Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-20/tgmwc-20-193.04
Last-Modified: 2000/11/05

                                                  [Page 211]

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. May I now read the
document of the Polish Delegation on the subject which says,
"It is hereby certified that the submitted document in the
German language dated 24th August, 1943, consists of the
instructions of the Security Police of the Reichsfuehrer SS,
in the city of Mogilno, containing an extract from Himmler's
speech and that it is the exact photostatic copy of the
original submitted by the Chief Commission for the
Investigation of Nazi Crimes in Poland."

The original was found in an envelope. In the left-hand
corner at the top there was stated "Landrat of the Area of
Mogilno of the Governmental District Bodenschatz." The rest
contains a number and a statement in German, but the date is
28th August, 1943.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel, I am sorry, I did not hear the
beginning of what you said. What are you reading from now?

COLONEL SMIRNOV: I am reading, Mr. President, from the
certificate which the Polish delegation submitted on the
subject of this document. This was a document which was
submitted to us by the Polish Delegation.

THE PRESIDENT: How did you identify this particular
document? You see, we have a document produced before us
which appears to have nothing on it which connects it with
that certificate. I mean, how do you connect it with this
certificate?

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I was just handed a note
here from our documentary section which says that since the
Tribunal has the original, the original does not have the
certificate of the Polish Delegation attached to it, whereas
I have the certificate attached to my document, and that is
why I wanted to read it to you. I am very sorry about the
mistake. You will receive the certificate.

THE PRESIDENT: I see - and the certificate you have,
identifies the translation in Russian? Is that right?

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, yesterday I myself verified
the translation which I have with the original, and I have
found it to be accurate and correct, and the certificate
also states that the Russian translation is correct.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, you must offer in evidence
that certificate in order to make it clear that this is the
document which was found at this SD headquarters at Mogilno.
That should be attached to this exhibit. Has this got a
number, this exhibit? 522, is that it?

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, the number is USSR 522, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will have to have the certificate
attached to it; then we shall be able to look at it.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. I have no more
questions to ask this witness.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

(A short recess was taken.)

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President in connection with one of the
points to which my esteemed American colleague has drawn my
attention, I request your permission to put another question
here to the witness concerning the first document which I
submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: Which was the first?

COLONEL SMIRNOV: USSR 509, the chart.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Thank you.

                                                  [Page 212]

CROSS-EXAMINATION - Continued

BY COLONEL SMIRNOV:

Q. Witness, will you kindly tell us-do you deny that
Gengenbach, whose name is to be found in this chart as
belonging to the Einsatzstab - you will be shown the chart
in a minute - was a member of the SD?

(The document is handed to the witness).

A. He was on the staff of the SD.

Q. He was a member of the SD?

A. Yes, he was. He was Gruppenleiter of III-A. He was my
immediate predecessor.

Q. Tell us then - was it not you who became his deputy later
on?

A. I was the successor of Gengenbach but not his deputy.
When I came to Berlin he was already dead. Besides
Gengenbach, was not in Berlin then for, as far as I can
recall today from talks I had with him later on, he was at
Munich. I met him only during the war.

Q. But, at any rate, you did afterwards hold the post which
had been held before by Gengenbach?

A. The position which Gengenbach held later in Berlin. I
took over from him. He was Gruppenleiter III-A just as I
was.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Thank you very much. The American
prosecution, Mr. President, has a copy of the documents
which have already been submitted under No. USA 175 and USA
174, and it is stated here in the places underlined that the
head of the division III-A was Gengenbach, that is the same
man whose name is to be found in the chart. I have no
further questions to put to the witness, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Has the speech of Himmler, dated 15th March,
1940, already been put in evidence?

COLONEL SMIRNOV: As far as I know, Mr. President, no. At any
rate, I do not know this speech.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Now, Dr. Gawlik.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. GAWLIK (for the SD):

Q. Witness, do you still have Exhibit USSR 509?

A. I have no documents at all.

(The document is handed to the witness.)

Q. Witness, please look at Page 1. What was the task of
these Einsatzgruppen (task force units) which were to be
employed in Czechoslovakia?

A. I do not know: I had nothing to do with the preparation
of these tasks.

Q. I said please look at Page 1.

A. "To secure political life and to secure national
economy," it says on Page 1.

Q. Was this a completely different task from that which
later in 1941 was given to Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D in
the East?

A. I do not know the tasks in the East very well, either
because I had nothing to do with them, but as far as I am
informed the Einsatzgruppen in the East certainly had
nothing to do with safeguarding the national economy. The
Einsatzgruppen in the East had to secure the rear army area.

Q. Please look at the chart, the organization of these
Einsatzgruppen.

A. The hand-written one or the printed one?

Q. The second one. With the aid of this chart, can you
answer the question whether these Einsatzgruppen belonged to
the organization of the SD?

A. You mean the chart that says "Staff SS Gruppenfuehrer
Heydrich" at the top?

                                                  [Page 213]

Q. Yes, that is the chart I mean.

A. No, that was not an organization of the Security Service
but was something completely new.

Q. Regarding the tasks these Einsatzgruppen or these
Einsatzstabe had, were they a part of the duties of the
Security Service?

A. I do not know the tasks which were assigned to these
Einsatzstabe In any event, the task mentioned on Page 1,
"securing the national economy," is not a task of the
Security Service; it is not a task related to the
Information Service nor does the "safeguarding of political
life" have anything to do with the Information Service.

Q. Were parts of the organization of the SD used by these
Einsatzstabe? Can you answer the question with the aid of
this chart?

A. As far as the chart shows, parts of the organization were
not used but only individual members of the Security
Service, just as in the case of the State Police too. The
same will probably have applied later in connection with the
Einsatzgruppen in the East, that is, it can be compared with
being drafted into the Wehrmacht.

Q. Were the individual members of the Security Service, by
being assigned to the Einsatzstabe, no longer active in the
Security Service?

A. No, of course not. For they received completely different
tasks. Again, I can only make this comparison: If a judge is
drafted into the Army, then he no longer carries on his
activity as a judge.

Q. Were the activities and tasks of these Einsatzstabe
generally known to the members of the Security Service,
particularly the members of the subordinate agencies of the
Leitabschnitte of the Aussenstellen?

A. Not in the least.

Q. Now, I come to the second document that deals with the
letter of the Blockstelle Mogilno.

(The document is handed to the witness.)

Q. What was a "Blockstelle"?

A. In the structure of the Security Service, the term
"Blockstelle" did not exist but, nevertheless, it is
possible that regional offices (Aussenstellen) organized sub-
branches and then used this term; in general, what was
subordinate to a regional office was called an "Observer"
(Beobachter).

Q. What was the staff of an Aussenstelle in general?

A. According to the period and according to the importance
of the Aussenstelle, it differed considerably. On the
average, in, say, 1943 or 1944 there were one or two regular
officials in a branch and a large number of honorary workers
whereby the head of the branch was sometimes an honorary
official and sometimes a regular one.

Q. Was the Blockstelle above an Aussenstelle or was it
subordinate to it?

A. Above the Aussenstelle was the Abschnitt, not the
Blockstelle and, as I said before, the different
Aussenstelle sometimes selected terms for subordinate
offices which were not really officially organized.
"Observers" (Beobachter) were, however, organized.

Q. Did Amt III issue any orders as established in this
document?

A. No, under no circumstances.

Q. Then is this the case of the head of the Aussenstelle in
Mogilno acting on his own initiative? I mean the head of the
Blockstelle?

A. In case Himmler did make this speech, that would be true.
I can imagine Himmler saying that he expected something from
all his men when talking to camp commanders.

Q. I am not speaking of Himmler. I am speaking of the orders
of the head of the Blockstelle.

A. But the instructions are in the speech of Himmler or do
you mean the instructions in the first sentence "to give
especial attention to Poland"? The

                                                  [Page 214]

head of the Blockstelle in Mogilno will, of course, have
cared for the Poles in the same way as he cared for the
Germans. He was naturally interested in the general attitude
and frame of mind of the Poles, and he reported to the main
office, to Group III-d.

Q. Then I show you Document PS-3876.

THE PRESIDENT: How does this arise from the cross-
examination?

DR . GAWLIK: Mr. President, I have a few more questions in
connection with the questions which your Honour asked
yesterday at the end of the session relating to
distribution.

THE PRESIDENT: You are putting in some document which has
not been referred to before.

DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, the document was submitted
yesterday by the American prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, well, it was. I beg your pardon.

THE WITNESS: I have here the English text of the document.

Q. Please look at Page 45 now - the distribution. Did
commanders of the Security Police and the SD belong to the
Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D?

A. No, that is something different. The Einsatzgruppen were
mobile units, which advanced together with the Wehrmacht in
the rear army area. The offices of the commanders were
offices in the civilian administration. When an area was
taken into civil administration, the commander's post or
office was set up.

Q. How were the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D organized?

A. They were divided into the Einsatzkommandos.

Q. What names did these Einsatzkommandos have?

A. These Einsatzkommandos had no names at all, as I said
yesterday, they were numbered from 1 to 10, as far as I can
recall, possibly even to 11 or 12.

Q. Please look at the distribution. There it says that the
chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D received copies
for the commanders of the Security Police, and the SD.

A. No, that is wrongly translated. It should be for the
Kommandeure of the Security Police and the SD, not for the
chiefs, that is the Kommandeure of the Security Police who
were subordinate to the chiefs of the Security Police and
the SD. To state it more clearly, the Einsatzkommandos were
not led by a Kornmandeur of the Security Police and the SD,
but by the Kommandeure of Einsatzkommandos 1, 2, 3, etc. In
the territory which was under civil administration, the
situation was the same as in occupied France. There were
agencies of the Kommandeure of the Security Police and of
the SD. That was something quite different from the
Einsatzkommandos.

Q. Who were the officers superior to the Kommandeure?

A. To which Kommandeure?

Q. Of the Security Police and of the SD.

A. The commanders of the Security Police and the SD.

Q. Who were their superiors?

A. The chief of the Security Police and the SD in Berlin.

Q. Who was the superior of Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D?

A. That cannot be answered in one word. In reality the
chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen had two superiors. In the first
place, they were assigned, to the army group in question,
and had to take instructions from the chief of the army
group. On the other hand, they received instructions from
the chief of the Security Police and the SD. That is the
very reason why I said yesterday that they were entirely
unique and different.

Q. Now I ask you again. If the Kommandeure of the Security
Police and the SD did not belong to the Einsatzgruppen. A,
B, C, and D -

                                                  [Page 215]

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, has not all this been thoroughly
gone into already? I mean, we have got the document. We have
asked the witness a number of questions and he has given his
answers: You are now asking him the same questions over
again.

DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I only have one more question in
regard to the copies.

THE PRESIDENT: Ask your one question, then.

Q. Why did the chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen A, B, C, and D
receive copies for the commanders of the Security Police and
the SD if they were completely separate organizations?

A. Probably there were different organizations but in
certain cases the people were the same; or, as I assume, the
distribution was misleading. I had a German copy yesterday.
Various words were used for "Kommandeur." Sometimes it was
commander and sometimes another word, Befehlshaber. Those
are completely different functions.

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