The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)
Nuremberg, war crimes, crimes against humanity

The Trial of German Major War Criminals

Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
9th August to 21st August 1946

Two Hundred and Seventh Day: Tuesday, 20th August, 1946
(Part 5 of 9)


[Page 290]

DR. GAWLIK CONTINUES:

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

[Page 291]

connection I have submitted SD-15 by Kurt Klauke. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9th 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. I have submitted in this connection SD-16, by Walter Keinz. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9th July, 1946. SD-17, by Emil Hausmann, is in the same transcript. Also SD-53, by Emil Froeschel, in the transcript of 23rd 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 23rd July, 1946. Walter Keinz, SD-18, in the transcript of 9th July, 1946.

I shall submit later a complete translation of SD-19 by Helmut Fromm, summary of the contents being in the transcript of 9th July, 1946.

With the next affidavit I want to prove the methods, aims, activities and tasks of the SD in the Government General. On this topic I shall later submit a complete translation of SD- 56 by Helmut Fromm, summary of contents is in the transcript of 23rd July, 1946.

With the next affidavit I want to prove that the police in France was called SD. I have submitted in this connection an affidavit by Dr. Laube, SD-23, summary of contents is in the transcript of 9th 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, summary of contents is in the transcript of 9th 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 is in the transcript of 9th July, 1946.

With the next affidavit I want to prove that membership of 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 23rd July, 1946; SD-58 by Dr. Ehlich in the same transcript; SD- 59 by Karl Heinz Bent in the same transcript: SD-60 in the same transcript, and I shall submit later SD-21 by Oskar Eisele, summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9th 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 9th 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 23rd 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 SD-66, by Otto Skorzeny.

The next affidavit refers to the aims, tasks, and activities of Amt 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 purpose of carrying out evacuations with the aim of permanent colonisation of the occupied territories, destruction of the national life of these territories, and thus constant expansion of the German borders. (Trial Brief against the SS, III G, Pages 33 and 35 of the German translation.) I have

[Page 292]

submitted in this connection SD-64 by Martin Sandberger, summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23rd July, 1946.

Now I have an affidavit to refute the Affidavit F-964 which was submitted by the prosecution during the examination of the witness Dr. Hoffmann. I was notable to submit this affidavit to the Commission because the Commission had already concluded its sessions when I received it. May I therefore submit it now under SD-65.

THE PRESIDENT: You have one 65 already, have you not? It came through the translation.

DR. GAWLIK: That should be SD-71, your Lordship. From this affidavit I shall read the following, briefly:

"(1) To prove my knowledge of the facts given, I, Georg Schebel, state the following: From 1930 to 1939 I was Government Councillor in Brunswick. In 1939 I was temporarily in the Reich Criminal Police Office in Berlin, and from 1941 to 1945 I 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."
Now the facts:
"At no time in 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 not have been respected and 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. On this subject I have 140 affidavits from agencies of the SD in all parts of Germany for the period 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 for 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 plan for searches of the Security Police and the SD. I shall not read this document, but I would like to call the attention of

[Page 293]

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 order any searches.

The next six documents, SD-3, SD-4, SD-5, SD-6, SD-7 and SD- 8, belong together. They are excerpts from decrees of the Reich Minister of Justice, SD-3; of the Reich Traffic Authority, SD-4; of the Office of the Reich Food Estate, SD- 5; of the Reich Forestry, SD-6; of the Reich Ministry for Armament and War Production, SD-7; and of the Reich Ministry for Food and Agriculture, SD-8; decrees concerning the co- operation of these agencies with the Security Service, SD.

I call the special 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 16th 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 single 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 testimonials or certifications of political reliability." This document refers to the Trial Brief against the Gestapo and the SD, statement 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 12th June, 1940. This decree shows that from 1st July, 1940, the information bureau of the Amt I, SD, was to be transferred to Division IV, C 1, and 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-15A, which refutes PS-3385 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 had specific reports from all offices.

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 now in time of war - may also be called upon and detached to fulfil 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

[Page 294]

task of segregating and executing racially undesirable persons; the reference is the Trial Brief against the Gestapo and the SD, statement of evidence, IIIB.

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 "IVA," 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 "IVA," 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 still incomplete."

Document SD-20 concerns employment of Russian prisoners of war -

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, what is the meaning of SD-19, paragraph 2? The writing refers especially to various figures and then "No. 92/42 Top Secret," according to which the selection of all prisoners of war is to be made in the future in the Government General only. How 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?

DR. GAWLIK: Your Lordship, the Chief of the Security Police and the SD had seven offices (Amt). It is, therefore, important which of his offices acted. Amt IV was the Secret Police, Gestapo, Amt III was the Inland SD, Amt VI was the Foreign News Service. Each of these offices had its own chief, and Amt IV was an organization different from that of Amt III and that of Amt VI. Above these seven offices was the Chief of the Security Police and of the SD. This title does not in itself show that the SD had anything to do with any matter, but one must examine which of the offices acted, Amt IV, III or VI. And for that reason I called your Lordship's attention to the file note, IVA, that is Amt IV, the Secret State Police, Gestapo. This shows that Amt III and Amt VI had nothing to do with this matter, but that it concerned Amt IV only. This is also shown by the numeral III which expressly lists only the State Police directorates.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will adjourn now.

(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)

DR. GAWLIK: In answer to the last question of your Lordship, I think it would assist the Tribunal if I were to indicate briefly the drift of my evidence and what I propose to establish by means of these documents.

It is assumed by the prosecution that the Gestapo, the Security Police and SD are independent organizations. The Gestapo is indicted separately, the Kripo (Criminal Police) is not indicted and the SD is indicted as a part of the SS. Over all of them stood the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, so that in a small way it can be compared with the position of the defendant Goering, who was the Commander-in- Chief of the Air Force, Prussian Minister President, and Reich Hunting Master.

Thus, one cannot conclude from that which office it was, and that becomes apparent from the file numbers and the people who dealt with these files, and I am trying to establish that by means of my documents.

[Page 295]

I now come to Document SD-20, which deals with the employment of Soviet Russian prisoners of war. One paragraph deals with the very questions which your Lordship addressed to me with reference to the previous document, and I shall, therefore, read this paragraph.
"In order to avoid any delay in moving fresh arrivals of prisoners of war into the Reich, the singling out of political commissars and 'politruks' by the Einsatzkommandos of the Security Police will in future be carried out in the Government General only.

In the Government General the singling out will continue to be carried out by the Security Police."


[ Previous | Index | Next ] [an error occurred while processing this directive]