This purely legal question is completely different from the question of the period during which ah organization was criminally active. Here, the matter is only as follows: Can, in the proceeding against a defendant, the organization of which he was a member, be declared criminal also for the period during which he did not belong to the organization? criminality of the organization has to be tested only on the strength of the defendants action. Such action of the defendant confines the examination, also from the standpoint of time, to the question as to whether the organization can be declared criminal. The evidence in the proceedings against an accused member can only justify the decision regarding the organization for the period during which the defendant belonged to the organization.
This limit in time is justified also for the following reasons: He who shall be sentenced, has the right to be heard. This right to be heard is not met by the making of statements before the Court. On the contrary it includes the right to participate in the whole proceedings. According to Par. 9 of the Charter, this right to participate in the entire proceedings is obviously not to be annulled, but restricted to only one person of the Organization mentioned, in order to save time, as they started from the principle that the depositions of further members as to the aims and tasks and activities of the Organization were cumulative. A member who did not belong to the Organization during the whole period for which the Organisation is to be declared criminal, can define his attitude towards the question of the aims, tasks and activities of the Organization only for the duration of his membership. According to the principle of legal hearing it is therefore necessary that a member participate in the proceedings as a defendant, if he was a member of the Organization during the whole period for which the Organization is to be declared criminal. criminal only for the period during which the defendant was a member of the Organization. Should an Organization be declared criminal for the entire duration of its existence, then a member must be indicted who belonged to it during the whole period.
criminal only for the period during which the defendant Kaltenbrunner was Chief of the SIPO and the SD, that is, since January 1943. been committed during this period.
DR. GAWLIK: I now come to the real evaluation of the facts based upon the results of the evidence. This is my second main part. I shall deal with general statements first of all. The Prosecution has submitted a large number of document in which the SD is mentioned, thus wishing to prove that the offices 111 and VI are responsible for the SD. However, the prosecution itself has said that common and even in orders and decrees "SD" was used as an abbreviation for "Sipo and SD I refer to record page 1832 (German). that this deed must have been committed by members of offices 111 and VI. These may just as well be deeds of the Sipo as well, this has been proved by the evide The witness von Manstein.
one of the highest military leaders of the former German Wehrmacht was heard before the Tribunal. This witness spoke repeatedly of the SD in his examinations before the Tribunal and the Commission. When I asked the witness what exactly he understood by SD, he declared that he was not quite certain. To further question whether he believed it to be the offices 111 and VI he answered in the negative. examination of the defendant Jodl on the witness stand. The Defendant Jodl was told that the prisoners had been shot by the SD, whereupon the defendant Jodl was told that the prisoners had been shot by the SD, whereupon the defendant Jodl declared, and I refer to Page 11014, in German, literally, "Not by the SS, that is not correct, but by the Security Police." SD No. 52 - who declared under oath that he only realized during the trial at Nurnberg that the opinion reigning in military circles also concerning the tasks and competence of the SD as an executive police organ was not correct. Therefore in the military language and decrees, the SD was mentioned when the competent police organ executive power was meant, Keitel declared further that concerning the competencies of the SD an erroneous conception had existed which lead to the wrong interpretation of the abbreviation "SD" General Staff of the Luftwaffe, Koller, document No. 58, page 119 in document book Jodl. In this affidavit Koller reports upon a conference with Hitler to discuss the situation.
At this conference Hitler gave the order to transfer all bomber crows of the different Allied Armies to the SD and to liquidate them through the SD. Then Koller describes a conversation he had with Kaltenbrunner after this conference. According to Koller, Kaltenbrunner made the following statement during this conversation. "The Fuehrer's conceptions are quite erroneous. The taskd, too, of the SS are constantly being misinterpreted. Such things are no concern of the SD." SD is mentioned. I have shown these documents to the witness Knochen, who was examined before the Commission. Knochen was the commander of the Security Police and the SD in France. of words, and that SD should be interpreted as "police" Upon my question:
"What does transfer to the SD?" The witness Knochen answered literally "This means transfer to the executive section IV of the Security Police."
I showed the witness, Dr. Hoffmann, document 526-PS before the Commission. Commission Record page 474. Hoffmann was an official of the Security Police and has never belonged to the SD. The document 526-PS concerns the carrying out of Commando order in a Norwegian Fjord. This report states: Fuehrer decree carried out by SD. answered literally. "Since this seems to be an executive measure, SD must here be interpreted as Secutiry Police, since the Wehrmacht often mixed up the two meanings."
The Prosecution has furthermore submitted document No. 1475-PS. This is a report of the commander of the prison of Minsk, dated from the 31 May 1943, in which he reports that Jews had been brought into the prison by the SD Hauptscharfuehrer Ruebe whose gold bridges, fillings and crowns had been removed from their teeth. In this connection I have submitted affidavit SD No. 69 of Gerty Breiter a stenographer employed with the commander of the Security Police and the SD in Minsk. Gerty Brieter states that Ruebe was an official of the State Police, and that the SD at Minsk had nothing to do with the Jewish affairs in Minsk. The sole activity of the SD in Minsk was to make reports upon the general moods and opinions of the public. There were no 80 prisons in Minsk.
the SS special Formation SD, who, as I said, in the introduction, was something entirely different from the SD Intelligence Service, were the SS uniform with the SD insignia. all members of the STAPO, and Kripo, even these who were not members of the SS or SS candidates, were the SS uniform, with the SD insignia. Thus every member of the Sipo was characterized as an SD man, and measures carried out by the Security Police, were considered to be SD measures. Please refer to the Transcript, Page 14515 (German).
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say then all members of the SS, including the Kripe and the Sipo, were working in the East in the uniform of the SS with an SD badge on them?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes. Yes. The witness has confirmed this, Your Lordship. In this connection I point out that about 90 per cent of all members of Offices III and VI were honorary, and only a small part of them belonged to the SS or were SS candidates, Affidavit SD No. 32. During the war, a large number of the membersof the SD, Offices III and VI, were women. These persons were not entitled to wear the uniform of the SS formation, SD. the SD, I shall discuss:
a. The charge of conspiracy.
b. Crimes against peace.
c. War crimes.
d. Crimes against humanity. Gestapo and SD. commit crimes against peace, War Crimes and crimes against humanity. circle of conspirators:
I. The organization can belong to the circle of conspirators.
agreement or the secret plan to commit illegal actions or to carry out legal actions by illegal means.
(a) Such a plan existed.
(b) All members made this plan on their own. supporting participants in a conspiracy. Fir this it is required:
(a) A secret plan or an agreement.
(b) The organization must objectively have pursued the aim of aiding one or more of the participants in the execution of the plan.
(c) All members must have known of it and desired it. conspirators, to carry out the common plan without the members realizing it. organization, because the characteristic of a factual state of guilt is lacking. The organization is an unpunished tool and cannot be declared criminal. conspiracy, but that all contributed to the offenses, Transcript, page 1690, German text. This indicates that the prosecution does not want to contend that the organizations were participants in the conspiracy. I shall therefore not deal further with this question.
(a) the existence of a secret plan, (b) the knowledge of the members.
Consequently the existence of a secret plan and the members' knowledge thereof, must be proved. of crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity actually existed. principle defenders and I do not want to repeat these statements, but I should like briefly to point out the following:
1. When, 2. Where, 3. Between what persons this common agreement was reached, and 4. What its contents were.
Way that it was known to members of the SD, and that, therefore, they had the purposes in mind of supporting such a conspiracy with their activity. The prosecution has derived the fact that such a conspiracy existed in particular from the so-called key documents. The facts mentioned in these documents were, however, kept strictly secret and were known only to the persons immediately concerned with them. Members of the organizations in question had no knowledge of these things; this can be assumed as known to the Court. peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity arises from the key documents, the members of the SD did not know this, and therefore did not have the intention of supporting such a circle of conspirators with their activity. the SD knew of a conspiracy cannot be regarded as "violent", as assumptions, nor as probable assumptions, but at most as light or rash assumptions which are without significance. affidavits have brought proof that members of the SD had no knowledge that a secret plan for the commission of crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity existed and that,therefore, there was no intention in the SD to support such a circle of conspirators with their activity. conspiracy because there is no evidence that
a) A circle of conspirators actually existed, and
b) The members of the SD had knowledge thereof, and by their activity wanted to support a circle of conspirators. it does not matter whether the SD supported the SS, the Secret State Police, the Party, or individual persons of the State leadership, unless the Prosecution has brought the proof of the prerequisites which I have indicated;
a) Existence of a secret plan for the commission of crimes according to Article VI of the Charter, and
b) Knowledge of all members of the SD.
of the SD with the SS, the Secret State Police, or other persons, requires correction.
I shall not read Pages 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 or 54. I shall continue on Page 55 in the second paragraph. I should like to refer to statements made in Document SD 70, the handbook of the Supreme Headquarters of the United Nations of April 1945. There it is said:
"The SD maintained for its purposes a networkof newsmen throughout all fields of life in Germany . . . who were recruited from all social groups and professions. The information gained through the newsmen were used to furnish situation reports . . . Those reports are exceptionally frank and contain a complete and uncolored picture of the mood and attitude in Germany." in my summary and made by former full-time and honorary workers, trustees for the total area of the Reich and of parts of the Reich. affidavits SD-61, 62, 66 and Document SD-1. Evidence V of the English Trial Brief against the Gestapo and SD. the outbreak of the war to give Hitler an excuse for starting the war. The Prosecution, however, referred to only one border incident in which the SD is alleged to have participated. That is the alleged attack on the Gleiwitzer Radio Station. of November 20, 1945. This is prosecution Document PS-2751. before the Commission. On that occasion he declared that the attack on the Gleiwitz Radio Station was not included in the aims andpurposes of Offices III and IV. This is in the Proceedings of the Commission, Page 147 of the German text. The witness further testified that no part of Offices III and IV was used for the execution of that border incident in Gleiwitz and that the man who with him attacked to the Gleiwitz station did not belong to the SD, Office III, RSHA.
This is in the record of the Commission, Page 150 of the German text.
The witness continued to state that by the term "SD men" he did not mean in his affidavit of November 20, 1945 the members of any definite office of time RSHA; common usage of the term "SD men" rather referred to RSHA members of all offices which were subordinate to Heydrich. of the border incident at Gleiwitz not because he belonged to Office VI and worked there but that exclusively personal reasons made for that decision. The witness testified that on the basis of the conversation he had had with Hoydrich he had gained the impression that Heydrich would have given him that assignment even if he had not been a member of Office VI and the SS. The order for the execution of the assignment reached witness Naujocks not through the official channels of the chiefs of Amt III or IV. Those chiefs in question of Offices III and IV had no knowledge of this action. The members of the SD, Office III and Office IV, had no Knowledge that, the attack was carried out by Naujocks, a member of Office VI. Particularly the members of the SD-Leitabschnit which was in charge of Gleiwitz and the outposts of the SD had no knowledge of this activity and they could not have had because Naujocks had been forbidden to get in touch with any members of the SD whatsoever in that territory. Somann and the affidavit SD No. 11 deposed by Professor Dr. Marx. as for all territories of the SD-Leitabschnitts and the SD-Abschnitts, particularly for those situated in the East, Kattowitz, Danzig and Saxonia. These affidavits testify that the members of the SD duringthe critical time had no knowledge of the faked border incidents or the participation of the SD in them.
Page 59 will not be read. I shallturn to Page 60, which deals with the Einsatzgruppen. grounds of the activities of the Einsatzgruppen, the following questions must be examined:
1. Did the Einsatzgruppen A, E, C and D, which were assigned in the East to the Army groups, belong to the organization of Offices II, VI or VII?
2. Were ports of these office organizations used in these Einsatzgruppen?
3. Did the Offices II and VI give orders to the Einsatzgruppen to commit crimes against the laws of war and against humanity?
4. Did the members of the Inland Information Service (Office III), or of the Foreign Information Service (Office VI) have any knowledge of activities of the Einsatzgruppen which the crimes in the sense of the charter?
First I must rectify an error. In this trial and before the Commission the Einsatzgruppen have repeatedly been designated as Einsatzgruppen of the SD up to a short time ago. As an example I refer particularly to the records of Keitel, Dr. Best, Hauser and von Manstein. These are in the Record at Pages 7246-47, 14442, 14706, 15003-4, 15007, 15010-11, and 15041. This designation is wrong. by A, B, C, and D. They had under them the Einsatzkommandos, which were designated by the numbers 1 to 12. Thus the word "SD" is mentioned neither in the designation of the Einsatzgruppen nor of the Einsatzkommandos. Furthermore, there was no reason for that, since, according to the evidence submitted by the Prosecution, only 3% of their members were part of the SD Offices III or IV. The members of the SD came only eighth in number. I refer you to the statistics found in Document L-180 submitted by the Prosecution. This is in the Record at page 1676 of the German text. of Document D-569, which shows the various relationships. The special kommandos 1-A, 1-2, 2 and 3 more under Einsatzgruppe A. The special konmandos 7-A, 7-B, 8, 9, Moscow, were under Einsatzgruppe B. 4-A, 4-B, 5, and 6 were under Einsatzgruppe C. 10-A, 10-B, 11-A, 11-B and 12were under Einsatzgruppe D. II, VI, or VII, but by Himmler on the basis of an agreement with the OKH. I refer you to the testimony of Dr. Best, Schellenberg, Ohlendorf, and to Document USA 1557 and Affidavits SD Nos. 41 and 46. This is in the Record at Page 14430, 1896, 1812, 1814, 1815, 1816 and 1818. The evidence has shown further that the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos were not under the orders of Offices III, VI and VII.
I refer to the affidavit of Schellenberg of the 26th of November, 1944, Document USA 557, Affidavits SD Nos. 41, 44 and 46, to the record on Pages 1812-14, and 1850-51, to Prosecution Document L-180, Pages 2 and 3, to the Record at Pages 10906-08, of the German text,and Document PS 2620. set forth on Page 1676 of the record, one will have to admit, as has been deposed by the witness Hoeppner and the witness Bendt in Affidavit SD No.41 that this concerns an affiliation of some kind of persons who did not belong to the organizations of Offices III, VI or VII. This is shown in the record at Page 14541 of the German text. of Offices III, VI or VII have been employed in the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos, and that the Offices III, VI and VII did not issue any orders for the mass destruction carried out by the Einsatzgruppen. I refer to Affidavits SD Nos. 61 and 63, the record of the Commission at Pages 2181 and 2211 of the German text, Affidavit SD No. 41, and particularly the answers to questions Nos. 6 and 9, and to Affidavit SD No.44, to Nos. 4 and 5. which deviated in their composition entirely from the structure of the Security Police and SD in the Reich itself. I refer further to the statements of Ohlendorf and Hoeppner and to the affidavits SD No.41 and SD No.46. This refers to Pages 1826-27 and 145-4 of the text in German of the record. The witness Best testified on Page 14431 of the German record "They were Security Police Units of a special kind." organization can be declared criminal that no parts of the SD, Offices III, VI or VIII, were employed with the Einsatzgruppen, but only individual members were transferred to these Einsatzgruppen as a result of legal regulations.
In this connection Hoettl's affidavit of 16 April 1946 seems especially important to me.
I emphasize that this is a prosecution document. Hoettl the SD was inactive during their affiliation with the Einsatzgruppen.
I refer to Pages 14504-5 of the German record. legal order to the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos in the East, I refer for their tasks and activities to the testimony of Dr. Ehlich von Manstein, at Pages 2179 and 2445-47 of the German text of the Commission record, and to the affidavit SD No.69. Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos was not on the basis of their position and duties in the home offices. For that point I refer to the testimony of Ohlendorf at Pages 1831-32 of the German record, and the affidavits SD No.41 and SD No.45.
Thus I come to the conclusion;
1) Einsatzgruppen A, B, C and D did not belong to the Domestic Intelligence Service, Office III, to the Foreign Intelligence Service, Office VI, or to Office VII.
2) No parts of this organization were used for this purpose, but individual members were assigned to the Einsatzgruppen.
3) The legal position of these persons was the same as, for example that of persons who had been called up for military service. Their affiliation with Offices III, VI, or VII was inactive. They were no longer subject to instructions from their home offices.
I shall omit the next page, 64, and pages 65, 66, 67. Pages 27 Aug M LJG 6-1 Ninabuck 68 to 71 refer to the Einsatzkommandos in prisoner-of-war camps.
Statement of evidence -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, the Tribunal understands that the SS, the Gestapo and the SD, all disclaim responsibility for the Einsatzgruppen. Could you tell the Tribunal who is responsible for the Einsatzgruppen?
DR. GAWLIK: The Einsatzgruppen were subordinated to -- the responsibility may be soon from my statement on page 61. I should like to refer you to the testimony of Dr. Best, Shellenberg, Ohlendorf, and Document -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, the Tribunal would like to knew who you say was responsible for the Einsatzgruppen. They don't want to be referred to a cloud of documents and a cloud of witnesses. They want to know what your contention is.
DR. GAWLIK: The Einsatzgruppen, in my opinion, were organizations of a special lind which were directly under Himmler, and for the rest, the testimony of the witnesses diverge as to how far they were subordinate to the Commanders-in-chief. nate to the Commanders-in-Chief. Another part of the witnesses disputed this. As far as this question is concerned, I cannot define my attitude.
THE PRESIDENT: Was it possible, according to your contention, for Himmler to control those Einsatzgruppen without any organization, and if it was not, what organization controlled it.
DR. GAWLIK: The Einsatzgruppen had their own head, as may be soon from Prosecution Document L-180 , the Stahlecker report. Stahlecker was the Chief of the Einsatzgruppon A, and this man received his instructions directly from Himmler, and from that I should like to gather that the heads of the Einsatzgruppen were directly under Himmler. That was a parallel organization along with the RSHA for occupied countries.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell the Tribunal who were the individual men who composed, the Einsatzgruppen?
Did they consist 27 Aug M LJG 6-2 Ninabuck of SS or SA or SD or the Wehrmacht?
DR. GAWLIK: Your Lordhsip, the composition of the Einsatzgruppen may be seen on page 1667 of the German transcript. I don'that havc all of it in my head, but I do now it did contain Waffen SS, criminal police, state police, SD -
THE PRESIDENT: Waffen SS ?
DR. GAWLIK: Waffen SS, criminal police, state police, SD, and on this page, as far as I can recall NSKK is mentioned, and I believe interpreters, but I can't tell you tha t for a certainty, The various groups are found on this page, your Lordship, which is page 1667.
THE PRESIDENT: The last that I have down is NSKK. Whom d id you say after that?
DR. GAWLIK: I beg your pardon?
THE PRESIDENT: I have down Waffen SS , criminal police -
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: State police?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: S D?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: NSKK?
DR. GAWLIK: No, your Lordship, these are drivers of motor vehicles. Your Lordship, there is a mistake. NSKK is not participating here.
THE PRESIDENT: I have struck out NSKK. Is there anybody else? Any Gestapo?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, yes, Gestapo of course. Your Lordship, state police and Gestapo are identical. Interpreters are enumerated in this document. Ibelieve these are the main groups, but at the moment I cannot tell you for a certainty, as I don't recall those details exactly.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. GAWLIK: I beg your pardon, did your Lordship wish to know the members or the Chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I meant the memberships.
27 Aug M LJG 6-3 Ninabuck
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, that is quite correct. Your Lordship, I wanted to say in total there were a thousand to twelve hundred men altogether in these four Einsatzgruppen but -
THE PRESIDENT: How many did you say?
DR. GAWLIK: One thousand men to approximately twelve hundred men, and from the SD there were three per cent. That may be seen from the document. Three percent were from the SD. This is the Document L-180.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn for a recess.
(Recess was taken.)
DR. GAWLIK: Your Lordship, I shall have to correct my state ment regarding the Einsatzgruppen in one point. I mentioned Document L-180, which I have obtained in the interval, and the total strength of Einsatzgruppe A was 990 men.
It was composed as follows: Waffen SS, 34 per cent; drivers, 17 per cent; administration, 1.8 per cent; SD, 3.5 per cent; criminal police officials, 8.8 per cent.
These, your Lordship, were apparently native policemen, natives of the occupied territories. Border police, 13.4 per cent; female employees, 1.3 per cent; interpreters, 5.1 per cent; teleprint workers, .3 per cent; wireless operators, .8 per cent. That is Einsatz Group A. As far as I have been informed for Einsatz Groups B, C, and D, no documents are available; but the witnesses have testified that Groups B, C, and D had the same ratio.
THE PRESIDENT: Then it is nearly four times as large as you said?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, approximately.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you give a date for that constitutionof Group A? What date was that, that constitition of those percentages?
DR. GAWLIK: The Einsatz Groups were formed before the beginning of the campaign, before June, '41, that is.
THE PRESIDENT: When you set down to .3 per cent, thatmust have been at a certain time. It couldn't have remained .3 per cent all the time, could it, or is that an establishment?
DR. GAWLIK: Your Lordship, I don't understand. Which .3 do you mean?
THE PRESIDENT: I meant teleprinter, .3 per cent; wireless, .8 per cent -- did it remain at that exact figure throughout the whole war?
DR. GAWLIK: I assume so, your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: The percentages are then matters of what in English would be called establishment?
DR. GAWLIK: They are average figures, your Lordship. They may have altered slightly during the war.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. GAWLIK: I beg to apologize, my Lord, but the first figure which I have mentioned before the witness, I hadn't recollected. I had based my statement on the Einsatz Commanders; and that is how I reported it to you.
Pages 68 up to 71 deal with the Einsatz Commanders in prisoner of war camps, the statement of evidence of the English Trial Brief against the Gestapo, and the SD.
Pages 72 to 75 deal with the Kugel Decree, statement of evidence of British Trial Brief against the Gestapo and the SD. Pages 76 up to 79 deal with concentration camps, Statement of Evidence 6-D. Pages 80 up to 83 deal with the deportation, Statement of Evidence of the Trial Brief against the Gestapo and the SD. Evidence 6-F. Pages 90 to 93 deal with the Nacht-und-Nobel Decree, Statement of Evidence 6-G of the Trial Brief. Pages 94 up to 96 deal with Summary Proceedings Statement of Evidence, 6-H. Pages 97 and 98 dead, with the possibility of the plan, 6-J. Pages99 and 100 deal with the shooting of prisoners of the NSD, prisoners at Tendon, Statement of Evidence J. Pages 101 and 102 deal with the employment of force in the case of concentration camps, 6-K. Pages 103 and 104 deal with Third Decree delegations, Statements of Evidence 6-L of the Trial Brief. with crimes against humanity. That is Statement of Evidence VII of the English Trial Brief against the Gestapo and the SD.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell the Tribunal what according to your contention the SD did in the concentration camps?
DR. GAWLIK: The SD had nothing to do with concentration camps, my Lord. You have to differentiate between two facts, assignment to concentration camps by means of a protective custody order; that is, the protective custody order was always given by the Gestapo. The SD was not cognizant of that. And, secondly, the administration of concentration camps was out of the jurisdiction of the Economic and Administrative Central Department, Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. This was an independent organization, which operated alongside the RSHA, so that if the Gestapo issued a protective dustody order, then the detainee came under the jurisdiction of the Economic and Administrative Central Department ; and the Economic and Administrative Central Department was directly under Himmler, just as was the RSHA.
THE PRESIDENT: So that you say that the RSHA and Pohl's organization and the Einsatz groups were all three entirely separate organizations under Himmler? Is that right?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, that's right.
THE PRESIDENT: Then what name was given to Pohl's organization?
DR. GAWLIK: Economic and Administrative Central or Chief Department.
THE PRESIDENT: Economic and what?
DR. GAWLIK: Econadc and Administrative Leading or Chief Department. The order in the concentration camps, My Lord, was Himmler down to Pohl, and then to the Commandant of the concentration craps.
THE PRESIDENT: And do you say that the Economic and Administrative Chief Department employed no SS, or SD, or Gestapo, or Sipo?
DR. GAWLIK: SD non were working in the Economic and Administrative Department; let's say these non in the Department III, Amt III and Amt VI, were not. As far as I air informed, a few Gestapo men were there.
THE PRESIDENT: Didn't any men work with the SD on their arms in concentration camps?
DR. GAWLIK: That I cannot say for certain, My Lord, I can't say.
THE PRESIDENT: You will recollect that there was a good deal of evidence which indicates that SD men were working in concentration camps; and the Tribunal would like to know what your explanation of that evidence is.
DR. GAWLIK: I can only recollect, My Lord, that witness -- I think it was Witness Milch -- who testified on that subject here; but as far as I can remember the Commandant had been an SD man; but that must have been due to error, because the Departments III and VI of the RSHA had nothing to do with this affiar. It may be possible that the men in concentration camps belonged to the special formation of the SS, which was called SD; but I cannot answer that question with any certainty.
THE PRESIDENT: What was this special formation of the SS which was called SD?
DR. GAWLIK: They are all members of the RSHA of Amt VII, Departments of the RSHA, Department I, Department II, Department III, the SD Inland, Department IV, Gestapo, Department V, Central Police, Department VI, Intelligence Service, and Department VII. Those members who were admitted to the SS were listed as members of the SS, who were members of the SS, or under the SS formation SD, so that the local unit of the SS weren't calling on them to do duty.
THE PRESIDENT: As far as I can understand what you say, you are saying that in the branch of the RSHA, were SS called SD?
DR. GAWLIK: The members as far as they were members of the SS -- for instance, as Gestapo he was a member of the SS; then he belonged to the special formation of the SS called Special Format on SD.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Gawlik.