrs. Markus. It was in Leipzig. These two people by no means rejected this attitude that newly immigrated Jews, those who had immigrated after 1918, were in a certain way unjustified to occupy such posts in German public life of all spheres.
Q. How did you yourself react to these Jews and what was your attitude? Did you not on one occasion have to deal with one case in the RSHA, a case which dealt with an assessor and proceedings against him, who had illtreated Jews, and when was that, what year?
A. My attitude towards the Jewish question I adjusted according to the point of view of the entirety more than anything, and as becomes evident from the fact that I lived with this Mrs. Markus and that I and her other lodgers were on very good relationship with her, that shows, as I said, COURT II CASE IX that individual Jews I did not regard as enemies and I had never thought in any way of ill-treating them, and so exactly as in all other cases I tried to obtain order and cleanliness in the same way in my activity as an expert dealing with disciplinary matters in the RSHA at the time.
I, of course, took steps immediately in this particular case and I know that I was very much upset about this assessor, especially as he was a high official of a certain personal standard who had acted in this manner, I mean, had illtreated this Jew. Therefore, I proceeded according to my memory that must have been either the end of 1942 or at the beginning of 1943 -- in any case it was after I had returned from Russia and after I was again in charge of disciplinary matters, because I am sure that it was after the death of Heydrich.
Q. Excuse my interrupting you, witness, Could you not say clearly what the case was, what the facts were and what happened about this particular case?
A. A report had been received according to which a Jew had been illtreated in public by an official of the State Police office in Berlin. I remember that the report arrived and it had been sent off by officials of a newspaper who had, from the window or in any case from the building, observed and watched this action. The individual happenings I cannot remember today, but I immediately caused an investigation to be conducted against this person concerned; he was released immediately, and, I think, he was arrested. I don't quite remember how he was punished but I do know that at that time, I from a basic point of view advocated that for disciplinary reasons he should be released immediately. I don't know what the outcome was. As the man was an official he must have been dealt with by the disciplinary court.
Q. Witness, excuse me for interrupting you. The outcome of this procedure you do not know; did you never know?
A. I do not remember.
Q. Did you deal with this case personally?
A. It was dealt with in my office. I received that report. I took measures immediately and the matter itself was dealt with by one of my officials.
Q. Witness, please speak a little slower because the reporters can't follow.
A. I immediately initiated the investigation of this particular case and I immediately caused this man to be released, and then the case was dealt with in detail and examined and investigated by an official and government councillor (Regierungsrat) in my own department.
Q. Do you remember the name of the assessor concerned?
A. The assessor, that is, the official of the State Police office in Berlin who had illtreated the Jew, I do not remember. The official who dealt with the whole matter in detail must have been a Regierungsrat, either Regierungsrat Friedrich Schulz or Regierungsrat Fenz. Both these gentlemen were working in my office, but not at the same time. Friedrich Schulz was relieved and replaced. I don't know whether that was during the time of Schulz or Fenz.
Q. Witness, can you remember another case or a number of cases which show your attitude towards the Jewish question?
A. I can only say that when in Denmark, for instance, information was received that Danish citizens of Jewish faith, were to be deported to the Reich, we, and of course especially myself, were absolutely speechless and very much upset about it. I remember it so well because the office of the Reich Plenipotentiary had actually nothing to do with these matters and they did not learn about these things immediately, to begin with.
It was just an accident that one day through the visit of this well known actress, Lulu Ziegler, at my office, through this visit as I say, I found out that rumors circulated in Copenhagen to the effect that Danish Jews were to be deported to the Reich. I was speechless at the time and I did not believe it, that this actually was to happen.
Q. You just said "we were surprised about these measures". What did you mean?
A. Everybody was upset about it. I think there must have been few people perhaps who were of another opinion within the office of the Reich Plenipotentiary and the other offices; they were all who had experience in official and also worldly affairs.
Q. Did you discuss this with your superior at your office and who was the superior?
A. In Denmark, this bit of information which came as a surprise to me from Lulu Ziegler, I immediately passed on to the Reich Plenipotentiary, Dr. Best, and I think before I passed it on to my immediate superior, Dr. Staumann. I went into the office and.........
Q. What was the purpose of this visit of this actress? Did she have a special request?
A. That was in connection with her request and her wish. She applied to me, after her husband had been released, asking me whether she would not be permitted to go with her family......she had a number of children......to emigrate to Sweden. It would have been comparatively easy for her illegally, of course, but she emphasized that she did not want to do so and she asked me whether it would not be possible for me to do this officially for her.
should be done as there was nothing against her. It was really quite an unjustified suspicion against her. In this connection she told me about this rumor and she asked me about it. She added that she was very worried about her friends and acquaintances of her family who were partly Jewish, and she asked me whether she should not advise them to leave Denmark in some way or other. I did not know anything about the whole matter. I had heard about it for the first time and I, after all, was an officially. Therefore, I could not advise her with words but I told her....... and this was approved later on and I was told that that was completely justified and right......I, as I say, through my whole personel attitude and even through the expression on my face, I let her know that I was of the opinion and of the conviction that she should leave Denmark.
Q. Witness, what was your won attitude toward the measures on the part of the government or rather the party against the Jews?
A. I would like to make a destination there, State and Party. Those measures were taken on the part of the State and I saw in these measures that they would serve the purpose of bringing about the solution of the Jewish problem insofar as the Jews would be brought about to emigrate and leave Germany. At that time, as far as I know, the solution of the Jewish problem was always discussed and as it has been mentioned in this trial, this Madagasgar plan was also mentioned. I have, before this examination, told my defense counsel that I seem to remember just Madagasgar and Palestine and that at the time this was also discussed in the press and that negotiations were in progress with France, I believe, in order to have Jews migrate to Madagasgar.
Thus in these measures on the part of the State, or at least as far as they concerned these laws, I saw a sort of legal gap between the two enemy parts of the population which was to serve the purpose of forcing the Jewish population to emigrate on the one hand, and furthermore, regarded from the foreign policy point of view, to cause the other states, who would have been prepared to take in Jews, to carry this out. I must emphasize again that acts of violence were never mentioned to me and I never found out anything about them. I never experienced anything, but acts of violence and terror. I objected psychologically and I still do. only I alone; have strongly objected to the acts of terror which took place in 1938 in November. Again I can only say I did not find out anything else about them until this very day, I, as I say, regard them as purely arbitrary acts of the Party authorities.
As I say I regard them as purely arbitrary acts of party authorities. I was told at the time, and I found out about these things in November, in the shape of rumors that behind these acts was the party leadership under Goebbels. I think it must have been the 8th of November 1938. At that time I was not the Berlin myself, but on this day and the following day I was in Munich and I did not see or experience anything immediately myself but it was at night after midnight in the hotel when suddenly the rumor circulated that excess had happened and were still happening. The largest part of the departmental officials and the leader of the SD main office had come to Munich to take part in the 9 November celebrations. And I know that this bit of information we received in the hotel. There were a number of other leader present. I can certify that generally the whole chain of events was regarded with strong misgivings. This was expressed by all these men. And after that, the next day, not the next but the next but one, I left for Berlin and only in Berlin I learned the facts from acquaintances and friends in the vicinity of our apartment. I found out, I said, in what incredible manner these actions had been carried out. That must have been a day later when it was made known through the press, that acts of terror of any kind, would be punished severely by the police. Until this very day I am of the opinion that these acts were events which were merely arbitrary acts carried out by radical party members and which according to my opinion then had been
PRESIDENT: Dr. Riediger, when the witness has narrated an incident or episode, is it unnecessary for him to repeat it? I would suggest that you keep a central over his testimony. Now, he has told us this episode, that of the responsibility of the party. He referred to it yesterday. He has given it to us today. Now, he is again telling us the responsibility of the party, which is naturally repetitious and unnecessary. I would suggest that when he goes on to an unnecessary length, and it most be apparent to you when that happens, that you ask another question. In that way we will keep it moving.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I shall follow this example. BY DR. RIEDIGER:
Q. Witness, I believe we can now leave this particular sphere. What is your attitude toward Christianity?
A. I already said that I was educated and grew up ion a Christian home, and my religious psychological attitude was and in a positive affirmation of God, or the Christian term of God. Since my early childhood I never felt myself of confronted with any problems concerning this my conviction. For this reason, I did not have to search for God, but for me it is an unvielable firm possession, and the highest one, governing all matters of this earch. And we all have to bow to it; scientists as well as philosophers, because after all the very essential questions cannot be answered by these scientists.
Q. Why did you leave the church, and when was that?
A. I may add now that my leaving the church has nothing to do with my religious conviction or my membership of the party or the SS. I never discussed this with any superior or with any responsible party member of the SS, and I was never asked about these matters, about my own attitude toward these matters, but that is my own private matter, and here again there is a long development until I arrived at the solution: it started after the first world war. I then regarded the church as a mundane organization. I saw and I believe that they had given up their real Christian task, the care of sould of human beings, and had become a mere or less political power. Already in 1922 and '23 I saw church elections of the church parties, that is, in the Protestant Church of Germany, which actually reflected the political parties, and that way one found conservative Christians, liberal Christians, and the church steered more and more towards political power. After '33 the impression became stronger and stronger. by press and radio we learned of the dispute between the various churches. One heard of remarks against the state, on the part of the clergy, and all this brought up the conviction within me that the church was not any longer a church as it should be, namely, the binding member or the spiritual organization and spiritual unit of all these believing in Christ.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, do we understand from what you have just said that you learned from the press and radio that the church in some way was opposed to the state government?
A. Yes.
Q. And you looked with regret upon the dispute between the church and the state?
A. Yes, Your Honor.
Q. And I understand that you felt that that was an improper attitude of the church, and therefore you were willing to withdraw from the church?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, I just wanted to know. BY DR RIEDIGER:
Q. Did your leaving the church mean that you gave up the belief in Christ?
A. No. In no manner, but I may now add to the words of the President, I was confronted with the psychological conflict not caused by the press information which I received but by the events which I experienced myself, that the gap within the population came into existence again, and that it even touched individual families. The cause of my leaving the church was a visit to my own home village; when I found out there that in one individual family, a family of a clergyman, the conflict had become so extensive between father and son-in-law and children that family life as such split up and Christian love could not even be discussed. I have already said that I learned belief from earliest childhood on, and I have always been happiest when I saw the close contact from man to man or from people to people.
Q. Witness, did you have any advantages from your leaving the church?
A. No. There were no advantages gained by my leaving the church, and I never attempted to have any advantages. I should like to say now that my promotion, within the SS especially, took place before my leaving the church. Apart from the last promotion to obersturmbannfuehrer, which had to come as an assimilation of ranks in my office as oberregierungsrat, (Senior Government Counsellor), and this promotion itself came about almost four years after my last promotion to Sturmbannfuehrer.
Q. Witness, I think we can now leave this subject and I would now like to clarify the point concerning your membership in the SD and the SS. When did you enter the SD?
A. I joined the SD as a civilian employee on the 1st of August 1935.
Q. When did you join the SS, Witness?
A. On the 1st of May 1936 I joined the SS, that is, the SS formation SD. This was caused by my new office within the SD.
Q. What offices did you hold in the RSHA?
A. In the RSHA I was only a member of office I.
Q. What tasks did you have to deal with?
A. I had to deal with disciplinary matters--official disciplinary matters and penal matters within my group.
Q. Did you membership of Office I change when you were promoted to Regierungsrat, Government Counsellor?
A. I am sorry, I did not understand the beginning of the question.
Q. Did your membership of Office I change when you were promoted to the Regierungsrat, and when you were taken over in the state service?
A. No. Unfortunately not. At the time it was my wish that it should be so, and it was again a period in which I attempted to apply for another office. With the moment of my promotion to Regierungsrat (Government Counsellor), I became a member of the Ministry of Interior, but I remained a deputy to the Reich Security main office, I requested this, and my request was refused owing to the condition of the war.
PRESIDENT: Just what did the witness mean when he said that he dealt with "disciplinary, and penal matters" within his group? Which group?
DR. RIEDIGER: In my knowledge, it is the group within the Office I.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, may I clarify this? BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Well, just tell me what group, whom do you mean by "group"? Now, just tell me that.
A. I only wanted to express that I was in charge of the group which dealt with disciplinary and penal matters; Office I, was sub divided into various groups.
By this I mean departments, and one of these departments dealt with disciplinary matters and penal matters concerning officials.
Q. Which officials?
A. These were the officials, first of all, members of SD, then officials of other departments of security police or belonging to the Reich Security Main Office.
PRESIDENT: Very well. That answers the question. BY DR. RIEDIGER:
Q. Did your leaving the RSHA change your relationship and your membership in the SS?
A. I never understand this until now; through the documents I found out the real state of affairs. I was explained at that time when I left, that from now on I would be transferred to the Fuehrungshauptamt (leadership main office), but really nothing happened. I, myself, from the very day of my leaving this office, heard nothing about it any more. The validity stamp on the SS membership cards, it was only valid for about three months, then a new stamp had to be entered. I never received any more, and I never requested it. I had no contact whatsoever except through one questionnaire which I was sent, I believe, in 1944 for me to fill out--a personnel questionnaire. I never sent it back. This becomes evident from my SS personnel files. They show that the old personnel questionnaire of 1937 is contained, but this new questionnaire is not contained. Therefore, practically, if I may call it that, a la suite, I was carried on the files of the Reich Security Main Office as a member of the SS, as it becomes evident from these documents now.
Q. Did you ever serve in the General SS?
A. No. I was never a member of the General SS, and I never did any General SS Service or any other SS Service, as for instance, Sturm service, as we had been used to from the motorized SA or the NSKK (the motorized units of the SS). Not a single member of the RSHA or the SD ever did any service.
DR. RIEDIGER: Actually, Your Honor, I have no more questions, but I would like to correct the affidavit, that is, the translation of the affidavit of the Witness of Volume III C.
PRESIDENT: Tell us in what particular.
DR. RIEDIGER: It is page 54, German: I don't know the English at the moment.
MR. HOCHWALD: It is page 35 of Document Book III C.
DR. RIEDIGER: Exhibit 140, No. 4567. There on a number of cocasions "parteitraeger" is mentioned ("official"). This does not correspond to the actual statement of the witness.
PRESIDENT: What page of the original, Dr. Riediger?
DR. RIEDIGER: It is page 71 in my book.
RESIDENT: No. What page of the documents, original -- the original documents is divided into many pages.
MR. HOCHWALD: It is page 18 of the original, Your Honor.
PRESIDENT: All right, proceed.
DR. RIEDIGER: There are a number of other mistakes in the translation which, however, are not as irritating. This is a mistake here which is of some consequence. I would like this to be noted in the record.
PRESIDENT: Please repeat it. I didn't catch it at first because I didn't have the page.
DR. RIEDIGER: The wording is page 40.
MR. HOCHWALD: From the top, para. 4, on page 43.
PRESIDENT: Now please, just a minute, we are confusing this. Dr. Riediger, refer to the page in the original document, and then read it the way it appears now and the way you believe it should appear.
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honor, it is page 18 of the original, page 43 of the English document book, second para from the top, and signed as para 4. There are some paragraphs mentioned in the other page before that.
PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps Mr. Hochwald, you can assist Dr. Riediger by your reading from the original and then determining from Dr. Riediger wherein he claims there is an error in the translation from the German.
MR. HOCHWALD: If I understand Dr. Riediger correctly, Your Honor, he does not claim that it is an error in the translation but he claims that when the document was transcribed from the handwriting of the witness into the mimeographed copy here, a mistake was made in the German.
PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, then tell us what that error is.
MR. HOCHWALD: He claims that instead of the word "parteitraeger" which means party officials, which appears in the mimeographed copy, the witness wrote himself the word "pertepetraeger", which would mean an officer, an officer who was permitted to wear a strap on his sword, and this strap means "pertepetraeger". "Pertepetraeger" would then be an officer. As far as I can see from the English, that is not a very big difference, as the English says, "Occasionally officer or authorized persons also attended the executions." It is not said in the translation, which very likely was made from the photostat of the original, that there were party officials present.
PRESIDENT: Very well. That explanation will appear in the transcript. Now, what is next, Dr. Riediger?
DR RIEDIGER: The others are negligent matters which I do not have to mention.