Q. Then you say that if instructions went out from the Reich Research Council you knew nothing about them. That is your answer as I understand it.
A. As far as details are concerned, of course I did not know because, firstly, that was impossible merely from the point of view of time. As far as I am concerned, my day too only had 24 hours. my task was to give general instructions to those men working in research, in order to centralize the research work in every sphere, and secondly, to provide the very large funds required.
Q. But you see, defendant, the letter goes on to say, "In accordance with his Instructions" -- which were said to come from the Reichsmarshal, the President of the Research Council -- "In accordance with his instructions, Dr. Haagen has to report about his work to the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services."
A. That is possible; it is possible that he had that order. However, he did not report to me, and the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate did not report to me either. Chief of the Hygiene Inspectorate appear here as a witness, in order to make it abundantly clear.
Q. So that in both these capacities -- in these two of your capacities -the Reich Research Council and the Medical Department of the Luftwaffe were both acting without any knowledge of yours ? In these experiments which were concerned with the condition of, among others, the service for which you were responsible, you say both of these bodies were acting without your knowledge. That is what you say. Is that right; are you sure it is right ?
A. That is absolutely right, May I give you a brief season why it must be right, if you will permit me ?
Q. Just a moment. I would like you to consider one or two points before you commit yourself too deeply to that. special thanks to the SS for their cooperation in the altitude experiments ?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is document 343-PS, and it isthe letter that begins, "Dear Wolff". Wolff was one of Himmler's personal staff. If my recollection is correct, he was the liaison between Himmler and Hitler, certainly, at one time.
Q. (Continuing) and your second man, defendant, Fieldmarshal Milch, is saying to "Dear Wolff", "I convey the special thanks from the Supreme Commander of the Air Corps to the SS for their extensive cooperation." he signed it on behalf of your Medical Department -- was merely expressing a chanson de malaise and was not conveying your thanks to Himmler ?
A. I not only say that, but it has been testified to quite clearly by Fieldmarshal Milch when he was a witness here. If you would care to look at the record, you will find that he is expressly admitting that I had no knowledge of these details.
Apart from that, Mr. Prosecutor, the situation is this. A certain method of correspondence was employed by us, which is perhaps not quite fitting here, but that is the way we did it. If an official of a ministry is addressing a letter of thanks to someone which is not of a personal nature, then he always has to write on behalf of the chief, in the name of the chief, and I think that must be the same form everywhere.
Q. I just remind you; what the witness Milch said was that these letters were put in front of him by your Medical Department. These experiments mainly and greatly concerned the Luftwaffe. Are you saying that the thanks of the Luftwaffe and of the Supreme Commander, yourself, were given without any reference to you at all ?
A. Fieldmarshall Milch did not say that the letters were put before me. He says they were put before him.
Q. That is what I said; I said "before him". I didn't suggest they were put before you at all.
A. I t probably came through incorrectly, sir. Then he goes on to say that he thanks him politely, because the Inspectorate had told him that there were no other interests in the matter since the high altitude experiments had already been voluntarily carried out by our young medical officers, and he spoke about that at length.
Q. But you know, it didn't stop with your young medical officers. Your Service provided the equipment for Dachau for these experiments.
A. It isn't coming through.
Q. I will repeat that. It did not stop there. Your Service was providing the equipment for these experiments for Dachau.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, the reference to that is GB-582, document 2428-PS, which is an affidavit by the detainee Anton Pacholegg, who was at Dachau. He says that the Luftwaffe delivered, here at the concentration camp at Dachau, a cabinet constructed of wood and metal, measuring one meter square and two meters high, and so on. He describes the equipment.
Q. (Continuing) Are you saying that the supplying of equipment for these experiments at Dachau was done without any reference to you on these particular Air Force experiments ?
A. First, it was not the Air Force which was carrying out the experiments at Dachau, it was the medical officer of the Reserve Air Force, Dr. Rascher. Whether Dr . Rascher obtained the order to do so from the Hygiene Medical Inspectorate, or in what manner, I do not know. a so-called high altitude closet. That is something I have mentioned before, which had to be entered normally by everyone in order to find out the reaction of his body to altitude and pressure conditions.
It wasn't difficult for Rascher, therefore, to address himself to the Inspectorate and, in technical terms, to apply for such a closet or such a chamber without giving exact details: what types of experiments, he wanted to use it for, and whether that entialed any danger for those people who were to be subjected to these experiments. said -- for instance, at the end of Justice Jackson's final speech he emphasized that I had had my fat fingers in every pie. I want to say that if I held as many offices as I am being accused of having held, then you will understand that I could not possibley have concerned myself with every high altitude pressure chamber which was used for experiments.
Q. But did you not concern your self with the experiments to test the flight clothing for the Luftwaffe when the concentration camp detainees were dressed in various types of flight suits with jackets ? I mean, defendant, you have been a practical air man yourself, with a very gallant record of service in the air in the last war. What I am suggesting to you is that these matters were matters that were not only within your administrative interest in your positions, but they were within your personal interest as an ex-air officer. That is why I am suggesting to you that you would have, and did have, an interest in these experiments.
Putting back your memory, are you sure that you don't remember about the experiments on these concentration camp detainees for testing air clothing
A. Sir David, I am not only absolutely sure that I don't remember, but I am absolutely sure that it was not so. I mean, I wish to emphasize that I am not saying I don't remember; I am saying with absolute certainty that this was not the situation.
Secondly, you are absolutely right. Naturally, I would have taken the greatest interest in the welfare of my aviators and also, naturally, their clothing. We, the fliers, amongst ourselves, repeatedly discussed what the best type of flying combination would be. Had I been told that combinations which were heatable were being used, then I particularly, on the strength of my own experience, would have said that I didn't want them, because at the end of the last war I myself had worn such a heatable suit and the outcome was that I burnt myself all over.
Q. Well, now, take another experiment. It must have been the same in your Air Force as in ours, that one of the greatest difficulties, or one of the things that one wanted to deal with, was those who came down, in our parlance, who came down into the sea; that is, what could be done and for what time they would survive.
Do you say that you did not know about the cold test ? According to this affidavit to which I have referred, Dr. Rascher conducted this cold test -
That was for the Luftwaffe also. That was to see the resistance of the human body to emersion in water. Do you say that you knew nothing about that experiment also ?
A. I knew neither Dr. Rascher nor any of the experiments he was carrying out. The symptoms, experienced by people who had fallen into the water, cau such/ sed by cold were known.
Against freezing, same excellent powder, or some stu had been invented. truct life belts in such a way that they would facilitate breathing in spite of the sea waves, and so on and so forth. In just the same manner, precautionary measures as to clothing and the rescuing methods of our opponents were experimented with and observed by us in that respect. I remember that I once held a pamphlet of that type in my hand, but that is all. and the most suitable steps were always taken. They moved about, they were given alsohol, and so on, in order to warm them up again.
Q. Well now -
A. (Interposing) I beg your pardon, Mr. Prosecutor, but there is something I attach great value to, and that is this. The experiments with women, and all that sort of thing, as they have been mentioned here, are so utterly in contradiction to my view regarding women that I would have resented such experiments most deeply, not only afterwards but at the time.
of knowledge of these experiments at that time. Did you or did you not know that the Sanitaetswesen of the Luftwaffe were, in May 1944, working on experiments to render seawater drinkable in which concentration camp inmates were used?
A No, that I did not know. But, Mr. Prosecutor, I would like to say this in reference to that experiment and how these things developed. It wasn't even necessary for the medical inspectorate to know that. An order was given, and even assuming that I had given it, it didn't necessarily allow for the deduction that experiments were carried out on human beings. The medical officer had some sort of connection to Himmler and the research department, but also, he could be connected with the Waffen SS through Himmler. At the same time, there were connections in which the Luftwaffe would not have been included In any event, every system which was being used was being represented up above.
Q The first letter that I put to you was dated 26 May 1942. You say that the facts which Field Marshal Milch were concerned with, I want to get it exactly as possible, were merely formal methods of conveying the facts of that date? Do you remember that on 28 July 1942 Hitler issued a Fuehrer's Decree, countersigned by the defendant Keitel and by the Witness Lammers, establishing a Coordination Staff for the Armed Forces to deal with health. That is on July 28, 1942. It was to take care of the coming tasks in the field of health for the Armed Forces, the Waffen SS,and subordinate organizations. And, if I may remind you, so that you may fit it in your memory, "for the purpose of a constructive treatment of these offices, a sanitary officer of the Navy and a sanitary officer of the Airforce will be assigned to work under him." That is the sanitary officer of the Army. The latter, that is, the medical officer of the Airforce, in a capacity as a chief of staff, that is the time when Field Marshal Milch was writing to Wolff about these experiments.
Two months later there was a Fuehrer's Decree and one of your officers was to be Chief of Staff of this Coordination Staff. Are you telling the Tribunal that you did not know about the Fuehrer's Decree and that your officer was so appointed?
A Before I tell the Tribunal my answer, may I have a look at the decree?
Q Would you like . ..?
Q Yes, I probably will be able to understand that much. Yes, that's just what I wanted to find out. This decree has nothing whatsoever to do with experiments. It begins with the following, and I shall translate it freely, since I don't know English too well.
"The personnel and material with reference to the Health Inspectorate was a temporary condition and a planned condition. It is for that reason that I decree herewith that the Chief of the Sanitary Department...." and here I don't know which translation applies. "In order to find the solution to the shortage of medical officers, it is necessary for joint research work to be carried out."
That topic is a matter of course. The Army was carrying the bulk of the medical officers and was also getting the greatest number of requirements so that it was the Sanitary Inspector who was put at the head of the department. Since the Air Force was carrying the second largest amount of medical officers, the Chief of Staff was chosen from them. is that on July 28 , 1942, there was this additional interest in medical experiments and research which made Hitler issue this coordinating staff. Now, I want you just to remember how that interest in medical matters was shown in your service. A month later, on 31st August 1942, your second man Milch was writing to Himmler. My Lord, this is document number 343-PS, and if you like, the State Exhibit No.463.
"Dear Mr. Himmler: I thaink you very much for your letter of 25 August. I have read with great interest the reports of Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg, I am Informed about the current experiments. I shall ask the two gentlemen to give a lecture combined with the showing of motion pictures to my men in the near future." question, and that that letter was put in front of him by the head of your medical department for his signature. Assume that if you like. There is no reason to suppose that the head of your medical department was tellinglies in the letter he put before Milch; no reason to assume that that letter is untrue and if, in your service, lectures were given on these experiments with motion pictures, are you still telling the Tribunal that you, as the head of the service, knew nothing about the experiments for your service that were going on
A I an only telling the truth to the Tribunal and that is: It is not by any means necessary for the sanitary inspector to submit this letter to Milch because....Was this a direct letter to Himmler or was this Milch's testimony?
Q I am only quoting Milch's evidence. I was asking you to assume for the moment that Milch's evidence was true. It was suggested to Milch that his evidence wasn't true. I am asking you to assume that Milch is telling the truth for the purpose of my question. That is why I put it that way. Now, continue your answer.
A I am afraid I didn't quite understand you clearly. Now, did you read a letter from Field Marshal Milch to me or did you put the testimony which Milch put here? Himmler. And I informed you, in case you didn't remember, that Field Marshal Milch, that that letter was put in front of him by your medical department and that he signed it blindly. That was Milch's evidence. I asked you to assume that Milch was telling the truth. I don't mean that for the moment. I am ask you, as head of your service, if these experiments were the subject of lectures and motion pictures shown to your own men under your command, are you telling the Tribunal that you knew nothing about then? implicitly at the beginning. I am not saying that Field Marshal Milch was saying an untruth.
After all, he himself said (and I remember his testimony given here on the witness stand and he cleared up this matter absolutely) that he did not render a report to no about the details of those experiments. That decree had nothing to do with experiments but, as I said earlier, the connection of the three armed forces with reference to the sanitary system is entirely a matter of organization.
Q Witness, I just passed the decree, you know. I want your answer. Do you say that you did not know that lectures and motion pictures were show to the men under your command dealing with these experiments? I just want your answer quite clearly -- yes or no. Did you or did you not know?
A No, I knew nothing about it. I beg you once more to take into consideration that the Air Ministry was a Ministry of administration, whereas in the office I dealt with tactical matters. I would have stopped these experiments -- I would have done so, even if the Russian Prosecution have twisted the facts, I still stick to my statement. In 1934 I strictly forbade experiments to be carried out on animals, so that I certainly would have strongly forbidden experiments to be carried out on human beings.
Q It is not for me to comment. Plenty of people have standards with animals which they do not apply to follow men. But, that is a matter of comment and I do not wish to pursue it. Dr. Rascher was transferred from the Airforce to the SS. Before he was transferred Himmler wrote to Milch on that subject and described the experiments on the behavior of human organisms at great heights in prolonged cooling and similar behavior. I quoted Himmler's letter.
"These researches which deal with the behavior of the human organism at great heights, as well as with manifestations caused by prolonged cooling of the human body in cold water, and similar problems which are of vital importance to the air force in particular."
Then he says, "Unfortunately you had no time recently when Dr. Rascher wanted to report on the experiments at theMinistry for Air Aviation.
I had put great hopes in that report because I believe that the difficulties based merely on religions objections which opposed Dr. Rascher's experiments for which I have assumed responsibility could be eliminated. The difficulties are still the same now as before. In these Christian medical circles the standpoint is being taken that it goes without saying that a young German aviator should be allowed to risk his life, but that the life of a criminal who is not drafted into military service is too sacred for this purpose and one should not burden oneself with this guilt." airforce and also to the Waffen SS, "however, in this connection, I suggest that with the liaison between you and Wolff", that is, Milch and Wolff, "a non-Christian physician should be charged who would, at the same time, be informed of the results. heard, that Christian medical circles were protesting against these experiments?
Q Himmler, I am sorry. Although Himmler know, you say you did not know that Christian medical circles were protesting apparently, according to this letter, publicly and insistently, protesting against these experiments? Did you not know that?
A No, and they didn't protest publicly. But I am awfully grateful to you for having put this letter which, among the many documents which have been submitted, has not been clearly put. The emphasis is unique, but I am happy that Christian medical officers that are mentioned -by that they mean the Inspectorate of my Luftwaffe. They were my medical offices because they alone could raise protests. For this reason -- that one of the reasons why Rascher had to leave the Airforce. That just emphasizes everything that I said.
Q I want you -- again, I want you to apply your mind tothis. You and Himmler were still on good terms in 1942, weren't you?
A Until the very end. Himmler always adopted a very polite attitude toward me. After all, he had to.
Q You were more than that. Within a few days of this letter you sent him an attache case, a box of cigars, and a notebook for Christmas. This means that you were on good terms with Himmler. Do you noon to say that you never heard, that Hitler never heard, that Milch never told you, that the medical officers never said to you that those experiments were being carried on and were being protested against in Christian medical circles? Did everyone conspire, defendant, to keep you in ignorance of every matter that might be embarrassing to you? Now,is that the answer?
A The experiment's and knowledge of them have nothing whatever to do with the crocodile briefcase and the notebook. In the last case you are concerned with Christmas presents in exchange for a present which Himmler had given me for Christmas or behalf of the SS, and I always wanted to return these kindnesses Secondly, there weren't any efforts being made to keep me oblivious of these experiments. The various spheres were allotted to various people. They were subdivided into important matters and into matters which felle into certain departments, and the Hygiene Inspectorate was one of them, and it was impossible to bring everything to my knowlodo. not hear a public protest coming from Christian circles in German raised against such experiments.Such utterances wouldn't, in fact have been possible.
THE PRESIDENT : Have you any questions to put, Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER : I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT : The defendant can return to the dock.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Gawlik.
DR. GAWLIK : Your Lordship, mau I first of all beg to be allowed to apologize for not having been ready for submission of my documents yesterday. I regret that this resulted in the stoppage of the trial, but the defense counsel of the organizations had been informed that the sequence for submission of documents was different then that of the hearing of evidence; and the sequence which I had heard was the following : Political Leaders, Gestapo, SS, and SD. I therefore assumed that I would follow the SS with the submission of documents.
I beg the Tribunal to this into consideration in this connection that I am at present working on my final speech and that I am therefore not able to participate in the sessions of other statements.
THE PRESIDENT : Are you saying that you are not able now to participate in the session?
DR. GAWLIK : Yes, I am ready, your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT : I do not know how any such misund standing as you indicate can have occured, because no order was given by the Tribunal that there would be any alteration of the order, and counsel for the defendants and the defendant organizations must understand that they must be here when their case is called on, and the Tribunal can't be kept waiting as it was yesterday. This is the first occasion on which it has happened, and the Tribunal hopes it will not hppen again.
DR. GAWLIK : Your Lordship, there is a letter dated the first of August which is posted on the blackboard in the counsel's room.
THE PRESIDENT : Just what does it say?
DR. GAWLIK : In that letter it says that during the hearing of witnesses, the sequence was altered and the SD witnesses would come before the SS witnesses, but that with reference to the submission of documents and the final speeches, the old sequence was being adhered to, and then the sequence is quoted, and it is as follows : Political Leadership Corps, Gestapo, SS and then SD.
THE PRESIDENT : The Tribunal will inquire into that matter.
DR. GAWLIK : First of all, I beg to deal with the records referring to the witnesses I have examined, which I beg to submit first. I shall start with the submission of affidavits now. Only some of the affidavits, because of the overburden of work of the Translating Division, have so far been translated.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Gawlik, as you weren't present the other day, perhaps I had better tell you what the Tribunal's wishes were and are with reference to these affidavits.
been summarized and the summaries set out in the transcript before the commissioners, and therefore, for you to give a summary again of these affidavits merely creates on the transcript of the Tribunal a repetition of the summary which is already in the transcript before the commissioners. The Tribunal does not desire that. Therefore, if you will confine yourself to commenting on of the commissioners, that is all that is necessary, subject, of course, to offering them in evidence.
Is that clear? I wasn't suggesting that you should being before us affidavits which havn't been brought before the commissioners, but I was merely telling you that we don't want to have repetition of summaries which were put before the commissioners and which are set out in the transcript before the commissioners and which are set out in the transcript before the commissioners.
DR. GAWLIK : That wasn't my intention, your Lordship. I merely wanted to say that only part of these affidavits have been translated, and it was from these completely translated affidavits that I was going to make my submission. However, of some I have received only a part, so at this moment I have not in my hands the translation of all the affidavits I propose to use, and it is any request that I may submit them as and when I received them.
THE PRESIDENT : Very well. Before you begin, this will be a convenient time to break off.
DR. GAWLIK : Very well.
(A recess is taken).
DR. GAWLIK: I shall present my affidavits in the order of the points of the Indictment as they appear in the trial brief against the Gestapo and SD because I believe it would be of aid to the Tribunal by doing so. This will not agree with the order of the numbers but I believe that this will make no difference because in this way the Tribunal can see that I have endeavored not to present any cumulative evidence. of the SD from its foundation to the establishment of the RSHA. I have submitted affidavit SD 27 by Dr. Albert, from the transcript of the 22nd July 1946. was a task of the SD to obtain secret information on actual and possible opponents of the Nazis. This refers to the trial brief against the Gestapo and SD Roman Number Three, page 17 of the English version. In this connection, the summary of the contents is also shown from the records of the Commission, of the 23rd of July 1946.
Then I have further to submit Affidavit SD No.1, by Ferdinand Zachmann, which I hereby submit.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. GAWLIK: The next affidavit will prove that the reporting of the SD to the Party Chancellory was not for the purpose of supporting a conspiracy. I have submitted Affidavit SD No.27. The short summary arises from the transcript of the 3rd of August 1946. activities of Group 3-D of the RSHA and in connection with the fact that Group 3-D did not support any conspiracy. In this connection, I have submitter affidavit SD No.40, by Ohlendorf, coming from the protocol of the 23rd of July 1946. offices and the confidential agents in connection with the fact that the tasks and aims of the branch offices and confidential agents were not to support a conspiracy. In this connection, I submit Affidavit SD 65, by Professor Ritter I applied for the complete translation of this affidavit but I have not yet received it because the translation department is too busy.
I call especial attention of the Court to this affidavit. This is one of the best known German historians. I should like to read the following from this affidavit:
Question One: "Please tell us about your position and occupation, about your position?" Answer: "Since 1925 I have been Professor of Modern History at the University of Freiburg."
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 same place as friends of Dr. Goerdeles and I was intended as Culture Minister of his new cabinet. In November 1934, I was arrested in connection with the events of the 20th of July. I had been placed before the court in Berlin and on the 25th of April 1945, the Russian Army released me from prison.
THE PRESIDENT: The translation came through to us as "November 1934." Was it 1944?
DR. GAWLIK: 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 comes from my activity as Chairman of the Purification Committee of the University at Freiburg.
Fifth question: "What was the task of the SD Arbeitsgemeinschaft?" Answer: "First, orientation of the supreme SD leadership -- I do not know the exact names -- concerning feelings among the population and the criticism of party measures." this answer and then I come to the eighth question: "What was the aim and task or the activities of the confidential 'agents (Vertrauensmaenner)?" Answer: "The aims and tasks were essentially the same as in the case of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft, to which the confidential agents belonged; but while the other members of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft were used only occasionally for conferences for the SD, the confidential agents were in constant contact with it."
Now, I come to the eighth question: "Did the confidential agents have the task to collect and pass on statements hostile to the state and to watch persons known as hostile to the state?" Answer: "I do not know any facts in this connection." And then I leave out a few lines.
I cone to the ninth question: "What was the purpose and what was the aim of the SD in Germany in its reports?" Answer: "In contrast to the 'rosy' party reports, the SD reports were I give a picture corresponding to the actual facts and conditions. In the field of cultural policy, in addition, gaps and failings were to be pointed out."
Tenth question: "Did the SD within Germany report on your lectures?" Answer: "Yes. I know that the branch of the SD in Karlsruhe or in Strassburg had a number of reports and stenographic notes on my lectures: the activity of the SD concerning me and a number of scientists and high officials --
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, I think it can be more convenient to the Tribunal or more easy for them to follow if you can summarize the affidavit rather than reading it.
DR. GAWLIK: I have only a few questions and then this affidavit will be finished; but you must please consider this is the only affidavit which I want to read. I place especial value on this affidavit because it was not from an SD member but from a professor who was watched by the SD.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. GAWLIK: "I can say that I exchanged correspondence with a number of officials concerning the activity of the SD, in which it was confirmed that my presentation of the facts agreed in all points with the experience of those men."
Eleventh question: "Did the SD on the basis of the watching of your lectures occasion Gestapo measures against you?" Answer: "I know nothing of that."
Thirteenth question: "Did the Gestapo arrest or warn you before because of your lectures?" Answer: "No. I was warned once by the Gestapo but on the basis of a denunciation which I knew of, which did not come from the SD."
Fourteenth question: "For what reason were you arrested?" Answera:"Because of my relations with some leading men on the 20th of July."
Fifteenth question: Did the examining officials know of 20 Aug M LJG 8-1 Perrin the contents of your lectures?
Answer: No, apparently not. They accepted that without contradiction. In my defense I referred to the 'patriotic attitude of my lectures.' I consider it out of the question that the Gestapo officials know of my lectures and the SD reports which were based on them. Sisteenth question: What was the attitude of the scientific faculty in Freiburg toward the Hitler Reich? Not only the scientific faculty of the university but the majority of the professors were opponent of National- Socialism. This was known to Dr. Schuer of the Reich, the professor leader. He had announced the dissolution of the who he University until after the war.
"Seventeenth question: Did the SD know of this attitude? Answer: There can he no doubt of that. Eighteenth question: Did the SD occasion any Gestapo measures against the faculty? Answer: I know nothing of that." this point, SD Number 29 which was in the transcript of the Commission of the 23 of July, '46. Further, by Dr. Horstlaube, SD 31, also arising from the transcript of the 23 of July, 1946. Furthermore, SD 26 by Dr. Zirnbauer. There is no summary in the transcript; therefore, I shall make the following brief statement. and submitted them to the SD, and he testified in lieu of all that these were reports which he had prepared as confidential agent of the SD. Then, I should like to state that these are the only two original reports which I was able to obtain. Testament One is a report on the supplement of an Alsace-Lorraine catalogue of the geographical section and Saarbruecken State Library was absolutely necessary. Supplement Two was a report on the Salzburg concert life. I have further submitted SD Number 30 of Zellern, arising from the transcript of the 23 of July, 1946. The next affidavit refers to the statement of the Prosecution that the SD was part of the SS all the time. The introduction to the Trial Brief against the Gestapo, and the SD is page 12 of 20 Aug M LJG 8-2 Perrin the English version, and on page 67 of the English version, by Otto Ohlendorf.
The short summary is in the transcript of 23 of July 1946. The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD played a role of execution of one or more tasks, at least, the indictment of the SD. Roman numeral Two of Page 8 of the translation. In this connection I submit affidavit by Otto Ohlendorf, and the short summary arising from the Commission transcript of the 23 of July, '46.
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't give the number of that affidavit, I don't think.
DR. GAWLIK: SD Number 23, Your Lordship, I beg your pardon. 33, yes 33. The next affidavit refers to the assertion of the Prosecution that the SD and Gestapo were united in a unified police system. This is statement of evidence Roman numeral Two B, and Roman Numeral Three B of the Trial Brief against the Gestapo, and page 8 and 17 of the English version. In this connection I have submitted SD Number Two by Otto Ohlendorf, the short summary arises from the transcript of the 9 of July, 1946. is in the transcript of the 23 of July, '46. SD Number 35 by Dr. Hoffmann, and the short summary is in the transcript of the 23 of July, '46, and SD Number 36 by Ohlendorf, and the short summary of the contents is in the transcript of the-23 of July, '46. With the next Affidavit, I want to prove that the SD had no executive power. In this connection I have submitted the affidavit SD Number 20 by Alfred Kutter, and the short summary of the contents arises from the transcript of the 9 of July '46. The next two affidavits are a supplement to the affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl. The Prosecution document PS 2614. I submit in this connection a supplementary affidavit SD Number 37 by Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl.
THE PRESIDENT: That has been submitted to the Commissioner, 20 Aug M LJG 8-3 Perrin has it?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Your Lordship. The summary is in the transcript of the 25 of July, '46. I have asked that this affidavit be translated completely; and I submit the complete translation. Gahmann, and the short summary of this affidavit is in the transcript of the 23 of July, '46. influence on the selection of SA fuehrers. This is a statement of Evidence, Roman numeral Three B, page 16 of the Trial Brief against the Gestapo and SD. In this connection I submit affidavit SD 4 by Max Juettner. The short summary of the affidavit is in the transcript of the 9 of July, '46. SD had no influence on the selection of Party leaders. This refers to Statement of Evidence, Roman numeral Three B, page 18 of the English Trial Brief. I submit SD Number 5 by Otto Frehrer, for the former Gau Mainfranken. SD Number 6 by Otto Biedermann for the former Gau Thuringia. SD Number 7 by Siegfried Ueberreither for the former Gau Coringia. SD Number 8 by Carl Wahl for the former Gau Schwaben. SD Number 9 by Paul Wegener for the former Gau Brandenburg Wesa Ems. SD Number 10 by Albert Hoffmann for the former Gau of Upper Silesia and West Falia, South. Upper Bavaria. I do not yet have the translation of this. I shall hand it in later. that the SD examine the loyalty and reliability of the state officials. Statement of Evidence Roman number Three B of the Trial Brief, Page 18 of the English version. In this connection I have submitted affidavit SD 3 by Werner Mai. The short summary of the contents is in the transcript of the 9 of July, 1946.