Two Hundred and Seventh Day:
Tuesday, 20th August, 1946 [Page 290]
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]
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]
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:
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:
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 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."
[Page 294]
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]
In the Government General the singling out will continue
to be carried out by the Security Police." [
Previous |
Index |
Next ]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
(Part 5 of 9)
"(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.
"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.
"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
"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.