[Page 286]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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