The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-20/tgmwc-20-192.08

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-20/tgmwc-20-192.08
Last-Modified: 2000/11/03

If it is possible, I would like to request the Tribunal to
permit me also to quote several other USSR exhibits
referring to the activity of the Gestapo. These documents
have been submitted in connection with other questions;
later they were taken into consideration in connection with
the Gestapo. May I read them to the Tribunal?

THE PRESIDENT: These are not documents which have already
been put in evidence, are they?

COLONEL KAREV: No, Mr. President; these documents have been
presented and accepted by the Tribunal, not in connection
with the activity of the Gestapo but with regard to other
questions; therefore, excerpts contained in these documents
which have been read before may be omitted, as it seems to

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that the appropriate time
for you to deal with these documents will be when the case
is argued on behalf of the prosecution, if they are
documents which have already been put in evidence.

COLONEL KAREV: They will; thank you, your Honour.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, the witness may retire. Have you had all
your witnesses?

DR. MERKEL: Yes, Mr. President. If I understood your
Lordship correctly, the presentation of documentary evidence
is to take place after all the witnesses of all the
organizations have been heard.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the object of that being that all the
documents can then be dealt with together, as some of the
documents are not yet available; so we will go on with the
next organization.

DR. MERKEL: I should like to ask just one more thing. In my
submission of documents, may I refer to the documents which
have only now been brought forth by the prosecution and
possibly introduce evidence to refute them. This concerns
the documents which have been introduced today for the first

THE PRESIDENT: When you say "refute" you mean criticise the
documents and argue upon them, I suppose.

DR. MERKEL: To argue upon them and possibly introduce
contradictory evidence against the new documents which were
submitted today by means of new affidavits of one kind or

THE PRESIDENT: The time for you to "refute," as you say, or
to argue upon the documents which have been put in today by
the prosecution will be when you make your final argument.
At the end of the oral evidence for all the commissions, all
the organizations will offer their documentary evidence and
comment upon it shortly, and then they will have time within
which they may argue the whole case and at that time you
will be able to argue and "refute," as you put it, the
documents which have been put in today.

DR. MERKEL: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Now I call upon counsel for the SD. Will you
please call your witnesses now?

                                                  [Page 182]

DR. GAWLIK: I have interrogated seven witnesses before the
Commission. I have not the complete transcript yet and will
hand it in later. With the approval of the Tribunal I shall
call the witness Hoeppner.

ROLF-HEINZ HOEPPNER, a witness, took the stand and testified
as follows


Q. Will you state your full name?

A. Rolf-Heinz Hoeppner.

Q. Will you repeat this oath 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.)

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.



Q. First, I shall put a few preliminary questions in order
to prove that the witness has the necessary knowledge to
answer questions on the subject. When were you born?

A. On 24th February, 1910.

Q. Since when have you been a member of the SD?

A. Since the beginning of 1934.

Q. What activity did you carry on before then?

A. Before that I studied and performed pre-legal service.

Q. What law examination did you pass?

A. I passed the first and second State legal examinations.

Q. What ... what was your position in the SD?

A. First I was an honorary assistant and adviser in an
Oberabschnitt, later Stabsfuehrer in a Leitabschnitt, then
Abschnittsfuehrer and finally Gruppenleiter in the Reich
Main Security Office.

Q. Of what group were you the head?

A. I directed Group III-A, law administration and communal

Q. In what other spheres of duty did you work in the SD?

A. In the beginning, during my honorary activity, I worked
on Press matters. Later on personnel and organisational
questions, and as Stabsfuehrer and Abschnittsfuehrer I was
responsible for the entire sphere of duty of the Security
Service in my area.

Q. Now I shall turn to my first topic. I want to prove that
the SD as an intelligence organization and the SS formation
as SD were completely different organizations. What does the
abbreviation SD mean?

A. The SD means Sicherheitsdienst, Security Service.

Q. What different meanings did the word have?

A. The word Sicherheitsdienst has two completely different
meanings. First, it means the special SS formation, SD, and
second, the Security Service as an intelligence service.

Q. Was the Foreign Intelligence Service also characterised
as SD?

A. Yes, it was also characterised as SD, and, indeed, as
Foreign SD.

Q. Was Office VII known as SD also?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the activity of Office VII?

A. Office VII occupied itself with questions on archives and
library matters, and as far as I know it had a number of
special scientific duties.

Q. Was the SD as an SS formation completely different from
the SD Domestic Intelligence Service, and the SD Foreign
Intelligence Service?

A. Yes.

Q. To whom was the special SD formation of the SS

                                                  [Page 183]

A. The special SD formation of the SS was subordinate to the
chief of the Security Police and the SD.

Q. Who belonged to this special formation?

A. This special formation consisted of, first, the members
of the Intelligence Branch of the Security Service, who came
from the general SS. Secondly, there belonged to this
special formation those who after they worked in this
intelligence service were taken into Office VII, and
thirdly, there belonged to this special formation the SS
members of the Security Police, i.e. the State Police and
the Criminal Police, and fourthly and finally, the members
of formations who had a certain working connection with the
Security Police.

Q. Were there other persons as well who belonged to this
special formation and were not active with the Security
Police or the SD?

A. Yes, by that I meant the fourth group which I just spoke
of, who were taken into the SS as customs frontier guards.

Q. Did this combination of persons have any kind of common

A. No. The situation with respect to this combination of
persons was merely that they were first registered in the SD
Main Office and later, after the Main Reich Security Office
was founded in September, 1939, in Office I of this Main
Reich Security Office.

THE PRESIDENT: The light keeps coming on. Will you try to
pause between question and answer?

Q. Now, I come to the second topic: the relationship of the
Domestic Intelligence Service, Office III, to the Foreign
Intelligence Service, Office. VI, and to Office VII. Did
Offices III, VI and VII represent different organizations,
or one unified organization of the SD?

A. They represented different organizations. I might give
the reasons for that in a few words. First, the spheres of
duty of these three offices were completely different.
Office III was concerned with the Domestic Intelligence
Service, Office VI with the Intelligence Service abroad, and
Office VII with questions regarding libraries and archives.
Secondly, the organization was completely different. In
Office III, Domestic Intelligence Service, the chief value
of the organization lay primarily in the regional office
(Aussenstelle) and in the sector (Abschnitt). The method of
work was therefore decentralised. Perhaps I might give the
reasons for that in a few words: Office VI, Foreign
Intelligence Service, involved a strong centralisation of
duties. Office VII had nothing but a central office.

Q. Was there any discernible connection between these
Offices III, VI, and VII, with a general common purpose?

A. No. The aims of these offices were far too varied for
that. The members of these offices had hardly any connection
with each other.

Q. Now I come to the third topic, the development of the SD
until the establishment of the Main Reich Security Office,
particularly dealing with the questions as to whether during
this time it was one of the duties of the SD to work with
others on a Common Plan or Conspiracy. When was the SD
Domestic Intelligence Service established?

A. The SD was established in 1931-1932.

Q. During the period after its formation up to the end of
the war did the SD have the same duties, the same purpose
and the same activities?

A. One could not say that by any means. The duties and
objectives varied even - varied very much according to the
political alignment. While the Security Service had the task
of helping the general SS up to about 1933 or the beginning
of 1934, there was no longer any reason for this task after
the parties with which the National Socialist Party had
competed were dissolved, and therefore there was no longer a
legal opposition party, and the combating, that is,
observation, or repelling of an illegal opponent became the
task of the Gestapo.

                                                  [Page 184]

Q. What different periods of time are there to be
distinguished, from its formation until the end of the war?

A. I just mentioned one period of time, the one from 1931 to
about 1933-34. The second period of time began in 1934. As
an event, or perhaps better, as a document of particular
importance, I should like to begin with the order of the
Fuehrer's deputy which the Security Service -

Q. Witness, first of all just give us the various periods of
time; I will then question you briefly about specific

A. The first period of time was from 1931 to 1934, the
second was from the middle of 1934 to the formation of the
Main Reich Security Office, and the third comprises the
period from the establishment of the Main Reich Security
Office to the end of the war.

What was the purpose ... what were the purpose, the duties
and the activity of the SD in the period from 1931 to 1934?

A. The task of the Security Service from 1931 to 1934 was
that of a semi-military formation (Gliederung) of the Party,
namely, that of assisting the SS in its task of guarding the
Fuehrer and protecting public meetings, by supplying the SS
with as much information as possible from its intelligence
service in rival, opposition parties as to what measures
were being planned by other parties, and so whether speakers
were going to be attacked, whether any meetings might be in
danger, and so forth.

Q. At this time had the SD already been built up into a
powerful, professionally well-trained espionage system by
its leader Heydrich?

Mr. President, in this connection I should like to refer to
the trial brief against the SS, Page 8b of the English text
- 8b at the top, lines 1 and 2.

Please answer the question.

A. I have to base my answer to this question on what I
myself saw along these lines when I entered the Security
Service in the beginning of 1934 and on what I learned from
my comrades then and later about the preceding period.
Before 30th January, 1933, the Security Service represented
a very small establishment which had hardly more than 20 or
30 regular members and not many more honorary members.

Q. You spoke of 20-30 regular members - for what area?

A. For the area of the entire German Reich.

Q. Were there other members - honorary members?

A. The number of honorary members was not much greater.

Q. Did the members of the SD make a general agreement among
themselves to participate in crimes against peace, war
crimes and crimes against humanity?

A. No. If you can speak of any agreement at all - since they
hardly knew each other - they merely had the intention to
help the Party which was legally contending for power by
defending it against rival, opposition parties.

Q. During the years 1933 and 1934 did the members of the
Security Service pursue the aim of supporting any persons
whatsoever who had undertaken a general and common plan to
commit crimes against peace, war crimes, or crimes against

A. No.

Q. During the years 1931 to 1934, did the members of the SD
know anything at all about such a plan?

A. I believe the case of the members of the SD was not very
different from that of the overwhelming majority of the
German people. Nothing was known.

Q. Now I come to the second phase.

What were the aim and task of the SD during the period of
time from 1934 until the creation of the Main Reich Security
Office in the year 1939?

A. After a legal opposition party was no longer in
existence, so that there were merely illegal political
opponents, the combating of whom, as I have already
mentioned, was the task of the State Police which had been
evolved from the

                                                  [Page 185]

political police division, the task of the Security Service
had to change. First, it changed in this way, that other
ideological and political forms and other ideological groups

Q. Witness, can you perhaps state the tasks and aims more

A. Well, to name a few examples, Freemasons; Marxists, Jews,
so that these groups would be classified in a more
scientific and statistical way and so that the Party would
have material for training and other tasks.

That was the ultimate meaning of the Party's order for it to
become the sole political intelligence and counter-
intelligence service, on about July, 1934; something which,
by the way; never did happen, since there continued to be an
enormous number of information services and sources of
information up to the end.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© 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.