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.
DR. GAWLIK: May it please the Tribunal, I should like to say the following with reference to this subject: It is something which refers to the eastern territories. All members of the Security Police, even if they were not members of the SS, were wearing this SS uniform with the SD badge.
And now I come to Crimes against Humanity, Persecution of Jews. Statements of evidence VII of the English trial brief against Gestapo and SD. international law until now. It was merely admitted that if a state violated any principle of humanity, other states had a right to intervention. As an example I mention the intervention of England, France and Russia against Turkey in 1827; against the Balkan States in 1878; and the intervention brought about by the atrocities committed in Armenia and Crete in 1891 to 1876. 1) recognized. Oppenheim 2) for instance, considers an intervention to end religiou persecution and continued cruelty in war and peace in the interest of humanity, for doubtful. According to Oppenheim it should be a rule that interventions in the interests of humanity be admissible; they must, however, be of a collective nature. In accordance with the general fundamental rule of international law tha only the states are subject to interantional law, this intervention is directed only against the state in which crimes against humanity have been committed. of individuals against humanity. That is probably why, according to paragraph 6-C of the charter *---* This department for Jewish questions allegedly did not have the purpose to prepare the extermination of the Jews.
2) Dr. Shlich furthermore testified that in the amt 111 as well no department concerned itself with the Jewish question, and especially not department 111-B 3) As a result of the regulation about th assignment of tasks to department 111 and Department IV, it had been dotermi d that all Jewish questions were only to be worked on by Amt IV.
3) I refer further to affidavit SD No. 7, SD No.16, and SD No. 17.
SchallenbcrgSD No. 61, and Dittel -SD No. 63- have stated in regard to Amts VI and Vll that those offices as well had nothing to do with the persecution of the Jews. members for the entire area of the Reich, and/ for the time from 1933 until 1945 to the effect that the SD did not pars cute the Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: Have any of these affidavits to which you are referring been translated?
DR. "GAWLIK: No, My Lord. Only the summary affidavits have been translated.
THE PRESENT: well, some of your affidavits have been translated, haven't they?
DR. GAMLIK: Some of them, My Lord, yes, but not those 259; they haven't been translated, my Lord. They are contained in my summary, SD No. 70. 10th of November, 1938, and I shall continue on Page 107. pated in the extermination of the millions of Jews. All Jewish affairs were dealt with by Office 1V, by Fichmann's section. Eichmann belonged to Office 1V and -was the head of Section 1V B4. This is shown by the organizational plans of the RSHA of 1 January 1941 and 1 October 1942, Document L 185 and Document L 219 submitted by the Prosecution. The chain of command for the mass murder of Jews was Hitler, Himmler, Mueller (Office lV) Eichmann. None of the witnesses has indicated that Offices 111,1V, and V11, or any of the local branch offices of those offices cooperated in the extermination of Jews. In this connection I refer to the testimony of Wisliceny, Page 751 of Record of Commission, German text, according to which there was no connection between the department of Eichmann and the offices 111, VI and VII, and further, to the record of Dr. K.H.Hoffmann, German text of Commission record.
Hoffmann stated that Office IV was competent for deportations and that Eichmann was responsible for the solving of the Jewish question. IV, Department Eichmann. The initial IV J on Document RF-1210 , submitted by the prosecution shows that a department of Office IV dealt with the Jewish questions in France. This is confirmed by the testimony of the witness Knochen, Pages 475, 476, 1105, 1113 of the Commission record, German text, and by the Affidavit Daub SD No. 54. They show that Haupsturmfuehrer Dannecker, who was sent to France by Eichmann, also belonged to Office IV and received his instructions directly from Eichmann himself. Thus, no connection existed between Offices 111 and VI and Eichmann's department.
Referring to Denmark and Holland, the witness Dr. Hoffmann testified that the deportation of Jaws from these countries was carried out solely by the Eichmann agency. On the 3rd of January 1946 Wisliceny made an extensive statement on this subject before the Tribunal, saying that the deportation of Jews in the Balkan countries was also carried out by the Eichmann Department. The trial has in no way established that the SD offices 111,V1 or V11 in any way supported the Eichmann agency.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Then that is another organization which is direct responsible to Himmler, is it, the Eichmann department? You gave us the RSHA, the Pohl organization, and another organization which I forget for the moment -oh, the Einsatzgruppen; that was three organizations which were entirely outside the SS or the SD or the SA, and now you have got another one. This is the Eichman organization.
DR. GAWLIK: That isn't quite the legal position. It may be the same as reference to those three organizations I have mentioned because, after all, Eichmann was in Office IV, but probably it would be better if my colleague. Dr. Merkel, were to answer that question. I don't want to go ahead for my colleague Merkel who represents the Gestapo, Eichmann had an office in Department IV of the RSHA.
THE PRESIDENT : Go on.
DR. GAWLIK: It is true, however, that Eichmann and a number of other persons who have worked in his department in Office IV, were formerly employed in theSD .
In this connection, Wisliceny has testified before the Tribunal that these persons were in part ordered to Office IV, and in part transferred there. They received their orders exclusively Iron Office IV. The witness Hoffmann has declared that Eichmann was transferred from the SD to the Gestapo, Record of the Commission hearing, Pages 1404 to 1458.
The fact that persons had worked in the SD before they worked in Eichmann's section is in no way sufficient to declare the SD a criminal organization. Thes persons were completely eliminated from the activity of the SD when they were taken over by Office lV or when they were ordered to Office 1V. the aims and duties of Offices lll, Vl, or Vll. The fact alone that these people resigned their activity in the SD and were taken over into Office IV indicates clearly that this activity was not among the aims and duties of the SD. Moreover, the majority of the members of Offices lll, Vl, and Vll did not know that individual persons who had formerly been employed in the SD w re now occupied in Office lV with the final solution of the Jewish question.
VII-B of the English Trial brief against the Gesture and SD. and the SD had been the main departments for the persecution of the churches: that the SD had pursued secret ends with deceptive maneuvers against the church; that the SD had collaborated with the Gestapo; that the SD had dealt with the opposition of the church against the Nazi State; that the Prosecution of the church had been one of the fundamental purposes of the SD. to declare the SD as criminal for their persecution of the church. Paragraph 6-C of the Charter does not-speak of persecution of the churches but of persecution for religious seasons. the general allegation that the churches had been persecuted therefore do not suffice. Moreover, it should have been shown that this persecution was carried out for religious reasons.
The concept "persecution" will moreover need to be explained. Not every meausre can be understood as "persecution" which was undertaken against members of denominations by the State. Here, moreover, we have to start from the concept of human rights. The Charter does not define what is to be understood as violation of human rights from a religious viewpoint. Martens, Bonfils, and others, take this to be the right for existence; the right for protection of honor, of life, of health, of liberty, of property and of religious freedom.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it your contention that Germany had the right, outside the territory of the Reich, to treat the church which existed there in any way they thought right ? Take, for instance, in Russia; in the Soviet Union. Is it your contention that there Germany could treat the Church and the Church property in any way they thought right, if that isn't in accordance with International Law ?
DR. GAWLIK: You have to make a difference between conditions inside and conditionsoutside of Germany. Outside of Germany the general principles of International Law applied. My statements deal with conditions in Germany because the SD has been accused be the Prosecution, in Document 1815-PS, which is the document from Aachen, that it had persecuted the churches inside Germany. There you have to draw a distinct dividing line, and what I had been saying referred exclusively to conditions inside Germany. fall under this penal code. The evidence on this point of the indictment has established the following : III, no church questions, but only general questions of the religious life, have been dealt, with in such a manner that the religious tendencies, wishes and preoccupations of all sections of the population were affected without judging their confessional adherence in the sense of a persecution of the church, or causing or supporting police measures. The witness has stated that the SD carried on no sham proceedings in order to persecute the church. The witness Dr. Best, (witness for the Gestapo) has testified that any police intervention in individual church cases was the task of the Stapo. According to the statements of the witness Roessner the decree of the 12th of May, 1941, which ordered that Office IV should take ever entirely all church affairs from Office III was but the formal confirmation of an already existing state of affairs. particularly to SD Number 55 of Theo Gahrmann. I draw your attention to the fact that the English Document Book H which deals with the Persecution of the churches cntains no evidence against the SD. Documents D-75, 101, 145,848-PS, 1164-PS, 1481-PS, and 1521-PS are contained in this document book. is in reference to the document submitted by the prosecution -- number 1815-PS.
Amts III and IV, which is the intention of the Prosecution, would not do justice to the tasks and activities of the Amts III and IV. If the Tribunal however, should A ass sentence on an SD against my explanations, then the numbers of persons affected by this decision will have to be strictly limited especially because of Law No. 10. The general designation "SD" shoul not suffice because of the versatile meaning of this word. It will have to be clarified whether the decision affects :
1. Only members of Amts III and IV which were not founded until 1939, or also members of Central Department II/I and of the SD Main Office.
2. Only the full time members or also the honorary members.
3. From the honorary members only the collaborators, or also the Vertrauensmaenner (Persons entrusted with special tasks.)
4. From the V ertrauensmaenner only the constant employees, or also those who furnished occasional reports.
5. From Amt VI also those members of the military Abwehr (Intelligenc 6. Also technicians, secretaries, drivers, telephone operators, etc.
Mr. President, High Tribunal, your decision will be a milestone in the history of law, but also be a milestone in the history of humanity.
The striving of the people is peace. The decisive politicians, as wel as representatives of legal science agree that this wish of humanity can only be fulfilled by an independent jurisduction unbounded by State sovereignty. International law, established in a speech held in the year 1926 that the history of mankind is but the history of the individual upon a larger scale, In the history of the individual the right to take justice into your own hands has given way to an arbitration by the parties concerned, and from thence developed the juridical Proceeding of nominating judges and executing the judgment.
Violence is violence; whether between armed men or entire people, which in the case of war put their last resources at the disposal of their governments.
ment of the individual, are in a ransit state from the arbitration system to a regular juridical system. Nature repeats herself from day to day, from generation to generation, whether in individuals or in such groups of individuals which we call State of Nation. The International Arbitration System will be the basis for the regular juridical system of the United Nations, which is unbounded by state sovereignty, just as the regular juridical system has developed out of the arbitration system, within the peoples. is the end of belligerent struggles and would thus fulfill the deep wish of all the peoples. The International Military Tribunal could fulfill this task in the World History.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, I have before me the Russian translation of your speech, and on rage 113 of the speech it apparently refers, in paragraph which has got a number 1, to the chief department of the SD. I would like to know for the benefit of the Tribunal, what you mean by the Chief department of the SD. Do your pages correspond ?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, My Lord. The SD Main Department until 1939 had the following departments. It had Department II-L -- that was Department 5. When the RSHA was founded, that department was transferred to the Gestapo.
THE PRESIDENT: The Main Department of the SD was transferred to the Gestapo . . .
DR. GAWLIK: No, not the entire Main Department, my Lord. Until 1939 there was a main department SD. After September 1939 the RSHA was in existence and the RSHA only existed since September 1939. Before that there was the main SD department, various sub-departments, and one department of that SD main office was transferred to the Gestapo when the RSHA was founded. That department was called II-I.
THE PRESIDENT: Did the main department of the SD cease to exist in September 1939.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, then it ceased to exist. And department II-2 then became Amt III of the RSHA.
THE PRESIDENT: You are saying, are you not, that Department II-I, which was a branch of the main department of the SD was transferred to the RSHA and became department II in the RSHA or Amt II in the RSHA?
DR. GAWLIK: No, no, My Lord Amt II-I came into Department IV of the RSHA. That is the Gestapo and . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.
DR. GAWLIK: And department II-2 turned into Amt III of the RSHA.
THE PRESIDENT: At any rate, the SD Main Department ceased to exist,and all passed into the various Amts of the RSHA?
DR. GAWLIK: In September of 1939, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, that is right. is the end of belligerent struggles, and which would fulfil the deep wish of all the peoples. The International Military Tribunal could fulfil this task in the history of the world if by its decision it were to indicate that the Tribunal stands above the people. organizations, is not the right way, because this would punish the innocent. But this goal can only be reached if the judgment of this Tribunal is based on the principle that there must be no punishment without the establishment of the guilt of the individual.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know that the Tribunal has laid down any exact order, and I am not sure how far the translations of the various speeches have now gone, but perhaps counsel for the organizations know how far their speeches have been translated and therefore which it is most convenient to take now.
Is it you, Dr. Laternser?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take the High Command now, them.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, so far as I know, the English translation of my final plea is completed. The Drench translation, apparently, is mostly completed, because I have just seen one copy of it here. The Russian translation -- I don't know about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Yes, Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for General Staff and High Command): My Lord, Gentlemen of the Tribunal.