dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, I think it would be more convenient to the Tribunal or more easy for them to follow if you could summarize the affidavit rather than read it.
DR. GAWLIK: I have only a few more brief questions to read from this affidavit. I ask the Tribunal to take into consideration that this is the only affidavit which I want to read. I attach special importance to this affidavit because its author is not an SD member but a man who was himself watched by the SD.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. GAWLIK: 11 '1 can also say that several scientists and high officials corresponded with me on the SD's activity and confirmed that my presentation of the facts agreed in all points with their experience.' "Eleventh question: 'Did the SD cause Gestapo measures to be taken against you as a result of watching your lectures?' Answer: 'I know of none.' "Thirteenth question: 'Did the Gestapo arrest or warn you because of your lectures?' Answer: 'No. I was warned once by the Gestapo but on the basis of a denunciation of which I knew and which did not come from the SD.' "Fourteenth question: 'For what reason were you arrested?' Answer: 'On account of my connections with some leading men of the 20th of July.' "Fifteenth question: 'Did the examining officials in the case against you know the contents of your lectures?' Answer: 'No, apparently not. They accepted without contradiction that as part of my defense I referred to the proper, "patriotic attitude of my lectures." I consider it out of the question that the Gestapo officials knew my lectures and the SD reports based on them. "Sixteenth question: 'What was the attitude of the Political Science Faculty in Freiburg toward the Hitler Reich Answer: 'Not only the Political Science Faculty of the university but the majority at least of the Liberal Arts professors were opponents of National Socialism. This was well known- to Dr. Scheel, the head of the Reich Organization of University Teachers, and he had announced that after the war the whole university would be dissolved.' "Seventeenth question: 'Did the SD know of this attitude Answer: 'There can be no doubt of that.' "Eighteenth question: 'Did the SD cause Gestapo measures to be taken against the Faculty of Political Science or any other members of the teaching staff?' Answer: 'I know of none."' I also submitted on this point an affidavit by Hans Timmermann, Number SD-29, which is in the transcript of the Commission of 23 July 1946. Then, by Dr. Horst Laube, SD-31, also recorded in the transcript of 23 July 1946. Furthermore, SD-26 by Dr. Zirnbauer.
DR. GAWLIK: Of that there is no summary in the transcript; therefore, may I make a brief statement about it? , Zirnbauer submitted two original reports which as an honorary agent he had sent to the SD, and he testified on oath that these were reports which he had prepared as confidential agent of the SD. I should like to state that these are the only two original reports which I was able to obtain. Annex I is a report stating that the publication of the Alsace Lorraine catalogue of the geographical economic section of the Saarbrucken Municipal Library was absolutely necessary. Annex 2 is a report on Salzburg concert life. I further submitted Number SD-30 by Zellern, also in the transcript -of the 23d of July 1946. The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD was all the time a part of the SS; the reference is the introduction to the trial brief against the Gestapo and the SD, Page 12 of the English version and Page 67 of the English version. In this connection I submitted Number SD-32; the short summary is in the transcript of 23 July 1946. The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD played a role in the execution of one or more specific tasks, the reference being the Indictment against, the SS, Number II, Page 8 of the German translation. In this connection I submitted an affidavit by Otto Ohlendorf, and the short summary is in the Commission transcript of 23 July 1946. The next affidavits ...
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't give the number of that affidavit, I think.
DR. GAWLIK: Number SD-23, Your Lordship. No, I beg your pardon, it is Number 33. The next affidavits refer to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD and Gestapo together formed a unified police system; these are Statements of Evidence Numbers II B and III B of the trial brief against the Gestapo and the SD, Pages' 9 and 17 of the English version. In this connection I have submitted SIM by Otto Ohlendorf; the short summary is in the transcript of 9 July 1946. Furthermore, Number SD-34; a short summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946. SD-35 is by Dr. Hoffmann, and the short summary is in the transcript of 23 July 1946; SD-36 is by Otto Ohlendorf, and the short summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946. The next affidavit is to prove that the SD had no executive power. In this connection I have submitted Affidavit Number SD-20 by Alfred Kutter, and the short summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9 July 1946. The next two affidavits supplement the affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl, Prosecution Document 2614-PS. I submit in this connection a supplementary Affidavit Number SD-37 by Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl.
THE PRESIDENT: That has been submitted to the Commissioner, has it?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Your Lordship. The summary is in the transcript of 23 July 1946. 1 have asked that this affidavit be translated completely; and I am submitting the complete translations. I further submitted on this point SD-38 by Theo Gahmann; the short summary of this affidavit is in the transcript of 23 July 1946. The next affidavit proves that the SD had no influence on the selection of SA leaders. The reference is Statement of Evidence Number III B, Page 18 of the trial brief against the Gestapo and SD. On this point I submit Affidavit SD-4 by Max Juttner. The short summary of the affidavit is in the transcript of 9 July 1946. The next seven affidavits tend to prove that the SD had no influence on the selection of Party leaders. The reference is Statement of Evidence Number III B, Page 18 of the English trial brief. On this topic I submit Affidavit SD-5 by Otto Frehrer, for the former Gau Mainfranken, SD-6 by Otto Biedermann for the former Gau Thuringia, SD-7 by Siegfried Uiberreither for the former Gau Styria, SD-3 by Karl Wahl for the former Gau Schwaben, SD-9 by Paul Wegener for the former Gaue Mark Brandenburg and WeserEms, SD-10 by Albert Hoffmann for the former Gaue of Upper Silesia and Westphalia-South. SD-39 is by Adam Foertsch for the former Gau of Upper Bavaria. I do not yet have the translation of this, and I shall hand it in later. The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD scrutinized the loyalty and reliability of State officials. The reference is Statement of Evidence III B of the trial brief, Page 18 of the English version. In this connection I have submitted affidavit SD-3 by Dr. Werner May. The short summary of the contents -is in the transcript of 9 July 1946. I now come to Crimes against Peace. With the next affidavit I want to prove that the SD was not used in the border incidents of August 1939, and that the members of the SD had no knowledge of them. Statement of Evidence V, Page 23 of the English version. In this connection I submitted Affidavit SD-11, by Dr. Marx.
DR. GAWLIK: The short summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9 July 1946. I now come to War Crimes, first of all to Statement of Evidence VI A of the trial brief against the Gestapo and SD, Page 25 of the English version. In this connection I submit Affidavit SD-41 by Karl Heinz Bendt. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946. I have also submitted on this point Affidavit SD-42 by Walter Schellenberg. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946. I shall also later submit the complete Affidavit SD-43 by Heinz Wanninger, and SD-44 by Otto Ohlendorf. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946. I have also submitted on this point Affidavit SD-45 by Erwin Schulz, the summary of the contents being in the transcript ~ of 23 July 1946; and SD-46 by Otto Ohlendorf, the summary of the contents being also in the transcript of 23 July 1946. With the next three affidavits I want to prove that the members of the Leitabschnitte (the central regional authority), the Aussenstellen (branch offices) and the Vertrauensmdnner (confidential agents) had no knowledge of the activities of the Einsatzgruppen employed in the East. In this connection I have submitted SD-47 by Wilhelm Dilroff, which refers to the former Gaue South-Hanover and Brunswick. SD-48 by Karl Heinz Bendt refers to the former Oberabschnitte Neu-Stettin, Breslau, Dusseldorf. SD-49 by Adolf Rott refers to the former SD regional authority at Neustadt-Weinstrasse and at Saarbrucken. These three affidavits were submitted on 23 July 1946. The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD Abschnitt Tilsit participated in the liquidation of Jews and Communists in the border areas, Statement of Evidence VI A of the trial brief. I shall submit a complete translation of my Affidavit SD-12 by Wilhelm Sieps later. The summary of the affidavit is in the transcript of 9 July 1946. The next affidavit refers to Prosecution Document 1475-PS and Statement of Evidence VI A of the trial brief, Page 25 of the English version.
DR. GAWLIK: In this connection I submit the affidavit of Gerti Breiter, Number SD-69. The next affidavit is intended to prove that the SS Major Piltz mentioned on Page 26 of the English trial brief against the Gestapo and SD did not belong to the SD but to the Gestapo. In this connection I have submitted Affidavit SD-50 by Heinz Wanninger. The summary is in the transcript of"23 July 1946. The next affidavits refer to Statement of Evidence VI F of the trial brief, Page 54 of the English text. The first subject of evidence is this: in Prosecution Documents 553-PS, 498-PS, and 532-PS, SD does not mean Domestic Intelligence, Amt III, or Foreign Intelligence, Amt VI or Amt VII, but the Security Police. In this connection I submit Affidavit SD-52 by Wilhelm Keitel. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946. The next subject of evidence is that the SD did not participate in lynchings. In this connection I have submitted SD-51 by Walter Schellenberg; the summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946. Furthermore SD-68, by Hans Steiner. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 3 August 1946. The next two affidavits refer to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD murdered prisoners in the prisons to prevent their being liberated by Allied troops, Statement of Evidence VI J, Page 56 of the English version of the trial brief. On this subject, I have submitted SD-13 by Horst Laube. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9 July 1946. SD-14, by Fritz Wolfbrandt, is in the same transcript. 0 The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD participated in the forcible confiscation and partitioning of public and private property; Statement of Evidence VI K, Page 67 of the English version. In this connection I have submitted SD-15 by Kurt Klauke. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9 July 1946. The next affidavits refer to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD persecuted Jews, Statement of Evidence VII A of the English text of the trial brief.
DR. GAWLIK: I have submitted in this connection Affidavit SD-16, by Walter Keinz. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9 July 1946. SD-17, by Emil Hausmann, is in the same transcript. Also SD-53, by Emil Fr6schel, in the transcript of 23 July 1946, and SD-54, by Dr. Laube, in the same transcript. The next affidavits refer to the charge that the SD persecuted, the Church: Statement of Evidence VII B, Page 63 of the English text of the trial brief. I have submitted in this connection SD-55, summary of the contents being in the transcript of 23 July 1946. Walter Keinz, SD-18, is in the transcript of 9 July 1946. I shall submit later a complete translation of SD-19 by Helmut Fromm, summary of the contents being in the transcript of 9 July 1946. 4 With the next affidavit I wish to show the methods, aims, activities, and tasks of the SD in the Government General. On this topic I shall later submit a complete translation of Affidavit SD-56 by Helmut Fromm, summary of contents being in the transcript of 23 July 1946. The purpose of the next affidavit is to prove that the Police in France was called SD. I have submitted in this connection an affidavit by Dr. Laube, SD-23, with a summary of contents in the transcript of 9 July 1946. The next affidavit is submitted as proof that the members of the Gestapo and Kripo in Belgium and Northern France wore the SS uniform with the SD insignia. I have submitted SD-24 by Walter Hofmeister, and the summary of contents is in the transcript of 9 July 1946. With the next affidavit I want to prove that the members of the SD employed in Belgium and Northern France did not belong to Amt III. For this point I have submitted SD-25 by Walter Hofmeister, summary of contents being in the transcript , of 9 July 1946. The next affidavit indicates that membership in the SD Amt III during the war was in general not voluntary, but was based on a legal order. In this connection I have submitted SD-57 by Bernhard Dilger, in the transcript of 23 July,1946; SD-58 by Dr.
DR. GAWLIK: Ehlich, in the same transcript; SD-59 by Karl Heinz Bendt, in the same transcript; SD-60 in the same transcript, and I shall submit later SD-21 by Oskar Eiseler, summary of the contents being in the transcript of 9 July 1946. With the next affidavit I want to prove that withdrawal from the SD was not possible for full-time and salaried members. I submit SD-22 by Werner May, summary of contents in the transcript of 9 July 1946. The next three affidavits refer to the tasks, aims, and activities of Amt VI. On this subject I shall submit later SD-61 by Walter Schellenberg; the summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946. Furthermore, SD-62 by Walter Schellenberg; summary of contents is in the same transcript. Furthermore, on the tasks and activities of Amt VI, I submit Affidavit SD-66, by Otto Skorzeny. The next affidavit refers to the aims, tasks, and activities of Anit VII. I submit this affidavit provisionally, as the Commission did not decide whether Amt VII falls under the Indictment. The chairman of the Commission told me that the Tribunal would decide this question. The affidavit is SD-63 by Dr. Dietl, which I shall submit later. The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the Prosecution that the immigration offices had the task of carrying out evacuations with the aim of permanent colonization of. the occupied territories and the destruction of the national life of these territories, thus favoring constant expansion of the German borders. (Trial brief against the SS, III G, Pages 33 and 35 of the German translation.) I have submitted in this connection SD-64 by Martin Sandberger, summary of the contents being in the transcript of 23 July 1946. , Now I have an affidavit to refute Affidavit F-964, which was submitted by the Prosecution during the examination of the witness Dr. Hoffmann. I was not able to submit this affidavit to the Commission because the Commission had already concluded its session's when I received it. May I therefore submit it now. under SD-65.
THE PRESIDENT: You have one 65 already, haven't you? It came through in the translation.
DR. GAVILIK: That should be SD-71, Your Lordship. From this affidavit I shall read the following, briefly: "To establish my knowledge of the facts given, I, Georg Schr5pel, state the following: From 1930 to 1939 1 was Government Councillor in Brunswick. In 1939 1 was temporarily in the Reich Criminal Police Office in Berlin, and from 1941 to 1945 1 was Section Chief of Personnel in the Main Office of the Security Police of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. From January 1944 on, I was also in charge of the Personnel Department of the Secret State Police, Gestapo. My last rank was Regierungsdirektor and SS Standartenfuehrer." As to the facts: "At no time during the existence' of the Gestapo and the SD were instructions or decrees issued by the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, or by the Reich Ministry of the Interior, ordering that the activities of the Gestapo, either at its headquarters or at its agencies throughout the Reich, were to be influenced or supervised by the SD. The agencies of the Gestapo were at all times completely independent. The independence and the special position of the State Police made all general influence of the SD impossible; supervision would not have been tolerated either by the Chief of Amt IV or the Chief of the Security Police, because such supervision would have been quite incompatible with the actual responsibility of the State Police itself." I ask that I may be allowed to submit this affidavit later when I have the translation. Now I have a collective statement on 6,123 affidavits. I have not yet received the translations. I beg your pardon, I have the French translations; may I be allowed to submit those. I also submit the list of these affidavits. From my collective statement I ask only to be allowed to read Subject 18, concerning participation of SD members in executions in the areas of the Einsatzgruppen.
DR. GAVILIK: On this subject I have 140 affidavits from agencies of the SD in all parts of Germany for the period from 1939 to 1945, which state the following: "The agencies and members of the SD Amt III had no knowledge of the participation of SD members in executions carried out by the Einsatzkommandos in the East." I now come to the presentation of my documents, which are also numbered according to the trial brief against the Gestapo and SD The first document refers to the charge of conspiracy. I submitted as Document SD-1 an agreement between Himmler and Ribbentrop on the establishment of a uniform German Secret Intelligence Service. The document has already been submitted under USSR-120. I quote from this document the following: "The ,Secret Intelligence Service has the task, as far as foreign countries are concerned, of gathering for the Reich information in the political, military, economic, and technical spheres." And the following paragraph: "Information received by the Secret Intelligence Service from foreign countries will be put at the disposal of the Foreign Office by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt." SD-2 is an excerpt from the special alert procedure of the Security Police and the SD in case of escapes. I shall not read this document, but I would like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that, although Amt III and Amt VI were united with Amt IV and Amt V in the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, Amt III and Amt VI had no police tasks, and there was a strict division between the offices of the Security Police and those of the SD; Amt III and VI were not entitled to institute alert proceedings. The next six Documents SD-3, SD-4, SD-5, SD-6, SD-7, and SD-8 belong together. They are excerpts from decrees by the Reich Minister of Justice, SD-3; by the Reich Traffic Authority, SD-4; by the Reich Food Estate, SD-5; by the Reich Forestry, SD-6; by the Reich Ministry for Armament and War Production, SD-7; and by the Reich Ministry for Food and Agriculture, SD-8: all concerning the co-operation of these agencies with the SD.
DR. GAVILIK: I particularly call the attention of the Tribunal to the tasks of the SD as shown in these documents: to inform the leading Reich' authorities of the effect of official measures on the population. I submit these documents also as evidence that it was the task of the SD to co-operate not only with the State Police, but with all agencies of the State. The next document is SD-12. With this I want to prove that the SD, in the years around 1936, did not have the significance ascribed to it by the Prosecution. The next document is SD-13. It is an excerpt from the circular decree of the Chief of the SIPO and the SD of 16 October 1941. This document shows that the SS and Police jurisdiction applied only to full-time and salaried members of the SD, but not to honorary members and not to those who were carrying out individual tasks. The majority of the members of the SD were honorary members, and were therefore not under the SS and Police jurisdiction. The next document is SD-14. It is an excerpt from a decree of the Party Chancellery, from which I quote the following: "Only the Hoheitstrager of the Movement, from Kreisleiter up, are entitled to issue political appraisals or certifications of political reliability." This document refers to the trial brief against the Gestapo and the SD, Statements of Evidence III and IV. The next document , SD-15, deals with the same subject of evidence. It is an excerpt from the circular decree of the RSHA, dated 12 June 1940. This decree shows that as from I July 1940 the information bureau of the Amt I, SD, was transferred to Amt IV, C 1; thus for political information of all kinds the Gestapo Amt became competent, and the Gestapo had no more support from the SD. The next document is SD-15-a, which refutes 3385-PS submitted by the Prosecution, and shows that the SD was neither the only information service of the Party, nor the information service of the Party at all. Within its political organization, the Party had its own political situation reports, and from the Kreisleiter up, it has specific reports from all offices.
DR. GAVILIK: Document SD-16 is an excerpt from the memorandum by Hitler about the problems of a Four Year Plan. With SD-17 I want to prove that the activity of members of the SD in the occupied territories was not a voluntary one, but was based on a legal order. I quote from this document the following: "Refusal of departmental personnel to undertake employment in occupied territories. "The order..."-I omit the details-"has approved on principle that personnel in public service can be compelled to undertake work in places other than the regular place of service. Since it is not intended to limit this order to apply only to Reich territory, a staff member-provided the terms of the special service order have been complied with, especially no W' in time of war-may also be called upon and detached to fulfill a mission in the occupied territories." With the next documents, SD-18 to SD-22, I want to refute the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD had special units in prisoner-of-war camps with the task of segregating and executing racially undesirable persons; the reference is the trial brief against the Gestapo and the SD Statement of Evidence III B. Document SD-18 is an excerpt from the circular decree of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD. I call the attention of the Tribunal to the file note "IV A," which shows that the Gestapo was competent in this matter. Moreover, the decree is addressed to all State Police authorities and to the commander of the Security Police in Lublin. I should also like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the file note "I"VA" of the next document, SD-19. I quote the following from this document. "The State Police directorates are again requested to speed up the current examinations which are still incomplete." Document SD-20 concerns employment of Russian prisoners of war ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, what is the meaning of S15-19, Paragraph 2? The writing refers especially to various figures and then "Number 92/42 Top Secret," according to which the selection of all prisoners of war is to be made in the future in the General Government only. Why do you select prisoners of war? What does that mean?
DR. GAWLIK: That is the charge which the Prosecution has made, and I want to prove that this was done by the Gestapo alone. This decree orders that in future these selections are to be carried out only in the Government General. But that is not relevant in this connection, Your Lordship. I am only concerned with Paragraph 3.
THE PRESIDENT: But it is a document of the SD, is it not?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It is an administrative ruling, is it not?