Q. Did Amt III regularly inform important or leading offices of the Party and the state on public opinion in religious matters, with a view to the persecutions?
A. No, the information about religious matters and spheres of life, in the last period, was scanty because Amt III had only one man to work on these matters.
Q. What was the aim of the SD in informing other offices about these matters?
A. Amt III's purpose in open reports in these matters was always concerned with the fact that according to its opinion there was not a matter of a struggle with the church but of handling the religious attitude of the masses in these matters.
Q. Was the SD's information activity leading to any persecution of the churches?
A. No. On the basis of Amt III's reporting on several occasions, very critical remarks were made about individual actions in the sphere of religious matters.
DR. GAWLIK: I have no further questions to ask. BY M. MONNERAY:
Q. Witness, you said that you were mobilized in the SD in 1940
A. I did not say that I was mobilized but that I was brought into the Reichsicherheitshauptamt on special duty.
Q. You forgot to state that you were previously a member of the SD.
A. I was asked, as far as I know, since when I had been in the SD.
Q. Were you a member of the SD before 1940?
A. I have not got the question exactly.
Yes. From 1934.
Q. You forget that, did you not?
A. far as I know, before the Commission I said it all in detail.
Q. Is it a fact, witness that before the seizure of power by the Nazi Party, the SD was a secret and illegal organization?
A. May I ask again, Did you say before the seizure of power?
Q. Yes, before the seizure of power.
A. I can not say anything about that, as I was not a member of the SD at the time.
Q. After the assumption of power, was the SD utilized by the Party, on the one hand, and on the other hand by the state and by the Gestapo in order to fight opposition groups?
A. as far as I know, the SD always had an entirely different informational task from that of the Gestapo.
Q. During the war, in the occupied territories, did the SD manifest itself at the same time as the SIPO -- Security Police -- within the Einsatzkommandos -- Operational Troops?
A. About the organization and activity of the Einsatzkommandos, I can unfortunately give no testimony, as I was never an employee of the SD in any occupied territory.
Q. Did you know Streckenbach?
A. Yes.
Q. What were his functions?
A. As far as I know, he was for some years head of Amt I.
Q. And this Office Number I was charged with question or organizations as much for the SIP as for the SD?
A. Yes.
Q. Therefore, this office could be assumed to know sufficiently the attributes of the SIPO and the SD?
A. May I ask again who in this function should have known exactly?
Q. Witness, the question was quite clear. I was referring to Streckenbach.
A. No, one can not assume that, as beneath him the task and organizational problems were entirely separated, even in his office. I can not say how far Streckenbach had a view over the activities of the SD, and I can not give an opinion on it.
Q. I should like to hand you Document F-984. It is an appeal Streckenbach. It was published in the bulletin of the SD.
THE PRESIDENT: Has this already been offered in evidence or not?
M. MONNERAY: It has not yet been offered in evidence, Mr. President. This document will be RF 1540. It is an appeal by Streckenbach to all the members of the SIPO and the SD, dated the 7th of September 1942. Extract from this appeal : "Before the taking over of power, the SD has, in its part, contributed to the National Socialist revolution. After the assumption of power the SIPO and SD assumed the responsibility of internal security of our Reich and opened up the way for the realization of National Socialism in the face of all opposition. Since the beginning of the war our Einsatzkommandos are everywhere where you find the German army and are carrying on, each in their own sector, the fight against the enemy of the Reich and of the people." the activities of the SIPO and the SD. For instance, they are appealing for information and articles on the following subjects : the history of the SD, its inception, its purpose, the fight for its consecration as the sole information agency of the SS and later on of the Party. Development of the SD from its beginning (illegal camouflage) until its full development after the assumption of power, which are particularly important events on the activity of the furnishing of information before and after the conquest of power, illegal missions, etc. And further on, common action of the Gestapo and of the SD for the destruction of antagonistic groups. BY M. MONNERAY:
Q. Witness, this declaration by Streckenback is contrary to the -
A. No, because of the actual task of SD there is no word in this appeal. Besides, the text read here does not lead one to know who actually drafted this appeal and formulated it. The name "Streckenbach" only means that he had signed it. Amt III can certainly not have participated in it, because otherwise the task of this Amt III would have had to have been described to some extent accurately in this appeal.
Q. Apart from Amt III, what were the various branches of the SD, the various services ?
A. For the domestic SD there was only Amt III.
Q. Witness, I would be obliged to you if you would answer my question.
A. I was of the opinion that I had answered your question, Mr. Prose
Q. I asked you which were the departments of the SD, and not which were
Q. Under the general concept of SD, which had nothing to do with the
Q. What were the functions of Amt VI?
A. That was the foreign informational service.
Q. When it speaks of fighting and combat in conjunction with the
A. That cannot be deduced in detail from the document which I have before me.
Q. Again I say you are not answering my question. Witness, can you imagine the Gestapo taking on a fight against an antagonistic group which would be situated inside the Reich ?
A. No. To my knowledge the Gestapo had a police task within the frontiers of the Reich.
Q. So when we talk in this appeal of a fight carried out against adverse groups, reference is really being made to a fight which is going on inside the country ?
A. Yes, although nothing is said there about the task of SD domestic.
Q. You told us several times, witness, that the job of the SD inland, and no doubt with greater reason outside the Reich, was the duty of the Gestapo and of the Police; is that not so ?
A. I have said absolutely nothing today about the foreign division of the SD, except in mentioning the existence of Amt VI.
Q. Please, witness, can you answer for the SD, the home SD ? According to you, the police was imbued with a police spirit, wasn't it ?
A. May I ask the Prosecutor what he means by this statement ?
Q. As opposed to the spirit of the SD, which was an objective outlook.
A. I cannot say what the point of view of the police was, because I was never a member of it.
Q. But you told us the SD had an objective and impartial spirit. That is right, isn't it ?
A. I have not said a scientific spirit, but always an objective, critical spirit, and I would like to stress this formulation expressly.
Q. That was also the spirit of the police, was it ?
A. I cannot judge that, as I said I was never a member of the police.
THE PRESIDENT: Put the question again, would you, Mr. Monneray. BY MR. MONNERAY:
Q. This impartial and objective spirit was the spirit of the police, wasn't it ?
A. I cannot state an opinion on this, as I was never a member of the police, but only of SD domestic Act III.
Q. Let us be clear about this, witness. You gave us long explanations as to the differences between the SD and the police, didn't you ? If you give us anything further about the difference, we would at least know what the police is.
A. I have for certain spheres stressed the difference between the SD tasks and the police tasks, but I am not in a position to clarify the general point of view of the police, because I don't know it. I spoke only in general and concrete terms from examples that I know from the experience that I have of Amt III and of the department in which I worked.
Q. Is it correct to say, witness, that the young candidate who wished to enter the SD received exactly be same training that the young candidates did who wished to enter the SIPO or the Security Police or the Criminal Police ? I should say those who wanted to enter the Gestapo or KRIPO, the Criminal Police.
A. The education of candidates for the SD was not known to me in detail. I know only that the head of Amt III repeatedly, from year to year made statements against an education which would be organized throughout all the same. How far his object on was practically achieved, I cannot say from my own experience.
Q. Well, I shall bring to your attention a paper which will add to your knowledge of this subject, which seems wanting. It is a circular published in the official bulletin of the and the SD, dated the 18th of May, 1940, and which states that young candidates, young police students of the SD, in spite of its character, which is supposed to be objective and impartial, would have to be attached for a period of four to the Original Police; namely, for three months with the Gestapo and three months with the SD. You were unaware of this, were you not?
Q Thank you. How you have told us also that the SD had very little to do with the official personnel affairs and political views of the Nazi Pans, is that right? Perhaps your memory is coming back to you. You know that the political chiefs of the party had to furnish to the German government their opinions of the political outlook of officials; you know that didn't you?
A May I ask the Prosecutor to repeat his question? I didn't quite understand it. a certain grade, or of appointing a civil servant or functionary, the political chief, the Gauleiter or the Kreisleiter, for instance, would have to furnish to the government a sort of political expert opinion on the proper and good political outlook of the candidate, is that right. task of the Hoheitstraeger of the party. report, did he not?
M. MONNERAY : F-989, which becomes RF-1541, Page 2 of the extract. It is a circular of the Chancellery of the national Socialist party concerning political reports supplies by political chiefs. First of all, this political report is defined as follows; "This political report has no value except if it reflects the moral and political outlook of the candidate." And afterwards there is a short paragraph saying who will have to supply this opinion :
"The people who are competent to give this opinion are the political chiefs of the SS. Political information can be given by all party chiefs. people in authority and the elements there are will be furnished by the various agents of the SD."
That is correct, is it not? give information but never political judgments and that the SD put special value on the fact that other information could be gathered from this information which possible could give an opinion of the general personality. In the document which is before me, in general, there is no manner of personal information but only of general situational information as I have mentioned. cal or ideological attitude? assessments as a judgment having value concerning the political or ideological outlook?
A Not in this document, no. Here only the preparation of reports on situations is mentioned.
M. MONNERAY : I would ask to show the witness the original letter on I continue. elements of the Party, between the SD and the party, wasn't there?
A Of close cooperation one can in no way speak. The relation between the SD and the Party, specially between AMT III and the Party Chancellery was in the last years to a great extent most tense. I would be very glad to illustrate this with concrete examples. circular, dated 21 August, 1943.
Q "It is the duty of the SS to keep the loaders as to the political every which take place on their territory, and the attention of the political chief has got to be particularly urgent affairs by the SD to enable the necessary political intervention." Is that right? all in accord. Amt III would, on the contrary, have been very gladly heard by the Hoheitstraeger of the Party if all the critical material could have been brought together in many cases, but this was, however, for years not the case, as the local representative of the SD was never received by the Hoheitstraeger.
Q Ver well. Well, we will see a few examples of what difference there is between practice and theory. Before the Commission you were shown Document R-142, USA-481, concerning the control by the SD of the plebescite in 1938, where the honorable collaborators of the SD, who were so disinterested, had tampered with the ballot papers.
As this was a practical instance, you told us you would tell us if this was an isolated instance, isn't that so? that this document does not refer to the SD but to one single office amongst many hundreds of offices of the SD. The document does not in any case give -
THE PRESIDENT. Don't raise your voice, please. that AMT III in Berlin had ever given any order for this preparation of reports.
Q Yes, certainly. Well, I will show you another document which reflects another isolated case without a doubt. This time reference is made to the City of Erfurt. Document D-897, already offered by the British Delegation when they were submitting evidence against the political chiefs, Exhibit GB-501. This is a confidential circular, 4 April 1938, coming from the security Service Branch Officer Stuart end addressed to all heads of sections, requesting all agents abroad to send in reports urgently on all those persons of which they were sure that they were going to vote no. This document makes you smile, witness. However, witness, if you look a little further down you will see that the matter was a serious one, for the head of the SD, a conscientious man as you know, says as follows :
"The tremendous responsibility us once more stressed that the representatives abroad have in this matter concerning the eventual serious consequences to those persons named in regard to their relations to the Reich," Witness, do you cell that objective reporting? Is that so?
A I am sorry, Mr. Prosecutor, you speak just now of the head of the SD, and the document is signed by an Oberschar fuehrer, which is approximately the same as a sargeant in the Army, I don't think you can say this is an official document; and again, this is a document which indicates only an extravagant initiative and can not in any way be said to indicate the general policy of the SD.
THE PRESIDENT. M. Monneray, I think a good many loaders have already been examined on this document.
M. MONNERAY : Yes, Mr. President. In will also draw the attention of the Tribunal to Document D-902, already offered in evidence as Exhibit No. 542, on the same subject.
THE PRESIDENT : Does the witness know anything about this evidence?- - - because if it is already in evidence there is no use putting it to him unless he knows something about it.
M. MONNERAY. It has already been submitted in evidence and I understood, Mr. President, that you did not wish me to interrogate on that document.
THE PRESIDENT : Well, if there is any particular reason for asking this witness questions upon this document, you may ask them, but there is no use putting a document to him if he has never seen it before, if it is already in evidence. I don't know what the document is.
M. MONNERAY : I Wanted to ask this witness questions on both documents to show how little faith one can attach to those depositions which he made before the Commission; whereas, as a matter of fact, it seems that it was a general measure of the area which was general in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT : If you want to cross examine the witness as to the document, you can put questions from the document to him, but you can't -- at least the Tribunal doesn't want you to put the document to him.
BY M. MONNERAY : SD furnished also very objective reports without any political intentions behind them, is that right?
A Yes. Every week we sent in reports about the reception of radio progress the German population, as objective as possible.
M. MONNERAY : I offer to the Tribunal a document already produced as US -158, which established that in this domain also the SD had a mission which could not be described as a more reporting mission. BY M. MONNERAY :
Q Witness, what was the work of Department 3-D-3 ?
Q What was the work of Department 3-3-3? dual departments in my head; in any case, certainly not with radio as that was the task of Amt 3-C-4. race and health?
A I'll answer just now to the attack that I no longer remember in detail all the tasks of the Department. your colleagues about general situation reports in the matter of foreign work people in Germany; any foreign labor?
A No. I personally had nothing to do with these matters. The question was quite beyond the scope of my powers and tasks.
M. MONNERAY: I offer Document 1753-PS, which becomes RF 1542, which contains a report from one of the departments of the SD, and concerning the possibility given by the RSHA to German doctors to cause abortion among eastern female workers in the east of Germany if they requested it. This report establishes that the statements of the SD in this matter are in no way objective statements but are definitely linked by their official color to the official Nazi policy. cerning slave labor to be furnished by workers in Germany, In this document the person who wrote the report, who was an agent of the SD, after having mentioned the numerous desertions of foreign work people, proposes practical reprisals, such as reprisals for families of work people by withdrawals of rations, and so forth.
Q Witness, do you call that objective reports? And did you think that these reports would be of value to the police? under the Reichicherheitshauptamt in the country is reported to give opinions where, of course, the opinions of members of the party would also be given. In general I would like to contradict the opinion of the prosecutor because the AMT III was never concerned with this matter or had any agents for that task. I must again state that as far as the competence of these documents are concerned, I can only take a subjective attitude because they did not belong to my department.
I still consider my sentimental declaration concerning the task of the SD still to be thoroughly correct. to the central services; it was addressed to the labor office, to the manpower office. It is therefore a report in view of those measures which are suggested, isn't that so? what office it came. which office the document came.
Q Do you admit that the report is addressed to the Manpower Bureau?
A Yes; but I would at the same time like to point out that after the signatures, "Secretary" is mentioned; and SD, as far as I know, never had any secretaries. It should be a SD or a SS rank there instead. by organizations depending from AMT III and AMT VI, isn't that so?
A No. No, AMT III, I can say, had no organizations which were directly beneath. The only individuals were the agents who carried cut the tasks in the occupied territories.
Q AMT VI of the RSHA looked after their foreign countries, didn't it? operating abroad, didn't it? division.
M. MONNERAY: I offer to the Tribunal in evidence F-1973 and 1974. Those are information sheets addressed to Section 6-ST-2. The documents will become RF-1544 and 1545.
Those are information sheets and agents' reports addressed --
THE PRESIDENT: Go on. Have they been translated? Have the copies been given to the German counsel?
M. MONNERAY: The German copies have not been distributed because I did not have documents in their entirety. The original is in German; and it is a report made out on a printed information form, sent out by the SD agents to the competent services of the Gestapo, concerning the Jewish question; and thereby it can be established that there has been THE PRESIDENT:
Have these documents been translated into the various languages?
M. MONNERAY: They have been merely translated into French, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know the rule is that they must be translated into four languages. You must read it then, if that is so.
M. MONNERAY: With your permission, I shall read one of the documents, Section 6-N-1.
THE PRESIDENT: We have been a long time and we have now apparently got to the stage that we've got to read this document, all these documents, which are of very remote importance. We've got to read them through because they haven't been translated. It's taking up a long time; and it does not seem to be achieving any great result.
M. MONNERAY: In that case, Mr. President, I shall pass on to the last point, concerning the transplanting of population. in sending people into concentration camps?
A. From my personal knowledge, I can only say in general that AMT III had absolutely no executive powers. Also, therefore, it was not empowered to send any people into a concentration camp. which were those Poles who were fit to be Germanized and which were those, on the other hand, who could only be sent to concentration camps? factual knowledge.
M. MONNERAY: I would ask permission to read an extract of Document R-112.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this new?
M. MONNERAY: It is a document which has already been offered in evidence, USA-309.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you must refer to it because the witness says he does not know anything about it.
M. MONNERAY: I would like merely to read the passage from this document which establishes, contrary to the declaration of the witness, the SD did in fact collaborate with the Gestapo for the Germanization of the Poles.
2 Aug A LJG 18-1
THE PRESIDENT: If there is anything in the document which shows that the witness is not telling the truth you can put that part of the document to the witness.
M. MONNERAY: The document refers to Amt 3 B of the SD and does not indicate any direct element which affects the witness. Therefore, it appears only on the general question of the activity of the SD and does not affect the witness personally THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Monneray, the witness has just said that Amt III did not have anything to do with deportation of populations. If this document shows that he did then you can put that fact to him.
M. MONNERAY: That is why, Mr. President, I was asking permission to read a passage of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: You can put the document to him.
M. MONNERAY: It is a letter of the 1st of July, signed by Streckenback. This letter emanates from Amt III B (1) and it is addressed to the Gestapo, the SD, in the newly occupied territories of the cast. This document says, on page 2, first point:
"The Gesta po Services must ask the services of the DDL, the SD and the people therein for information sheets on persons belonging to Group 4.
"Third point: The office chiefs of the State Police and the permanent representatives of the SD also is the representatives of 3B and have to send in a report which reflects their personal opinion."
On page 3, fourth point:
"After an examination from the racial point of view the agents of the SD will verify the information concerning the people and will ask the RSHA for arrests and sending to concentration camps. In particular difficult cases the files will first of all have to be sent for information reasons to Amt 3B." Streckenbach:
2 Aug A LJG 18-2 "In execution of the current control of Germanization, the SD services - -"
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. As far as I understand the document it clearly applies to Amt III. Well, why don't you put it to him?
M. MONNERAY: I merely wanted to read out the sentences and ask him afterwards if Amt III had nothing to do with the Gestapo, or whether It had any authority to intervene in the matter of carrying out of arrests and sending people to concentration camps and might I please, sir, finish reading the passage in question?
"....SD services will proceed as to the Germanization of Polish workers."
M. MONNERAY: the RSHA, does it not? Prosecutor, because as far as I can see this document does not come from Amt III of the RSHA but from the Office for Germanization. After the date there is 3 B (1) but immediately after there is the Reich Commissar for the Establishment of Germanization and -to this order signed by Streckenbach, the services of the SD, in common with those of the Gestapo, were to verify their information on people and to request, if necessary, the arrest of people concerned and have them sent to concentration camps? Will you please answer yes or no? information but in any case it is clear that the Reich Commissar for Germanization could give no orders to the SD. Therefore, it is quite vague from this document as to what the SD could practically do in this matter and the specialist in charge of these matters should be questioned here.
2 Aug A LJG 318-3
Q You did not reply to my question. According to this document is it correct to state that the SD had to collaborate actively with the Gestapo in those matters, yes or no? I think I have answered correctly when I say that the Reich Commissar for Germanization could give no order to the SD and I cannot judge what the actually did, as those are two entirely different and separate offices. As far as I knew the group leader who is responsible was already heard before the Commission
Q You are still not answering. Is it yes or no? Did the SD collaborate with the Gestapo in examining people and, if necessary, to have them arrested and sent to concentration camps? second question. Since the Reich Commissar could give no direct orders to the SD I can give no answer yes or no, although the SD on the basis of this -
THE PRESIDENT: I think the document speaks for itself and not I think the Tribunal had better adjourn.
(A recess was taken.)
BY M. MONNERAY:
Q. One last question concerning the document R-112. Who was the Reich Commissioner for the consolidation of Germanism
A. I apparently did not get the question through. You mean the chief office, the supreme office ?
Q. And which was under the authority of the chief of the SS and Police, isn't that true ?
A. Himmler.
Q. Do you maintain that this letter of July 1 which came from Himmler's offices and was addressed, at the same time, both to the Gestapo Offices, the SD Offices, to the SIPO, Criminal Police offices, does not refer to the real state of affairs ?
A. From my own knowledge I can only point out once more that there are two completely different agencies. To that extent, I cannot judge.
M. MONNERAY : I have no more questions to ask.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik just a minute.
LT. CMDR. HARRIS: May it please the Tribunal, we would like to offer merely as a supplement, a new document which has just came in. It is document number 4054-PS and it becomes USA-921. The only significance of this document is that it shows that the 3D was running agencies in Los Angeles, California shortly before the outbreak of war between the United States and Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: You have got a copy of this Dr. Gawlik ? Have you got a copy of it ?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to re-examine ?
DR. GAWLIK: I have no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire. And I think that finishes your evidence, Dr. Gawlik, that's all of your evidence, isn't it ? You have no more witnesses, have you.
DR. GAWLIK: I have no more witnesses, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: In what order does the counsel for the organizations wish to proceed now ?