Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-207.04
Last-Modified: 2000/12/04

DR. GAWLIK: The next affidavit will prove that the reports,
of the SD to the Party Chancellery were not made for the
purpose of supporting a conspiracy. On this topic I have
submitted Affidavit SD No. 27. The short summary appears in
the transcript of 3rd August, 1946.

The next affidavit was submitted to prove the aims, tasks
and activities of Group III-D of the RSHA and in connection
with the fact that Group III-D did not support a conspiracy.
For this point, I have submitted Affidavit SD No. 40, by
Ohlendorf, from the protocol of 23rd July, 1946.

My next affidavits refer to the aims, tasks and activities
of the branch offices and the confidential agents and to the
fact that the tasks, aims and activities of the branch
offices and confidential agents were not to support a
conspiracy. In

                                                  [Page 287]

this connection, I submit Affidavit SD-65, by Professor Dr.
Ritter. I asked for the complete translation of this
affidavit but I have not yet received it, since the
Translating Division is overloaded with work. I call the
especial attention of the Court to this affidavit. It was
deposed by one of the best-known German historians, and I
should like to quote the following from it:

Question one: "Please give details of your profession."
Answer: "Since 1925 I have been Professor of Modern History
at the University oaf Freiburg."

I omit one sentence.

Second question: "Were you a member of the NSDAP or any of
its branches?" Answer: "No."

Third question: "Were you a member of a resistance group
against the Hitler regime and were you persecuted by it?"
Answer: "Yes. I belonged to the circle of friends of Dr.
Goerdeler who selected me as Minister of Education in his
new cabinet. In November, 1944, I was arrested in connection
with the events of the 20th of July, and was placed before
the People's Court in Berlin. On the 25th of April, 1945, I
was liberated by the Russian Army."

THE PRESIDENT: The translation came through to us as
"November 1934." Was it 1944?

DR. GAWLIK: Yes, November, 1944.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. GAWLIK: Fourth question: "Do you know the activities of
the SD Arbeitsgemeinschaft and where did you obtain your
knowledge?" Answer: "Yes. My knowledge originates from my
activity as Chairman of the Purification Committee of the
University at Freiburg."

Fifth question: "What were the tasks of the SD
Arbeitsgemeinschaft?" Answer: "Firstly, to keep the supreme
SD command - I do not know the exact term - informed of
feelings among the population and the criticism expressed on
Party measures."

To save time, I should like to omit the rest of this answer;
I also omit the next question and come to question No. 7:
"What were the aims, tasks and activities of the
confidential agents (Vertrauensmanner)?" Answer: "The aims
and tasks were essentially the same as in the case of the
Arbeitsgemeinschaften, to which the confidential agents
belonged; but while the other members of the
Arbeitsgemeinschaften were asked for information and
requested to attend conferences with the SD only
occasionally, the confidential agents were in constant
contact with the SD." Now, I come to the eighth question:
"Was it the task of the confidential agents to collect and
pass on remarks hostile to the State and to watch persons
hostile to the State?" Answer: "I do not know of a task of
this sort." I leave out a few lines and come to the ninth
question: "What was the purpose and what was the aim of the
SD reports within Germany?" Answer: "In contrast to the
frequently 'rosy' official Party reports, the SD reports
were to give a picture corresponding to the actual
conditions and feelings of the people. In the field of
cultural policy, in addition, inadequacies and failings were
to be pointed out."

Tenth question: "Did the SD in Germany watch and report on
your lectures and addresses?" Answer: "Yes, I know that in
the branch of the SD in Karlsruhe or in Strassburg a number
of reports and stenographic notes on my lectures and
addresses were found. I can also say that several scientists
and high officials corresponded with me on the SD's activity
- "

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, I think it would be more
convenient to the Tribunal or more easy for them to follow
if you can 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

                                                  [Page 288]

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: "I can also say that several scientists and high
officials corresponded with me on the activity of the SD,
and confirmed that my presentation of the facts agreed in
all points with the experience of these men."

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."

I leave out one question.

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 defence 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 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, SD No. 29, which is in the transcript of the
Commission of 23rd July, 1946. Then by Dr. Horst Laube, SD-
31, also recorded in the transcript of 23rd July, 1946.
Furthermore, SD-26 by Dr. Zirnbauer. 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 honorary
associate 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.

Supplement One is a report stating that the edition of the
Alsace-Lorraine catalogue of the geographical economic
section of the Saarbrucken Municipal Library was absolutely
necessary.

Supplement Two is a report on Salzburg concert life.

I further submitted SD No. 30 of Zellem, also in the
transcript of the 23rd July, 1946.

The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the
prosecution that the SD was f 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 German
version, and Page 67 of the English version.

In this connection I submitted SD No. 32; the short summary
is in the transcript of 23rd 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 tasks, the reference is the Indictment against
the SS, No. II, Page 8 of the German translation. In this
connection I submitted

                                                  [Page 289]

affidavit by Otto Ohlendorf, and the short summary is in the
Commission transcript of 23rd July, 1946.

The next affidavits -

THE PRESIDENT: You did not give the number of that
affidavit, I think.

DR. GAWLIK: SD No. 23, your Lordship. No, I beg your pardon,
it is No. 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 No.
II B, and No. 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 SD No. 2 by Otto Ohlendorf, the
short summary is in the transcript of 9th July, 1946.

Furthermore, SD No. 34, a short summary of the contents is
in the transcript of 23rd July, 1946. SD No. 35 by Dr.
Hoffmann, and the short summary is in the transcript of 23rd
July, 1946, and SD No. 36 by Otto Ohlendorf, and the short
summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23rd July,
1946.

With the next affidavit, I want to prove that the SD had no
executive power.

In this connection I have submitted the affidavit SD No. 20
by Alfred Kutter, and the short summary of the contents is
in the transcript of 9th July, 1946.

The next two affidavits supplement the affidavit of Dr.
Wilhelm Hoettl, prosecution Document PS-2614. I submit in
this connection a supplementary Affidavit SD No. 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 23rd July, 1946. I have asked that this
affidavit be translated completely; and I am submitting the
complete translations.

I further submitted on this point SD No. 38 by Theo Gahmann,
the short summary of this affidavit is in the transcript of
23rd July, 1946.

With the next affidavit I want to prove that the SD had no
influence on the selection of SA leaders. The reference is
statement of evidence, No. III B, Page 18 of the Trial Brief
against the Gestapo and SD. On this point I submit Affidavit
SD-4 by Max Juettner. The short summary of the affidavit is
in the transcript of 9th July, 1946.

With the next seven affidavits I want to prove that the SD
had no influence on the selection of Party leaders. The
reference is statement of evidence, No. III B, Page 18 of
the English Trial Brief. On this topic I submit SD No. 5 by
Otto Frehrer, for the former Gau Mainfranken, SD No. 6 by
Otto Biedermann for the former Gau Thuringia, SD No. 7 by
Siegfried Uiberreither for the former Gau Styria, SD No. 8
by Karl Wahl for the former Gau Schwaben, SD No. 9 by Paul
Wegener for the former Gaue Mark Brandenburg and Weser-Ems,
SD No. 10 by Albert Hoffmann for the former Gaue of Upper
Silesia and Westphalia-South.

Furthermore, SD-39 by Adam Foertsch for the former Gau of
Upper Bavaria. I have not yet received the translation of
this, and I shall hand it in later.

The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the
prosecution that the SD scrutinised 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 9th 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 the statement of evidence V, Page 23 of
the English version.

In this connection I submitted Affidavit SD-11, by Dr. Marx.
The short summary of the contents is in the transcript of
9th 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

                                                  [Page 290]

connection I submit Affidavit SD-,41 by Karl Heinz Bent. The
summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23rd July,
1946.

I have also submitted on this point SD-42 by Walter
Schellenberg. The summary of the contents is in the
transcript of 23rd 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 23rd July, 1946.

I have also submitted on this point Affidavit SD-45 by Erwin
Schutz, the summary of the contents is in the transcript of
23rd July, 1946, and SD-46 by Otto Ohlendorf, the summary of
the contents is also in the transcript of 23rd July, 1946.

With the next three affidavits I want to prove that the
members of the Leitabschnitte (the central regional
authority), the Aussenstelle (branch offices) and the
Vertrauensmanner (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
Duerhof, which refers to the former Gaue South-Hanover and
Braunschweig. SD-48 by Karl Heinz Bent refers to the former
Oberabschnitt 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 23rd 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 9th July, 1946.

The next affidavit refers to prosecution Document PS-1475
and statement of evidence VIA of the Trial Brief, Pager 25
of the English version. In this connection T submit the
affidavit of Gerti Breiter, SD-69.

With the next affidavit I want to prove that the SS Major
Puetz, 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 23rd 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 PS-553, PS-498, and PS-532, SD does not mean Home
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 23rd July, 1946.

The next subject of evidence: that the SD did not
participate in lynchings. In this connection I have
submitted SD-51 by Walter Schellenberg, summary of the
contents is in the transcript of 23rd July, 1946.

Furthermore SD-68 by Hans Steiner. The summary of the
contents. is in the transcript of 3rd August, 1946.

The next two affidavits refer to the. assertion of the
prosecution that the SD murdered prisoners in the prisons in
order 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 9th July,
1946. SD-14, by Fritz Wolfbrandt, is in the same transcript.

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