 |
[ap…] proximately the same question. It is Document NI-1447,
Prosecution Exhibit No. 930, 1 document Book no. 49.
The same applies
to this document as to the first letter of the defendant von der Heyde,
addressed to the defendant von Schnitzler. In short, it is apparent from both
documents that first of all, they were written during the war; secondly, they
represent only a preparatory action; and thirdly, as can be seen from their
contents, they were not written by the defendant von der Heyde of his own
accord.
From the contents of both letters, it is also apparent that the
defendant von der Heyde was not, as is asserted by the prosecution, a
counterintelligence agent (Abwehragent) at any previous time, i.e.,
particularly before the war.
The defendant von der Heyde was a security
commissioner (Abwehrbeauftragter). Thus ran the official German designation,
which at the same time made quite clear the essence of such a man's work.
If the defendant von der Heyde had been a counterintelligence agent
(Abwehragent), his functions could not have been merely passive, but he would
have been active, too; for the word "agent" is derived from the Latin "agere"
and means to act. The word commissioner (Beauftragter), on the other hand,
shows that the duties of the defendant von der Heyde were not considered to be
espionage, but merely the passive functions of a security commissioner.
Work of this type is, however, not confined to Germany, but is
necessary for the protection and safety of every state, and can, therefore, not
be considered as criminal in itself.
As to the activity of the
defendant von der Heyde as an honorary collaborator in the SD, the witness for
the prosecution, Otto Ohlendorf, 2 stated that the defendant von der Heyde
discontinued his work as an honorary collaborator of the SD probably already in
1928, quite definitely, however, in 1939. In addition, the witness Otto
Ohlendorf stated that all the defendant von der Heyde had to do was to inform
the SD, the organization to which the witness belonged, about Konzern questions
which were not secret, and this information could have been obtained also by a
thorough study of books, although considerably more time would have been
required.
According to the deposition of this witness, the work of the
|
__________
¹ Not reproduced
herein.
² Otto Ohlendorf was chief defendant in the "Einsatzgruppen
case,'' Case 9, United States vs. Otto
Ohlendorf, et al., vol. IV, this series.
367 |
. 
