Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-20/tgmwc-20-192.11 Last-Modified: 2000/11/03 MAJOR MURRAY: If the Tribunal please, I should like to bring into evidence another brief document, Document 2992-PS, Exhibit USA 494. This is a portion of that affidavit which has not previously been read into evidence. It is the affidavit of Hermann Friedrich Rabe. I am sure the Tribunal will recall that affidavit where this German citizen recounted the SS-SD men shooting large numbers of helpless individuals, the document which was referred to by the Attorney-General of Great Britain a few days ago. In the first part of that affidavit Rabe states: "SS man acting as a guard on the edge of the pit during the shooting of Jewish men - " THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. This document is in evidence already, is it not? MAJOR MURRAY: It is, my Lord, but not this particular portion of it referring to the SD. I did not intend to repeat the other portions, but this portion refers specifically to the SD and it is only those two sentences that I intend to read. Paragraph 1: "The SS man acting as the guard on the edge of the pit during the shooting of Jewish men, women and children, at the airport near Dubno, wore an SS uniform with a grey armband about three centimetres wide on the lower part of his sleeve, with the letters 'SD' in black on it, woven in or embroidered." And dropping down to the last portion of the second paragraph: [Page 194] "On the morning of 314th July I recognized three or four SS men in the ghetto whom I knew personally and who were all members of the Security Service in Ravno. These persons also wore the armband mentioned above." It is a fact, is it not, witness, that many, of the members of these Einsatzkommandos were members of your SD organization? A. I already said before that few members of these Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos were members of the Security Service. It is not said here in any way that these people to whom reference is made in this document had anything to do with the Domestic Intelligence Service; and if there was one there who belonged to that body - which is certainly not seen from the document, because it only says that he wore a uniform with the SD insignia - then he had been detailed for that special service just as anyone else may be inducted into the armed forces. That is precisely the chief reason for a large number of mistakes which were made with that term SD, that even the members who were on special service all wore the same uniform. Q. In any event, Ohlendorf was a member of the SD, was he not? A. Ohlendorf was chief of Office III, but that had nothing to do with the fact that he also commanded an Einsatzgruppe. That Einsatzgruppe could just as well have been commanded by the chief of Office IV or V, or by an inspector or anybody else. That had nothing to do with the activity of Ohlendorf as chief of Office III. Q. Now, Ohlendorf has testified that frequent reports were compiled by the Einsatzgruppen and sent back to the headquarters. Did you see any of these reports while you were in the headquarters of RSHA? A. No. That was not possible because during the period when I came to Berlin most of the Einsatzgruppen from the East had been recalled. At any rate, no further reports were coming in, and I am entirely of the opinion that in Office III, the Domestic Intelligence Service, only a very few men saw the reports from the Einsatzgruppen. Q. I would like to have shown to you a series of fifty-five weekly reports of the activities of the Einsatzgruppen, and, incidentally, the Einsatzgruppen are known as the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD. A. No, no, there were no Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the Security Service, but rather there were only the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C and D in the East; and, indeed, there were good reasons for that. Q. Before submitting that document to you, witness, I would like to have you examine Document 3876-PS, which has already been admitted in evidence as Exhibit USA 808; I call your attention to the title page of that document, signed by Heydrich, which reads as follows: "I herewith enclose the 9th summary report concerning the activity of the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD in the U.S.S.R. This report will be sent out periodically in the future." Signed Heydrich. Are you not mistaken, witness, in saying that these were not known as Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and SD? A. No. These Einsatzgruppen figured as Einsatzgruppen A, B, C and D. They were commanded by a deputy of the chief of the Security Police and the SD with the Army groups in question, or with the army. The designation "Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD " is unfortunately wrong. Q. So Heydrich is wrong again, is he, and all the documents are wrong? A. No, I do not want to say that the document is false, but I merely maintain that the expression is not correct. I ask you to look at the distribution list; it says there: "To the chiefs of Einsatzgruppen A, B, C arid D." Besides, the Einsatzkommandos were not called Kommandos and Security Police of the SD, but, as far as I know, they had Arabic numerals from one to twelve. [Page 195] Q. This, of course, is a report of your chief, Heydrich, and I will not enlarge on the point. Turn now to Pages 331 and 32. It is at the bottom of Page 32 in Heydrich's - A. One moment, please. There is no Page 31 or 32 in my document. Q. It is a very short passage. I will read it to you: "In White Ruthenia the purge of Jews is under way. The number of Jews in the part up to now handed over to the civil administration amounts to 139,000." A. Yes. Q. "In the meantime ... " in the last sentence. "In the meantime, 33,210 Jews were shot by the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the Security Service SD." It does not say anything there about groups A, B, C or D, does it? A. No, it says Security Police and SD. I only do not understand what that is supposed to have to do with the Domestic Intelligence Service, Security Service. Q. Except that Ohlendorf was the head of your service, was he not? A. When he functioned as chief of Office III - in Berlin, but during the time when he directed Einsatzgruppe D, he was on special service, and the period of special service is treated exactly like a period of compulsory military service. Q. Witness, are you informed of the fact that the SD was carrying on espionage activities in the United States prior to Germany's declaration of war against the United States? A. I cannot imagine that the Domestic Intelligence Service would have worked in the United States. Q. I would like to offer in evidence, if the Tribunal please, Document 5043-PS, which becomes Exhibit USA 920. This document is a teletype message of the Foreign Office, dated 11th July, 1941. I will read just one sentence from it, "Reference teletype No. 2110 of 5.7 from Washington. Herr Reich Foreign Minister (RAM)." That was Ribbentrop, was it not? "Herr Reich Foreign Minister requests you submit immediately a written report as to who, amongst those in New York arrested on suspicion of espionage, worked with the Abwehr and who with the SD." Witness, does not that look as though the SD was carrying on espionage activities in New York long prior to the declaration of war on the United States? A. One of the first questions which Herr Gawlik presented to me was whether one could designate the Foreign Intelligence Service as SD. I said, "Yes," and further clarification was that the Domestic Intelligence Service and the Foreign Intelligence Service were different organizations. Whether the Foreign Intelligence Service, the foreign SD, Office VI, had anything to do with this matter I cannot judge, because I never worked in Office VI and understand nothing about these things. MAJOR MURRAY: Of course, when they were all part of the SD I mean they were all members of the SD. I have no more questions. THE PRESIDENT: Would you re-examine if you, want to? Did the Soviet Prosecutor want to ask any questions? COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I did want to put a few questions to the witness, but these questions are in connection with one new document - quite an interesting document - which we only received today, and for this reason, we have not had the translation into English made up. Therefore, I do not know whether it would be appropriate for me to put this question now when I do not have an English translation to present to the Tribunal. THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we could do it in the morning. It would be translated by then. Perhaps you could do it in the morning? COLONEL SMIRNOV: Thank you very much, Mr. President, yes. [Page 196] THE P RESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, would you re-examine him now? DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I do not know whether I will not also have more questions after the new document is presented. That, of course, I could not judge now. THE PRESIDENT: Well, if there is anything that arises from the new document, you could put the questions later on. You will have a further opportunity if necessary. DR. GAWLIK: Yes. RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK: Q. Were the SS uniforms with the SD sign also worn by persons who had nothing to do with the SD? A. Yes, I have explained that repeatedly. Q. Were the SS uniforms with the SD flash, also worn by persons who had nothing to do with the SS? A. Yes. I have already explained that repeatedly. Q. Can you make any explanation as to why individuals who had nothing to do with the SD wore the SD flash? A. First, because all members of the Security Police also wore that uniform; secondly, because any man at all who served with an Einsatzkommando or an Einsatzgruppe wore a uniform and the only uniform was the field-grey SS uniform with the SD-flash. Q. Why did they wear the SD flash? A. Because it belonged to the uniform. DR. GAWLIK: I have no more questions. EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL BY THE PRESIDENT: Q. Have you got this document before you, 3867-PS? A. 3867-PS? Q. Yes. You see what it says there. "I herewith enclose the 9th summary report concerning the activities of the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD in the U.S.S.R." That is the second paragraph, you see that - describing the report? A. In my document book there are several loose documents. Is it the one of 27th February? Q. 27th February, 1942, Page 17. Have you got it? A. Yes, I have it. Q. First of all you see it says "regarding report No. 9 concerning the activity of the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD in the U.S.S.R." And then the first enclosure. Heydrich encloses the 9th summary report concerning the activity of the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD in the U.S.S.R. A. Yes. Q. And you said, as I understood it, these were not the Einsatzgruppen of the SD but were called Einsatzgruppen A, B, C and D? A. Yes. Q. That is what you meant, was it not, that you could not explain why they were "called of the SD"? A. Yes. Q. Well, will you explain why when distribution is set out it is to be distributed to the chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C and D, and also to the commanders of the Security Police and the SD? A. May I make a statement concerning this report? [Page 197] If Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos of the Security Police and the SD are mentioned, then this designation is not accurate in this report, because that designation did not exist in the East. There were only Einsatzgruppen A, B, C and D and Einsatzkommandos numbers 1, 2, 3, and so on. Q. Assuming that that is so, why then should the report be sent to the commanders of the Security Police in the SD in a separate distribution to them as well as the distribution to the chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen unless the SD had something to do with it? A. I believe I was misunderstood somehow. It is a report about the activities of all the Einsatzgruppen which was summarised by the chief of the Security Police of the SD and which then went to the individual Einsatzgruppen, as I assume, so that they would know what had happened in other Einsatzgruppen, and so Einsatzgruppe D would know what had happened in Einsatzgruppen A, B and C. Q. Yes, it was not only sent to the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C and D; it was also sent to the commanders of the Security Police and SD. What I am asking you is: Why was it sent to the commanders of the Security Police and the SD if they had nothing to do with it? A. Probably Heydrich wanted the commanders of the Security Police and SD in Cracow, and the Higher SS and Police Leaders to be informed of what was done in these Einsatzgruppen, because it was also sent to the Higher Police Leaders in Breslau, Dresden, etc., who certainly had nothing to do with the activity of the Einsatzgruppen - to the Reich Defence Commissioners in Konigsberg, Stettin, Breslau. Q. Well, then, your answer is that Heydrich made a mistake when he described it as the activity of the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD, and when they sent out and distributed it to the commanders of the Security Police and SD, it was merely a matter of information; is that it? A. Yes. Q. Do you see the final distribution on Pages 46 and 47 or is that the distribution of a different report; it is a report on the 23rd of April, 1942. A. Yes, 23rd April, 1942. Q. And will you look at Pages 46 and 47? A. Yes. Q. About eight lines down, you see, it was distributed to Major-General Kaltenbrunner, Vienna. A. Yes. Q. And the last line but two, it was distributed to Governor- General Reich Minister Dr. Frank. A. I cannot find Reich Minister Dr. Frick. Q. Frank - Frank, I said. A. Yes, for the attention of Oberregierungsrat Dr. Shepers. Q. And the same is true on Page 18 of the report of the 27th of February, 1942. A. 27th February? Q. Yes, on 27th February, 1942, it was also distributed to the same people? A. Yes. THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn. (The Tribunal adjourned until 2nd August, 1946, at 1000 hours.)
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012