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.
Now, I come to crimes against peace. With the next affidavit 20 Aug M LJG 8-4 Perrin I want to prove that the SD, in the border instance of August of 1939, the SD was not employed, and that the members of the SD did not have any knowledge of it.
Statement of Evidence, Roman number Five, page 23 of the English version.
In this connection affidavit SD 11, by Dr. Marx. The short summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
Now I come to the war crimes, "Statement of Evidence" VI A of the Trial Brief against the Gestapo and SD, page 25 of the English version. In this connection I submit affidavit SD 41 by Karl Heinz Bent. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946.
I have, furthermore, submitted on this point SD No. 42 by Walter Schellenberg. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of the 23 July 1946. SD 44 by Otto Ohlendorf. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946.
I have submitted on this affidavit SD 45 by Erwin Schulz. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 23 July 1946.
I have submitted on this point SD 46 by Otto Ohlendorf. The summary of the contents is also in the transcript of 23 July 1946. Leitabschnitte -- the Leaders Units, the Aussenstelle -- Branch Offices, and the Vertrauensmanner -- confidential agents -- had no knowledge of the activities of the Einsatzgruppen in the East.
In this connection I have submitted SD No. 47 by Wilhelm Duerhof, which refers to knowledge in the former Gau in South Hannover and Braunschweig. SD 48 by Karl Heinz Bent refers to knowledge in the former SD sector in Stettin, Breslau, Duesseldorf. Neustadt Weinstrasse and Saarbruecken. that the SD Abschnitt Telsidt participated in the liquidation of Jews and Communists in the border incidents, I shall submit a complete translation of my affidavit SD 12 by Wilhelm Sieps. The summary of the affidavit is in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
"Statement of Evidence" VI-A of the Trial Brief, page 25 of the English version. In this connection I submit the affidavit of Gerti Breiter, SD 69. on page 26 of the English Trial Brief against the Gestapo and SD, did not belong to the SD but the Gestapo. The summary is in the Transcript of 23 July 1946.
The next affidavit refers to "Statement of Evidence" VI F of the Trial Brief, page 54 of the English text. PS 532, is not the SD Inland Amt III or the Foreign Information Service of VI or VI, 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 23 July 1946. justice. I have submitted SD 51 by Walter Schellenberg. Summary of the contents is in the transcript of 25 July 1946.
Furthermore, SD 68, by Hans Steiner. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 3 August 1946. SD murdered prisoners in the prisons, in order to prevent their begin liberated by Allied troops. "Statement of Evidence" VI J, page 56 of the English version of the Trial Brief.
I have submitted SD 13 by Horst Laubel. The summary of the contents is the transcript of 9 July 1946. SD 14, by Fritz Welfbrandt, is in the same transcript. participated in the forcible confiscation of public and private property; "Statement of Evidence" VI K, page 57 of the English version. In this connection I have submitted SD 15 by Kurt Klauke. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
SD persecuted Jews. "Statement of Evidence" VII A, English Trial Brief. I have submitted in this connection SD 16, by Walter Keinz. The summary of the contents is in the transcript of 9 July 1946. Moreover, SD 17, by Emil Hausmann, is in the same transcript. Also, SD 53, by Emil Proeschel, in the transcript of 23 July 1946, and SD 54 by Dr. Laube in the same transcript.
The next refer to the charge against the SD of persecution of the church: "Statement of Evidence" VII B, page 63 of the English text of the Trial Brief. being in the transcript of 23 July 1946. Walter Keinz, SD 18, in the transcript of 9 July 1946. summary of the contents being in the transcript of 9 July 1946.
the SD in the Government General. I shall later submit a complete translation of Affidavit SD 56 by Helmut Fromm, summary of contents in the transcript of 23 July 1946. called SD. I have submitted in this connection an affidavit by Dr. Laube, SD 23, summary of contents in the transcript of 9 July 1946. and KRIPO in Belgium and Northern France were the SS uniform with the SD insignia. I have submitted SD 24 by Walter Hofmeister, summary of contents in the transcript of 9 July 1946. Belgium and Northern France did not belong to Amt III. I have submitted SD #25 by Walter Hofmeister, summary of contents in the transcript of 9 July 1946. during the war was in general not voluntary but was based on legal order. In this connection I have submitted SD-57 by Bernhard Dilger, summary in the transcript of 23 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 submit SD 21 by Oskar Eisele, summary of the contents in transcript of 9 July 1946. not possible. I submit SD 22 by Werner May, summary of contents in the transcript of 9 July 1946. Amt VI. I shall submit later, SD 61 by Walter Schellenberg; the summary of the contents is in transcript of 23 July 1946. Furthermore, SD 62 by Walter Schellenberg, summary of contents is in the same transcript. I submit furthermore on the tasks and activities of Amt VI-S, affidavit SD 66, by Otto Skorzeny. I submit this affidavit provisionally. The Commission did not decide whether Amt VII was charged.
The chairman of the Commission told me that the Tribunal would decide this question. It is SD 63 by Dr. Dietl, which I shall submit later. immigration offices had the purpose of carrying out evacuations with the aim of permanent colonization of the occupied territories, the destruction of their national existence, and thus constantly expanding the German border. (Trial Brief against the SS, III G, pages 33 and 35 of the German translation.) I have submitted in this connection SD 64 by Martin Sandberger, summary of the contents in the transcript of 23 July 1946. Prosecution in the examination of Dr. Hoffman. I was not able to submit this affidavit to the Commission because the Commission had already concluded its activity when I received the affidavit. Therefore I ask that I may be allowed to submit this affidavit under SD No. 65.
THE PRESIDENT: You have one 65 already, haven't you? It came through the translation.
DR. GAWLIK: That should be SD 71, your Lordship. From this affidavit I shall read the following, briefly: "First, to prove knowledge about the facts given, I, Georg Schrebel, was in Brunswick as Government Councillor in 1939, temporarily in the Reich Criminal Police Office in Berlin, and from 1941 to 1945 as Section Chief for Personnel Questions in Main Office 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." The statement: "At no time in the existence of the Gestapo and the SD were there instructions or decrees from the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, or the Reich Ministry of the Interior, according to which the activity of the Gestapo, at the head or at its agencies throughout the Reich, was to be influenced or supervised by the SD. The agencies of the Gestapo were at all times completely independent. The independence and the separate division of the State Police made general influencing by the SD impossible. Supervision would not have been permitted by the Office Chief of IV or the Chief of the Security Police because this would have interfered with the actual responsibility of the State Police."
I ask that I may be allowed to submit this affidavit when I have the translation.
Now I have a collective statement on 6,123 affidavits. I have not yet received the translations. I have only the French translations and I ask that I may be allowed to submit the French translations. I submit the list on these affidavits. From my collective statement I ask to be allowed to read subject 18 regarding participation of SD members in executions in the areas of commitment. I have 140 affidavits on this subject of the agencies of the SD from all parts of Germany for the time from 1939 to 1945, which state the following: "The agencies and members of the SD Amt III had no knowledge of the participation of SD members in executions in Einsatzkommandos in the East.
Now I come to the presentation of my documents. First, I would like to submit that my documents are also numbered according to the Trial Brief against the Gestapo and SD. The first document refers to the charge of conspiracy. Ribbentrop to establish a uniform German 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, so far as foreign countries are concerned, to gather for the Reich information in the political, military, economic and technical fields. The Fuehrer has ordered in addition that the secret intelligence service, so far as foreign countries are concerned, should be regulated in accord with the Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs." the SD. I shall not read this document but I will call the attention of the court to the fact that although Amt III and Amt VI were united with Amt IV and Amt V, Amt III and Amt VI had no police tasks. together. They are excerpts dealing with the Reich's Ministry of Justice; SD-3, the Reich Traffic Authority; SD-4, the Agency of the Reich Food Office; SD-5, the Reich Forestry; SD-6, Reich's Ministry for Armament and War Production; SD-7, the Reich's Ministry for Food and Agriculture; SD-8, the cooperation of these agencies with the security service. these documents. I furthermore submit these documents as evidence that these things were the task of the SD. They had to cooperate 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 assigned 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 the 16 of October, 1941. This document shows that the SS and police jurisdiction effected only the regular members of the SD, not the honorary members. The majority of the members of the SD were honorary and were not under the SS and Police jurisdiction.
The next document is SD-14. Fourteen is an excerpt from a decree of the Party Chancellery. "Only the Hoheitstraeger of the Movement from Kreisleiter up are entitled to issue political evaluations or certifications of political reliability." Statement of Evidence, III and IV. The same subject of evidence concerns the next document SD-15. It is an excerpt from the RSHA in the 1st of June, 1940. This decree shows that from the 1st of July, 1940, the information bureau of the Amt I, SD, will be transferred to Division IV C 1. That is for political information of all kinds. The Gestapo Amt became competent and the Gestapo had no support from the SD. Prosecution, but the SD was not at all the information service of the Party. Within its political organization, the Party had its own political report. And from the Kreisleiter on up, it had expert technical reports from all offices. task of this four-year plan. in the occupied territories was not voluntary, but was based on legal order. I quote from this document "Refusal of departmental personnel to undertake employment in occupied territories."
I also quote "For members of personnel in public service to has on principle been approved.
Since a limitation to the Reich of the special service order have been complied with, expecially territories too."
racially undesirable persons and to execute them; Trial brief ag In the case of Document SD 18.
It is an excerpt from Chief of the Security Police and the SD.
I call the attention of the Court to the file note, IV-A. This refers to the jurisdiction of the Gestapo.
The decree is furthermore addressed to all state Document SD-19 is the next document.
I should like to call the attention of the Court to the file note IV-A. I quote from this document.
"The regional and branch offices of the examinations which are still under way."
Document SD-20 is next. This document concerns the THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Gawlik, what is the meaning of SD-10, Paragraph 2? The writing refers especially to various figures and then "No. 9242 Top Secret, according to which the the General Government only."
Now do you select prisoners of war' What does that mean?