[The witness Juettner resumed the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I have one or two announcements to make. The Tribunal will sit in closed session this afternoon. There will be no open session after one o'clock today. The Tribunal will not sit in open session on Saturday.

The affidavit of the Polish priest which was offered the other day is admitted.

A request has been made to the Tribunal that the report of Colonel Neave be made available to counsel for the SS. The Tribunal have requested Colonel Neave to prepare for its assistance summaries of the evidence of witnesses heard before the Commission, and a report grouping the testimony of the witnesses before the Commission with respect, to the points on which they have given evidence. These summaries and the report mentioned are not parts of the record and are not accorded any evidential value by the Tribunal, which has before it, and will consider, the transcript of the entire evidence before the Commission. Counsel for the Organizations and Counsel for the Prosecution may see these documents and may comment on them in their arguments within the time heretofore allowed, but the Tribunal will not grant any delay or any additional time for argument with regard to them.

The Tribunal have also received an application that Dr. Klefisch might make a speech on the law with reference to the Organizations, and a speech in writing has been deposited with the Tribunal on behalf of Dr. Klefisch. The Tribunal do not propose to hear an additional speech on behalf of the Organizations, but it will consider the speech in writing which has been deposited by Dr. Klefisch.

I now turn to a completely different subject. The Tribunal have been informed that some of the defendants have deposited long statements for translation with the Translation Division.

There is no necessity for the defendants' statements to be translated, and they will not be translated by the Translation Division. The Tribunal draws the attention of the defendants and their counsel to the order of 23 July 1946, which was in the following terms: "In view of the full statements already made by the defend ants and their counsel, the Tribunal assume that if it is the desire of the defendants to make any further statements, it will be only t deal with matters previously omitted. The defendants will not be permitted to make further speeches or to repeat what has already been said by themselves or their counsel, but will be limited to short statements of a few minutes each to cover matters not already covered by their testimony or the arguments of counsel." The Tribunal will adhere strictly to this order, and the defendants will no be allowed to make statements which last longer than, as the order says, "a few minutes." These statements will be made by the defendants from their places in the dock.

That is all.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the affidavit of the Polish priest to which Your Lordship referred is Document Numb 4043-PS, and now becomes Exhibit GB-606.

Witness, before the Tribunal adjourned, you made a comment on a note of Captain Roehm on Document Number 2822-PS, which was minute from General Von Reichenau to the Supreme SA Command.

My Lord, it is in Document Book "Y," the original document book.

[Turning to the witness.] Now, you see. what that document is that Von Reichenau is saying that the desire has been transmitted to him from the Bureau for Defense Policy of the Party to be also represented in the Reich Defense Council. He goes on to say, "I want to submit for consideration that this representation be combined in personal union with the representation of the Supreme SA Command, and that possibly one suitable person be charged with both representations."

Now, look at these words which you mentioned yesterday, as suggesting that there was nothing military in the wishes of the SA. Are these the words-follow and see that I get them right. "

Krilger: nein; mit Reichenau am..." and then the figures 16 and 11, "vereinbart als Vertreter," then "Ob.SA.F."-I will repeat that, "der Ob.SA.F. KrUger." Does not that mean now that the two parts of the representation are not to be combined, agreed with Reichenau on the 16th of the 11th, that the representative of the Supreme SA Leadership is Krdger? In other words, that Krueger was to represent the SA Leadership on the Reich Defense Council. Is that not what Roehm has written?

JUETTNER: Kuelger was the Chief of Training and Instruction and as such ...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Most of all, answer my question Is that not what is there, that Kuelger is to be the representative o the SA Leadership on the Reich Defense Council?

JUETTNER: According to this remark, yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was the remark that you were trying to make out yesterday showed that the SA were not connected with military matters. It shows they were represented directly on the Reich Defense Council, does it not?

JUETTNER: I gave reasons yesterday why that was so, namely, for clearing the left bank of the Rhine in the event which I also mentioned yesterday; a withdrawal of the male population, but nothing military.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, in the interest of time, I should ask the Tribunal's approval of the following course: I have a certain number of new documents which are of a public nature. I shall propose to put them in without referring to the witness unless there is any point that the Tribunal would like to put to him. Then when we come to documents with which the witness can help the Tribunal, I shall cross-examine on them.

My Lord, I think there would be some saving of time. I hope the Tribunal will approve.

THE PRESIDENT: All right.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases. if Your Lordship would look at the Document Book 16 B, at Page 53.

THE PRESIDENT: The defense counsel, of course, have these documents, have they not, or will have them?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, My Lord, they will be given to them as we go along.

HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, I have not got these documents.

THE PRESIDENT: You are just going to be given them, I think.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the documents will be given to defense counsel as I read them.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, that is what I was asking.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this is Document Number D-951, I think it is my fault-I did not give the number. My Lord, that becomes Exhibit GB-607. My Lord, it is a letter, it begins with a letter of Roehm's, then the Chief of Staff of the SA, and it encloses a letter from Blomberg to Hitler. My Lord, it is the second enclosure that is important. That is from Berlin, on 2 March 1934, to the Reich Chancellor:

"I feel it my duty to draw attention once more to the significance of the staff guards of the SA. According to the order of the Chief of Staff, every corps and division (Obergruppe and Gruppe) is to form an armed staff guard with a heavy machine-gun company. This formation is at present taking place. According to the report of the Sixth Military District Headquarters, the SA Brigadefuehrer are also said to be considering forming such a staff guard already, and to be engaging SA men for one to one and a half year's service for this purpose. Selection and training have to take place with the aim of appearing in public. Numerically this would amount to 6-8,000 SA men permanently armed with rifles and machine-guns in the area of the Sixth Military District Headquarters., A particularly awkward factor is that the creation of these staff guards relies on so-called SA auxiliary camps (Hilfswerklager), which are mostly situated in the big towns."

Arid I call the Tribunal's special attention to the next sentence.

"Today I have received the report that in H6chst on the Main, that is, in the neutral zone, the creation of such an armed staff guard, is taking place. Such behavior renders illusory all the Wehrmacht's care and that of the Kuelger depots within the neutral zone which are influenced by it. As the Chief of Staff is away from Berlin, I am sending this report direct to the Chancellor. Signed, Von Blomberg."

Do you not realize that is two years before- the occupation of the neutral zone on the Rhine? Then, if Your Lordship will be good enough to turn over to Page 129, which is Document Number 4013-PS, that will become Exhibit GB-608. That is a letter from the Defendant Rosenberg, from the local editor's office in Berlin to the Munich editor's office, presumably of the Völkischer Beobachter.

"The Munich editor's office shall forward immediately in a sealed envelope the following communication to the Chief of Staff. The authorities here have learned that Austrians in Berlin have informed Vienna"-and Your Lordship will note that this is 3 February 1934; the Dollfuss Putsch was in July 1934-"that the SA plans to have the Austrian formations in Bavaria march into Austria around the 8th or 9th of February. Then a military dictatorship would be proclaimed. This morning I had an inquiry from very important English quarters whether it might be possible that, behind the back of Hitler and Habicht, the Austrians in Germany could invade Austria. My informant added that so far the Austrian charges had been laid aside, but this information had come from such a reliable source that they simply had to contact us. I am afraid of a possible provocation by hired elements which, if announced to the world just at that time, could produce conflicts. I explained that the Fi1hrer is not following a peace policy with Poland in order at the same time to start military conflicts with Austria. I report this matter so that, if occasion requires, the Supreme SA Command may take the necessary steps."

Now, My Lord, the next is the Czechoslovakian matter. If Your Lordship turns to Page 65 of the book that is Document Number EC-366-1. That is Exhibit GB-609. My Lord, it is a report on the 11th of October 1938, dealing with the position of the Sudeten Freikorps in September 1938. It is made by Lieutenant Colonel Kchling, who was the special delegate of the OKW to the Youth Leader of the German Reich. I can give Your Lordship the passages very shortly. On the first page, Your Lordship will see, about the sixth line from the bottom:

"There were an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 men in the reception camps and villages along the active front."

If Your Lordship will turn to Page 66, Line 2 says that the groups were formed into battalions, and so on.

Then, Line 6:

"Supplies had been organized by the SA in conjunction with the NSV, and went smoothly from the very beginning. A very small amount of arms, consisting of Austrian carbines, had been supplied by the Austrian SA."

Then, four lines further on:

"With magnificent camaraderie and unselfishness, the Supreme SA Leadership had looked after the Freikorps materially."

Ten lines on:

"Equipping and feeding remained in the care of the NSV and the SA." Then, My Lord, on Page 67, the fourth line: "Here again the SA helped in part with available signals apparatus."

Six lines from that-

"The building up of the groups and staffs in the manner ordered was only possible owing to the effective support of the liaison officers provided to each group by the OKH."

Then, four lines on:

"In this the liaison officers were particularly well supported by the German SA leaders from the Reich who had been put into the Freikorps battalions by the SA. Without their camaraderie and their readiness to do their duty, the Freikorps could not have carried out its task.

"The leaders appointed to the Freikorps by the Supreme SA Leadership also contributed essentially to the building up of the Freikorps and to its successes."

And then, My Lord, on the next page there is some discussion about the way the work went on and how the SA continued to help.

I think from there, if Your Lordship will turn now to Page 71, you can see what this Freikorps did under this SA guidance.

The last paragraph, My Lord, is:

"The force carried out more than 200 minor undertakings, in which they suffered nearly 100 dead and more than 50 wounded, and captured more than 2,000 prisoners and a great deal of booty of all kinds-see Appendix 1-so that the task which the Fuehrer had demanded as a foundation for his foreign political negotiations may be considered as having been completed."

Now, My Lord, in Appendix 1 Your Lordship will see a list of the casualties, and the prisoners, guns, and equipment that were captured. Of course, 'the Tribunal will remember that all this happened in a time of peace, when all the defendants have been so anxious to point out to us that no war ever started-that is, before Munich.

Your Lordship will remember that I asked the witness yesterday whether the training of the SA in the middle of the war, in 1941, differed from the training that was given in peace. I only want to give Your Lordships the different documents in which the training is found. I am not going to take them in detail, but I will indicate what they contain in a moment.

My Lord, the first is a memorandum on training, dated 23 February 1934. That is Document Number 1849-PS, and Your Lordship will find it on Page 82 of the document book; that becomes Exhibit GB-610. On Pages 89 to 104 of the book, Your Lordship will find the training course.

Now, My Lord, the next document in order of date is Number 2354-PS, which is Exhibit USA-430 and is in the old SA document book. That is the organization book for 1938, which includes the training of the SA, including the military training, throwing hand grenades, and so on.

My Lord, what I proposed to do was to summarize the points of similarity -at the end, and if Your Lordship will check, you can see if my summary is right.

The next document is Number D-925 which will become Exhibit GB-611, which Your Lordships will find on Page 32 of Document Book 16 B. My Lord, that is a list of the contents of the handbook of the SA, and it must be after 1937, because there is a reference to the people's gas masks of 1937 on Page 36. 1 have not got the exact date. If Your Lordship would merely like to note the sections, they are 8, 9, and 10, under the letter "E." Number 8 is musketry; 9 is training in terrain; and "E" is the training for the attack.

Then there is a lecture of Lutze, which was given in 1938, and that is Document Number 3050-PS, which is a large bundle of extracts from the SA Mann. My Lord, this is in a special bundle from which we have had translated certain articles, and it is Number 3050-K. As I say, My Lord, it is a lecture of Lutze, of whom this witness has talked so much, given on the 14th of May 1938.

Then, My Lord, the next is a document that Major Barrington put in yesterday. It is Number D-918, which is Page I of Document Book 16 B. That is the training directives for 1939; it goes on from Page 1 to F6ge 21.

My Lord, apart from the training-which is dealt with at length and which, as I say, I will summarize-there is one point on Page 21 which I would be grateful if the Tribunal would note. This is apart from training, but I do not want to go back to the document.

On Page 21 Your Lordship will see, under the letter "H": "Aids to the preparation and carrying out of the training," and under Number 4, "The SA Man." Just a point on that, My Lord.

The last document of this series is on Page 108 of Document Book 16 B, and that is Document Number 3993-PS, which will become Exhibit GB-612. It is a letter from Lutze to the Defendant Rosenberg, dated 30 January 1939:

"Please accept my thanks for your congratulations relating to the Fuehrer's decree which assigns all pre-military and postmilitary training to the SA."

Now, My Lord, the common factors of these documents are, as can be seen from the documents, first of all, dealing with musketry, the general handling of arms, and all the concomitant matters. Secondly, the use of terrain, including ...

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like you to put that last document that you have been dealing with, 3993-PS, to the witness.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I will certainly do that

[The document was submitted to the witness.]

Witness, you have seen that document from Lutze to Rosenberg of the 30th of January 1939?

JUETTNER: Yes, I have got it here.

SIR DAVID MAXVTELL-FYFE: And is that correct, that the Fuehrer had decreed, shortly before that, that the pre-military an post-military training should be assigned to the SA?

JUETTNER: On 19 January 1939 this was decreed by the Fuehrer but in practice this decree was never applied.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suppose you carried out the training which is contained in these directives from 1934 to 1939, did you not?

JUETTNER: Regarding these matters of which the SA is being accused here, I shall have to speak in more detail, particularly as the right of vindication has been expressly sanctioned by the American Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Jackson, for the Organizations. Therefore, I shall have to come, in detail, to the accusations made here ...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not think you need worry about ...

JUETTNER: ... and state my opinion...

SIR-DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just a moment ...

JUETTNER: I have not finished yet.

THE PRESIDENT: Do not argue, please; answer the question.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you dispute that these directives that I have mentioned all contained training in musketry, training in the handling of arms, training in the use of terrain, that is, the use of ground, camouflage, reports, methods of attack, reconnaissance, and every one except the first-no, all of them-training in the use of hand grenades and generally training in attack, in battle, in dealing with attack by armored troops, attacks by airplanes-in fact, that they all contained the first stages of military training which every soldier has to go through before he is qualified to be a soldier? And, Witness, before you answer, you may assume that 90 percent of the male population of this Court have gone through military training and they know it from a practical point of view. -

Are you saying that these training directives do not contain the ordinary, initial stages of military training?

JUETTNER: In the first place I do not deny it, and in the second place, that is training which is handled by the military and not by the SA. For instance, throwing of hand grenades, air training, training in the use of arms, were things we never handled. These questions cannot be answered with "yes" or "no." I must go into them in detail if I am to give a truthful and exhaustive answer.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Witness, what I want to know is this, and the Tribunal will no doubt let you give your explanation: Are you telling the Tribunal that these training directives were issued one after the other for five years from 1934 to 1939 and that that training was not carried into effect? Tell me. You can answer that "yes" or "no." Was that training carried into effect?

JUETTNER: We carried out training by sport and defensive exercises in order to improve physical condition. I would have to see these directives to be able to state whether we worked in accordance with them or not.

SIR DAVID MAXVTELL-FYFE: I do not propose to put them in detail. If Dr. B6hm wants to ...

THE PRESIDENT: What the Tribunal wishes to know with reference to the document that they asked you to put to the witness, was how the witness explains his answer yesterday which I took down in these words, "Lutze did -not write about military training." That was the answer you gave yesterday with reference to Document 3215-PS. Well, now, we have had put before us a document from Lutze to the Defendant Rosenberg, which thanks Rosenberg for his congratulations incidental to the Fuehrer's decree which assigns all pre-military and post-military training to the SA. Why did you say yesterday that Lutze did not write with reference to military training? '

JUETTNER: Your Lordship, yesterday the matter in question was a newspaper article regarding military training. That article dealt with work the SA was carrying out and that was work of purely defensive education. In the Fuehrer's decree, if I remember rightly, it also says "the pre- and post-military education." It may even say "training"; that I cannot say with certainty, but what is meant is military education. Later, during negotiations regarding the carrying out of this decree which lasted until the war broke out, this conception of pre- and post-military training or education was altered to "training or education outside the military sphere," that is to say, what the Armed Forces were doing was not to be done by the SA. They were merely to prepare everything. They were to prepare the body and mind, so that men who had gone through the school of the SA should become physically fit and capable men, mentally prepared for defensive service. That was the meaning and the purpose of the decree and the innermost meaning of the so-called "SA Defense Badge." And instruction with weapons was not included in that training.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you saying that between the Fuehrer's decree of January and the beginning of the war there was no pre-military training done? When did you start it again?

JUETTNER: It was supposed to start with the discharge of the men serving with the Army in 1939, in October or November. That is when the decree was to come into force. The beginning of the war prevented its becoming operative. That was mentioned especially in an order by General Von Brauchitsch in the early days of November and also in a letter from Reichsleiter Bormann to the Chief of Staff, where it was stated...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Witness, I just want to get this clear. When do you say it was to come into operation? Did you say in October? When was it due to start? When was this pre-military training due to start in 1939? When?

JUETTNER: This training was to start after the beginning of war-in November or October, I am not quite sure about that. Until then preparatory work had been carried 'out to establish the best procedure.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just let us get this clear. Axe you telling the Tribunal it did not start?

JUETTNER: I am telling the High Tribunal that the carrying out of that decree was scheduled to start in the autumn of 1939.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then why did you put such an extraordinary untruth in your report of June 1941, which Your Lordships will find on Page 118:

"The pre-military training practiced by the SA since the outbreak of war on a voluntary basis in the SA defense groups has been already explained in detail in Reports I and 2."

These are your first reports of the war regarding the activity of the SA in the war. Then you go on to explain the report m'* eluding clan target practice, instruction and practice in handling and cleaning rifles, as well as shooting on a range in a field, and further, the throwing of hand grenades under assumed combat conditions. Why did you put such an enormous untruth in your report if what you are telling the Tribunal is true today, that you never started it at all?

JUETTNER: I neither told an untruth in that report nor did I tell one now. May I ask, does that report refer to the period of the war? Did I understand you correctly to say that it does refer to wartime? Yes, I mentioned to Your Lordship yesterday that, after the beginning of the war, the SA had done everything to increase Germany's armed strength. That was our duty as patriots. We then paid the greatest attention to military physical training, that is to say, no longer to ordinary athletics and other physical training, but particularly to military exercises. But even that was no armed service. If the cleaning of rifles is mentioned, it means we demonstrated it to our men with our small-bore arms.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the report is in. It includes radio training. The pre-military training includes all men over 18 years of age. Your Lordship has the documents to consider.

My Lord, the next group of documents which I have asked Your Lordships to consider relate to the fact that it was stated before the Commission that the SA Mann, which is a part of the evidence of the Prosecution, was an unofficial publication with a circulation of 200,000. That was said before the Commission, at Pages 212 and 213. If Your Lordship will be good enough to look first at Page III of Document Book 16B, Your Lordships will find Document Number 4010-PS, which will become Exhibit GB-613. I am sorry, it is Page 117 of the German book.

THE PRESIDENT: And of ours?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it is Page Ill of Your Lordship's. That is a letter from the editor of Der SA Mann to the Defendant Rosenberg. Your Lordships will see "Organ of Supreme Leadership, SA of the NSDAP" on the letter heading. It is sent to Rosenberg and it asks him for an article to commemorate their five years of independent publication and eight years of publication as a supplement to the V61kischer Beobachter. In the middle of the second paragraph Your Lordship will find the sentence, "A subscriber's list of half a million clearly shows the importance of the SA." That was on the 13th of August 1936.

THE PRESIDENT: You said "the importance of the SA." It is "the importance of the SA Mann."

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, My Lord. I beg Your Lordship's pardon; "the importance of the SA Mann."

THE PRESIDENT: Read the first two lines.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE:

"In a few weeks, Der SA Mann, combat publication and official organ of Supreme SA Leadership, will look back upon an existence of respectively eight and five years."

My Lord, I am obliged.

Then, My Lord, on Page 110, Page 116 of the German document book, there is a letter from the Defendant Rosenberg's staff: "Reichsleiter Rosenberg confirms, with his best thanks, receipt of your letter of 13 August and sends you enclosed the preface asked for."

If Your Lordship will turn back another page to 109, which is Page 115 of the German document book-this becomes Exhibit GB-614-this is a letter from the editor again to the Defendant Rosenberg. Your Lordship will see on the letter heading this time:

"The Press Office of the Supreme Command of the SA, Main Office of the Editor of Der SA Mann."

This, My Lord, is 21 April 1938. They have now gone to ten years. There again they are asking Defendant Rosenberg for an article on the subject of the "ideology and combat paper" ("Weltanschauungs- und Kampfblatt") or something similar to it.

In the next paragraph:

"I do hope that you will be agreeable to our wish, and I am convinced that a contribution especially from your pen will be greeted with particular enthusiasm by our 750,000 subscribers."

Your Lordship will remember the evidence that this witness gave that a few months after that, in 1939, the total membership of the SA was 1,500,000, so Der SA Mann went to one in every two.

My Lord, I have already referred the Tribunal to the recommendation by the Chief of Staff, Lutze, in the training directive, D-918, of the SA Mann, and, My Lord, as I told Your Lordship, the articles appear in Document 3050-PS, which is Exhibit USA-414. There is a long list of articles that are contained in that document of a military nature, anti-Semitic nature, anti-Church nature, all of which my friend Colonel Storey put to the Tribunal. I do not intend to go over it again.

Now, My Lord, the next document which I had asked Your Lordships to look at is one of the cases of the perversion of the course of justice in the interests of the SA. It is Document Number D-923, which Your Lordship will find on Page 22 of the Document Book 16 B; that becomes GB-615.

It is a long document, but I will take it very quickly and if there are any points, Your Lordship, I will be very willing to deal in detail with it. The German page is 22 also.

My Lord, that is a report that appears on the top of Page 22. There are five sections which are recapitulated in the sixth. The first is a report of the Public Prosecution Provincial Court, Nuernberg-Fuerth, dated 21 August 1933, regarding the beating to death of one Pflaurner by the SA. Then, My Lord, there is a post-mortem, report. There is a report from the Public Prosecution that the Police were refusing to give evidence in the above case. "This might endanger the well-being of the Reich."

As for the report from the Court of Appeal Public Prosecutor: "The Police Directorate Nuernberg-Fuerth refuse permission to Police officials to break official secrecy."

Number 5, rather naively, states in the last sentence: "Police Directorate refuse permission to Police officials to break official secrecy for the trial. They also need both, of the accused"-that is the people who 'are accused of beating the man to death-"to guarantee the safety of the Party Rally Day."

Then, My Lord, the next document, 6, is a report from the Defendant Frank to the Minister of State for the Interior and, My Lord, it shows that the man Pflaumer, a 29-year-old married mechanic, was beaten up at a guardhouse in August 1933, and then brought to the main Police station by the SA and died there.

And, My Lord, on Page 23 at the top, Your Lordship will see:

"The Provincial Court physician also reported that, according to his findings, Pflaumer was beaten to death in a most cruel manner and tortured with blunt objects."

And two lines on, after dealing with the result of the bastinado:

"The conclusion had to be drawn that the perpetrators did not cause the injuries to the ill-treated man in self-defense."

And then apparently they say there is some question of doubt, but Your Lordship will see on the evidence there was no doubt that these people were concerned.

Then, My Lord, the next two paragraphs , deal with political pressure against proceedings and, My Lord, there then comes a somewhat similar case in Section II. I do not want to complicate the matter. It is a separate case of three Jews beaten up by the SS.

Now, My Lord, on Page 24, the Defendant Frank says in

Section III:

"The events described under I and II give me cause for great apprehension."

He goes on to say that people are still indulging in brutality; that members of the SA-in the middle of the next paragraph: "still allow themselves to indulge in the inadmissible ill-treatment of opponents."

And then, at the beginning of the paragraph after that:

"The events show further that unfortunately attempts are still being made to interfere with the legal course of justice."

Then the defendant points to the date of the amnesty. Then, at the beginning of the next paragraph he says:

"Especially in the case of Pflaumer, I consider it an urgent necessity, in the interest of safeguarding the authority of the State and the good name of justice and the Police, to avoid even the slightest appearance that the Police are shielding this crime."

Then he suggests-the last words on that page:

"The misgivings of the chief of the political department of the Nuernberg-Fuerth Police Directorate can, however, be taken into consideration by the exclusion of the public during the trial. The carrying out of a trial can furthermore hardly be prevented by refusing to allow testimony. For, in view of the confession of the accused Korn and Stark to date, together with the results of the judicial autopsy, the trial will have to be instituted against them and carried out under any circumstances."

Now, that goes on and you will see that he has requested, and the Public Prosecution are requesting, the Prime Minister to bring up the matter for discussion at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers, and to invite Roehmand Himmler. Then that is done and, My Lord, there is then a significant inquiry on Page 26 ' from Bormann, asking how the matter is going on and, My Lord, then on Page 27, Page 27 of the German-version too, Document 13 (it is one of the inserts on Page 27):

"The Public Prosecution Provincial Court Niirnberg-Filrth report to -Court of Appeal Public Prosecutor, Nuemberg, that the preliminary investigation ended on 19 March 1934. The Poli

ce Directorate Nuernberg-Fuerth intend to apply for the quashing of the criminal proceedings."

Then, My Lord, in Document 14 that matter is discussed and that is on Pages 27 and 28. Then at the bottom of Page 28, 28 in the German version, you will find a section "Certificate of Opinion." My Lord, that says:

"On mature consideration, I assent. to the suggestion of the Police Directorate.

"Firstly, it should be considered whether the proceedings could not be brought to an end by cancelling prosecution of the accused. According to the result of the preliminary investigation, Korn ought accordingly to be accused in any case, while the accused Stark could be released from criminal proceedings. However, an investigation or an extension of the investigation against the persons who took part in this matter (accomplices, possible instigators, and helpers) and finally also those who favored the culprits would, according to such and such a paragraph, be indicated.

"But if the proceedings were carried out in this manner, it would be unavoidable, even if the public were to be excluded from the actual trial, that the public would get to know about the events. This would seriously harm and impair the reputation of the SA, the Party, the Police, and even the National

Socialist State."

If Your Lordship would look at the bottom of Page 29, last paragraph ...

THE PRESIDENT: Before you deal with that, perhaps you ought to read the last paragraph but one on Page 27, beginning at the second sentence in that paragraph, Page 27, the penultimate paragraph.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, is that the one beginning, "Therefore..."

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the second sentence, "As the Police forces. . ."

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE:

"As the Police forces available were far from sufficient, the SA Sturm for Special Use, which was stationed in Nuernberg in the old Samariter Wache at the Hallplatz Number 4, was appointed to assist the Police in these tasks. In this guardhouse the necessary identification and questionings of arrested Communists took place. The leader of this SA Unit was the then Sturmbannfuehrer (SA Major) Eugen Kom, 25 years old, unmarried, commercial employee in Nuernberg. His deputys" and so on.

I am much obliged, Your Lordship.

My Lord, I call Your Lordship's attention to Page 29, Page 29 of the German text.

"Lastly, it may also be pointed out that this deed was committed relatively shortly after the coming into force of the amnesty decree of 2 August 1933. If it had been committed before 26 July 1933, that is only three weeks earlier, it would have been amnestied like a number of other political excesses. Since the deed did not originate in an ignoble motive, but rather served the achievement of an exceedingly patriotic N, aim and the advance of the National Socialist State, the quashing of the proceedings, also in view of the relation of the time of the deed to the above-mentioned amnesty, does not seem incompatible with the orderly administration of criminal justice.

"For all these reasons it is suggested, in connection with the request of the Police Directorate, that the proceedings on account of the bodily injuries resulting in the death of the mechanic Oskar Pflaumer, as well as on account of the actions of criminal participation and complicity immediately connected with this, should be quashed."

And, My Lord, in due course that is forwarded by the Defendant Frank, in the next document on Page 30 and on the top of Page 31, and Reich Governor Von Epp says:

"I hereby quash the criminal proceedings."

That is sent by Frank to the Court of Appeal Public Prosecutor.

It is interesting, My Lord, and I would have referred Your Lordship to it, in view of what we have heard about isolated acts unconnected with the SA Leadership, that this man Kom was the Sturnibannfuehrer Korn who was on the staff of the Supreme SA Leadership.

Now, My Lord, I did not intend to take the other ones as I hoped to be able to cut it even shorter, but there are two others which show this same perversion of justice and therefore, I submit, are important.

My Lord, the next is Document Number D-936, which Your Lordships will find on Pages 51 and 52. That will be Exhibit GB-616. My Lord, that is connected with the nine members of the SA who were charged with beating up the editor of the newspaper The Lower Bavarian Peasant. My Lord, that was a Dr. Schl6gl, and The Lower Bavarian Peasant, I think, was a Bavarian People's Party paper, a sort of Catholic Party paper. -And Your Lordship will see that the proceedings are held to fall within the amnesty, but it is interesting again to see the declared motive and the connection with the leadership. If Your Lordship would look at the second paragraph for the reason for the decision of the Amtsgerichtsrat; it says:

"There is no doubt, therefore, that the deeds were committed for political reasons. They were committed also to insure the success, of the National Socialist State. It may be that the destruction of the furniture was intended to serve the purpose of a house search in which previously imbibed alcohol may have played a harmful part in the manner of carrying Gut that decision. On the other hand, it may be that by the destruction of the furniture, certainly, however, by the ill-treatment, it was intended to restrain Dr. Schl6gl from further political activity. No other motive for the deeds can be found."

I ask Your Lordship to note:

"The Supreme SA Leadership have also examined these questions. In their letter of 14 September 1933 they announce that the SA men in question were bound to see, and did see, in the possibility of Dr. Schl6gl forcing his way into the National Socialist movement a danger for the Movement and thus for the nation itself. Nor were the deeds committed for the purpose of personal profit or other low motives. The Supreme SA Leadership state on this point that the deed and intention of the SA men were only aimed at the well-being of the National Socialist movement. The political reason and the purity of the intention is thus beyond doubt."

Now, I ask Your Lordship again to note that it is the Supreme SA Leadership.

My Lord, the only other one-I hope I can take it quite quickly. Your Lordship will find in Document Book 16 A, the smaller document book, Page 9.

Your Lordship may remember that my learned friend, Major Barrington, mentioned the question of the punishment of those members of the SA-1 think, My Lord, they run to some 30 or so that had been engaged in cruelties in the concentration camp of Hohenstein. My Lord, this is the report dealing with their punishment, and Your Lordship will note-and this is, in my submission, interesting-that it is dated the 5th of June 1935. My Lord, it concerns the penal proceedings against the merchant and SA Obersturmbannfuehrer Jähnichen and 22 companions-I am afraid I said 30; it is 23-for inflicting bodily injury on duty in the protective custody camp of Hohenstein in Saxony.

This is a letter from Dr. Guertner to the Defendant Hess. That is, it is a top level letter from the Ministry of Justice to the Deputy of the Fuehrer. My Lord, it is Document Number 784-PS. It becomes Exhibit GB-617.

'Dr. Guertner first of all sets out the sentences that were asked for by the prosecutor. Then he sets out the sentences which were inflicted by the Supreme Court in Dresden.

My Lord, I ought to have said that this is Page 9 of the English document; I think Pages 9 to 15 of the German, too.

Turning over to Page 10, which are Pages 10 and 11 of the German document, Your Lordship will see that the Minister of Justice writes:

"After the proposal of the sentence, however, still before the announcement of the verdict, the president of the Criminal Division Number 12"-that is, the judge-"received the following letter from the Reich Governor of Saxony."

HERR BOEHM: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, but the document which I received neither has a Page 9 nor a Page 10. It only has a Page 7 at the most. I am, therefore, not in a position to follow the prosecutor's speech.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I see the paging is different on Dr. B6hm's copy. This is the letter from the Reich Governor;

"As I was informed, it is proposed to impose a punishment of 31/-! years of penal servitude upon the accused Standartenfuehrer Jähnichen. Without wanting to interfere in the proceedings or intending to influence you as judge in any way before the verdict is announced, I should nevertheless once more like to call your attention to the fact that the circumstances brought about by the revolution of 1933 and without doubt still taking effect up to the beginning of 1934, cannot be overlooked when pronouncing sentence.

"A further point appears to me to be worth taking into consideration, namely, the fact that one cannot accuse Jähnichen of having a low character and that, above all, in Hohenstein the scum of humanity had to be dealt with. In consideration of this fact I should like to leave it to you to consider whether the misdemeanors call for such a severe punishment"-Your Lordships will note the next words-"or whether an acquittal could not be considered.

"As Gauleiter of the NSDAP I consider it my duty to call attention again to the unusual circumstances."

Now, My Lord, Dr. Guertner, the Minister of Justice, goes on, and this Your Lordship may well think is the most extraordinary and sinister part of it:

"Moreover, the information has come to hand that the two magistrates who functioned as lay judges in the principal trial, namely Regierungsamtmann Helbig and the merchant Pesler, had been expelled from the NSDAP after the announcement of the verdict. I do not know by whom this expulsion was ordered.

"Anally it has been put to the Public Prosecutor, Dr. Walther, who is a storm trooper, after the pronouncing of the verdict, by his Obersturmbannfuehrer, that he should resign from the SA."

And then you may think that the Minister of Justice goes on with some extremely pertinent observations as to the impossibility of carrying on justice if this goes on. He says in the middle of that paragraph, the end of Page 12 in the German version:

"That kind of procedure against lay judges after the verdict had been pronounced would naturally and necessarily arouse the feeling that when they are functioning as judges they are responsible to a certain agency as to their work. Hereby the judicial independence, which is the foundation of every orderly administration of criminal law, becomes null and void."

Then he deals with the lay judge, and as Your Lordship will see, at the end of the paragraph he comes to the understandable conclusion:

"I would find myself obliged to consider the question whether in the face of such a state of affairs public prosecutors and judges could still be functionaries of the Party or members of the SA at all."

Now, My Lord, Your Lordship will see at the bottom of Page 11 of the English book, Page 3 of the document, and Page 13 of the German version, that there is a letter to the Chief of Staff of the SA of the NSDAP, with a copy of the following accusation enclosed. My Lord, that would be Lutze at that time, because Roehmhad been murdered before that date. The same points are put to the Chief of Staff of the NSDAP, and, My Lord, the matter then goes up to Hitler. My Lord, Your Lordship will find the report that contains Hitler's decision on Pages 13, 14, and 15 of the English version, and Pages 16-1 think j-r starts there-to 33 of the German version. I' hope Dr. B6hm will be able to find it.

That is Document Number 785-PS. I am sorry, My Lord; I thought it was the same document. It is a different document. Your Lordship will see in the first paragraph a description of the crime:

"The maltreatment of inmates, which has led to the sentencing of the accused, was not carried out for any political purpose (to obtain a confession, to punish disciplinary infractions, et cetera) or in retribution for previously suffered wrongs inflicted by Communists, but was merely malicious torture or the expression of sadistic brutality."

Then:

"A few cases of maltreatment occurred, however, where enemies of the State were involved."

At the end of that paragraph:

the defendants not only attempted to wring confessions from the inmates, but that they had acted in sheer lust for torture."

"They acted in sheer lust for torture." This is a document coming from the Reich Chancellery, so Your Lordship sees the criticism that was made in that quarter. But then, My Lord, it goes on to say at the end of the next paragraph about being motivated neither by political purposes nor by personal revenge. Then that is shown.

But, My Lord, at the top of Page 14 it is stated:

"If, nevertheless, I suggest subsequently a further reduction of sentence based upon new evidence for some, of the defendants, I can only justify my action because I believe that according to the circumstances the defendants in one or the other case of maltreatment may have partly acted out of revolutionary motives."

I will repeat that:

" ... may have partly acted out of revolutionary motives."

Then it gives some examples, and, My Lord, at the foot of the page there is the appendix, with Hitler's decision:

"Upon application of the Reich Minister of Justice"-which was the preceding-"I hereby grant in the case against Rudolf Jähnichen and others for maltreatment of persons committed to protective custody in Hohenstein Concentration Camp, the following mitigation of sentences as enumerated in Column 6."

And then, roughly, My Lord, the sentence is reduced by either a third or a half in each case.

My Lord, I would just like to correct an exhibit number. The first document is Exhibit USA-732, and the second document, 785-PS, will be Exhibit GB-617. My Lord, I am again sorry; it is my mistake. It is USA-733, the second document. I am so sorry.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better break off now.

[A recess was taken.]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have finished with the submission of documents. There are three more questions in cross-examination which I should like to put to the witness; and then I shall be finished with my cross-examination.

THE PRESIDENT: Just before you turn away from this 16 B, if you turn to Page 27, the Tribunal would like to know from the witness what the SA Sturm for Special Use was.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship, I mention that because I told Your Lordships that the fact that Korn was on the staff of the Supreme SA Leadership was on 27, the last line of 26; and you will see that the last line of 26 is: "Kom is at present in Munich on the staff of the Supreme SA Leadership." My Lord, then I will ask the question.

Witness, will you tell the Tribunal what the SA Sturm for Special, Use was, which was stationed in Nuremberg in the old Samariter War-he at Hallplatz Number 4; what task it carried out in assisting the Police?

JUETTNER: We had SA Sturme and Sturmbanne for Special Use in various places, and in Nuernberg, too, as far as I know. The general task of these units was to be available in case of catastrophes. Also for police purposes, when they were requested by the Police and used by them as auxiliary police. They were also used for fire brigade service, and during the war in air raid service, in Hamburg, for instance, and Westphalia. Those were in general the tasks of the Sturmbanne for Special Use. They were composed of men whose, work or professions allowed them time for such service.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The present example is that these men under Korn, who was on the staff of the Supreme SA Leadership, beat this Communist to death by using the bastinado on his feet. Was that one of the special uses which this Sturm indulged in when they were doing no work? Was that the sort of thing, beating up Communists? Was that one of the special tasks? Was that a typical special task of this Sturm, to beat up Communists in August 1933?

JUETTNER: No. That was never their task, and if Kom did that he should r

eceive punishment.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You must have known Korn, did you not? He was on the staff of the Supreme SA Leadership.

JUETTNER: I knew Kom from the year 1934, approximately.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you went on working with Korn for years, did you not?

JUETTNER: He was employed in the personnel office for some time. This offense which has just been reported, I knew nothing of until today.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You knew nothing until today, when you were Deputy Chief of Staff of the SA? Are you really telling the Tribunal you knew nothing about the fact that one man from the staff of the Supreme Leadership had been engaged in this foul and brutal murder in Nuernberg, and you heard nothing about it? Is that your story?

JUETTNER: The prosecutor seems to have overlooked the fact that I was Deputy Chief of Staff only from 1939 on. Up to then I was Section Chief in the Fuehrungsamt, and later Chief of the Fuehrungsamt.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not forgetting your first words in evidence that you said that you could give an account of the SA from 1933 onwards dealing with all relevant parts-however, if that is your answer I will leave it. I will now take up another of your suggestions. Look at Document Number 1721-PS.

My Lord, that is the document that is in the original document book, dealing with the events of November 1938. Your Lordship will remember that the witness suggested yesterday that the document was not authentic.

[Turning to the witness.] Now, Witness, I am not going to argue with you; but I want to point out certain things in the document and then pass it to the Tribunal. You are not disputing that you wrote the document dated 29 November 1938, of which a copy is the first one in the bundle. That is the document dealing with the handing over of Jews' property, taken by the SA, to the Gestapo. Now, as I understood you yesterday, you are not disputing that you did write that document, of which that is a copy? Is that so?

JUETTNER: I said yesterday that I recognized this document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you look at the bottom corner of that document, and you will find on it the stamp of the SA Group Kurpfalz. Do you see that?

JUETTNER: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And do you see in the stamp the letters "H,11 "W,11 and "G"?

JUETTNER: It looks something like that, yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, at the bottom, beside the stamp, you will see "z.d.A.," which is-do not let us waste time over it-"zu den Akten"-"Put it in the file." Do you see the contraction, 1'z.d.A."?

JUETTNER: Yes, I see it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, would you look at the document which you are saying is not authentic, and you will find on that the same stamp of the SA Group Kurpfalz, and the same letters, "H," "W," and "G." Do you see that?

JUETTNER: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And do you see---4 think it is on the top of the second document-that is the document of the 11th -- the contraction "z.d.A." in the same handwriting as on the first document? Do you see that, at the top of the document, "z.d.A."?

JUETTNER: Yes, I see it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, just two other points I want you to see on that document, which is the report to the SA Group of the Electoral Palatinate, Kurpfalz, dealing with a number of Standarten. Would you look under "Standarte 145"? Now, do you see that it says "Synagogue at Bensheim, Synagogue at Lorsch, Synagogue at Heppenheim, Synagogue at Birkenau"? Look at the next. Do you see that the next is the "Prayer House at Alsbach" "Gebetshaus in Alsbach," is it not?

JUETTNER: Which page, if I may ask?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is in the list. It is the document of 11 November and it is a list. It gives a series of Standarten, and the first is 115, and the next is 145; do you see that?

JUETTNER: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you see that after four synagogues, the next one-I think it is "Gebetshaus in Alsbach." Do you see that?

JUETTNER: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE, Now, I want you to turn over the page to the note for the files of the telephone call by the Fi1hrer of Brigade 50, Darmstadt, Brigadefuehrer Lucke. Do you see that?

JUETTNER: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, if you will look down to the same group, you will see that it says, "The Synagogue in Bensheim destroyed by fire. The Synagogue in Lorsch near Bensheim destroyed by fire. The Synagogue in Heppenheim blown up. The Synagogues in Rimbach and Birkenau destroyed." Now, does it say the "Prayer Hall"-the word is "Die Bethalle in Alsbach"destroyed?

JUETTNER: Yes, "Bethalle in Alsbach."

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The same distinction is drawn between the synagogue and a prayer hall, which is either called a "Gebetshaus" or a "Bethalle." Now the other pages contain reports of different Standarten.

My Lord, I am not going to argue the point, but I wanted to bring out these points from the witness, as he had challenged the document.

Now, Witness, I want you just to help me on another point. You know that after these incidents of 9 and 10 November 1938, 14 SA men were found guilty of killing Jews? Did you know that? Men of various ranks in the SA were found guilty of killing Jews? Do you accept that? The document is before the Tribunal of the Party Court, containing the decision. I do not want to waste time if you will admit one thing I put to you. Do you admit that 14 SA men were found guilty by the Party Court after 9 and 10 November of killing Jews?

JUETTNER: I learned here while a prisoner about this document in which the 14 SA men are mentioned who are supposed to have shot Jews or slain Jews.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you have said, not once but many times, that whenever SA men, were guilty of excesses, they were punished. Do you know that all the SA men who had killed Jews were let off, that the only SA men who were sent for punishment were those who had committed rape or theft, three of them who had committed rape and theft? Do you know that all these 14 SA officers were let off for this murder?

JUETTNER: I am convinced that they were punished by the SA. The punishment for such acts of murder as mentioned here was a matter for the* regular courts. I do not know whether they were sentenced there.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let me tell you, because the document has been put before the Tribunal. The regular court let them off because they fell "within the line of Party comrades who, motivated by the decent National Socialist attitude and initiative, had overshot the mark." That is why the Party Court let them off, according to their own document. Now, axe you saying that the Party or the SA punished people for ill-treating Jews when these 14 murderers of Jewish women and children and men were let off because they were "motivated by the decent National Socialist spirit"? Are you saying that they were punished?

JUETTNER: Please sh6w me the document. I consider it impossible that the Supreme SA Leadership took that attitude.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-YYFE: It is the Supreme Court of the Party, the Supreme Court of the Party composed of Gauleiter.

JUETTNER: The Supreme Party Court is not the SA Court ...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-YYYE: No, but it is the Supreme Court of National Socialism, and that is what they did-they recommended that these 14 SA murderers should be let off. How does that square with your suggestion that murder was frowned on?

JUETTNER: Please understand that the Supreme Party Court was a Reich institution of the Party, while the SA had its own SA Court. The SA Leadership and the Chief of Staff-above all as the Supreme SA Judge-had influence only on the SA Court, not on the Supreme Party Court.'

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you know, Witness, that the Supreme Party Court had let off these 14 murderers in the SA after 1938?

JUETTNER: I only learned of that here from this document, while a prisoner.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So the Deputy Chief of Staff did not know that 14 officers of his own organization had committed cruel and bloody murders? That is what you tell this Tribunal?

JUETTNER: The Deputy Chief of Staff was convinced and is still convinced today that all excesses of 9 and 10 November, so far as they were committed by SA members and had become known, were punished, not only by the SA but by the regular courts. I know from the words of the Chief of Staff, Lutze, that he insisted on that. I will not deny that one or the other offense did not become known to him.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, there is one other point I want to put to you. You have represented Chief of Staff Roehm as being a peace-loving, churchgoing man. Is that the impression you want this Tribunal to have of the character of Chief of Staff R6hmthat he was a peace-loving, churchgoing man?

JUETTNER: That is a question the inner meaning of which is hard to understand. I have said that Chief of Staff Roehm belonged to the Church. He was therefore not opposed to the Church. He was also peacefully disposed, for it has been shown, and I myself am a, witness, that he repeatedly emphasized-not only to the SA Fi1hrer but also to representatives of foreign powers-that he was constantly endeavoring to bring about good neighborly relations.

SIR DAVID MAXWELI-FYFE: I just want you to look at an extract of Hitler's speech on 13 July 1934, a fortnight after the Putsch.

My Lord, I passed to the witness Schultheiss Geschichtskalender for 1934. 1 put in an extract at the time.

At Page 182, this is what Hitler stated to the Reichstag:

"But at this point I must establish the fact for the present and for posterity that these men no longer possess any right to invoke National Socialism as an ideology."

That is Roehm and his friends.

"Their lives have become as bad as those of the people we overcame and repressed in 1933. The behavior of these men made it impossible for me to invite them to my house or to enter the Chief of Staff's house in Berlin even once. What would have become of Germany had these people been victorious it is difficult to imagine."

Now, Witness, you know perfectly well, and I ask you to tell the Tribunal, why was it that Hitler would not enter Ruehm's house even once?

JUETTNER: That was a matter for Hitler's judgment, not for mine; I cannot give you any information about it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You know perfectly well that he was the most notorious homosexualist in Germany, is that not right?

ATTTNER: It is not unknown to me that he was morbidly inclined that way, but whether that was Hitler's reason, I do not know.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am sorry, there is one duty that I had forgotten. Your Lordship asked me to put the affidavit of Dr. H6gner to this witness. He was the Prime Minister of Bavaria. If Your Lordship remembers, Dr. Böhm referred to it and Your Lordship suggested that I should put it in cross-examination. I think the Tribunal have copies, My Lord. That is Document Number D-930, Exhibit GB-617.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I do not remember saying you should put it to him. I think what I said was that if you did put it to him that Dr. B6hm would then have an opportunity to re-examine him upon it, if you did not put it in evidence, it not being already in evidence, it would not be in evidence.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, -I have no desire to put it. I thought Your Lordship wanted me to do it. This is one of the group of affidavits which I mentioned to the Tribunal that I would give t(> the defense counsel at once, as they. are general affidavits from ministers and other prominent people in Germany which are in general rebuttal of the affidavits put in by the Defense, and, My Lord, I was quite content-in fact I suggested and the Tribunal approved-that they should be read when we are dealing with the documents after the Defense documents, but that I should give it to the Defense so that they would have an opportunity in advance. My Lord, that is my position, and I am very content to adhere to it.

THE PRESIDENT: If you want to make use of it, I think perhaps it should be offered in evidence so as to make it strictly in evidence.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, My Lord, I am quite content to do that. They were going to be offered in evidence as affidavits. My Lord, it is only a matter of procedure; I do not mind which-of course the Tribunal will decide that. The Defense are putting in about 300,000 affidavits which are being summarized in a number of general affidavits. My Lord, I suggested the other day that we should put in-at the same time we should put in rebuttal these few affidavits that we have.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, do it then. Offer it in evidence now.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, My Lord, I will do that.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other rebuttal besides these affidavits?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it is this group-I think there is one addition to it, but that is all the rebuttal as far as I know.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes; you are not going to apply to call any additional witnesses?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord; I will not try to say for my colleagues, but as far as I know, they have not. I will verify that at once, My Lord.

My Lord, none of the Prosecution are going to submit any ora:1 evidence in rebuttal.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this is the affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Högner, the Bavarian Prime Minister, and it gives his address. In the second paragraph he says.'

"The two pamphlets, Part I and, II, submitted to me-Hitler and Kahr, the Bavarian would-be Napoleons of 1923, a scandal of justice exposed in the Committee of Inquiry of the Bavarian Provincial Diet,' were written by me. At that time I was assistant reporter of the Committee of Inquiry of the Bavarian Provincial Diet on the Hitler Putsch of 1923. All the facts mentioned in these pamphlets originate from court documents which I worked over personally and from which I made extracts. That also applies especially to the military orders and instructions, partly quoted literally in the pamphlets."

And then, My Lord, he gives an account of the illegal and violent activities of the SA from 1921 to 1933, and, My Lord, that is the long paragraph. Then he goes on to say, dealing with 1933 and 1934: "The SA did not change their behavior later on either. Especially after 1930 it distinguished itself in the conflicts with its political opponents by its violence and ruthlessness. After the coming into power of the National Socialists, the SA broke into the houses of political opponents as a heavily armed horde, ill-treated and arrested them. It is known to me that the SA also played an evil part in the persecutions of the Jews in April 1933. The same was the case, in the occupation of the Trade Union buildings on 2 May 1933. Already before that, the chairman of the Munich Trade Unions, Gustav Schiefer, had actually been attacked by members of the SA *in the Trade Union building, and so seriously ill-treated that he had to spend a long time in a hospital."

Then, My Lord, that is continued with some additional information about the SS in the next- paragraph. And then in the pre-penultimate paragraph, it says:

"Before my departure from Germany the former Communist Diet Deputies Dressel and Schleffer were murdered in the concentration camp of Dachau, probably in May 1933. Whether by the SS or the SA, I do not remember for certain. I knew the incident very well because I complained about it to the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Görtner, in Berlin."

And then he recounts an incident of the SS murdering somebody else. Then he says:

"The gross excesses of the SA and SS in the service of the NSDAP were perpetrated so publicly that the whole population knew about them. Everyone who entered these organizations as a member knew of such excesses."

THE PRESIDENT: Does he say when he left Germany?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I do not think he does.

THE PRESIDENT: It is rather material, is it not?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I will g

et that point discovered. Your Lordship is of course right, we ought to have had that stated as to when he did leave Germany.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps one ought to conclude from the document that it only relates to 1933.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, My Lord, he does say, "After the coining into power of the National Socialists, the SA. .." did so and so. That is after the beginning and he goes up to May 1933, to the Trade Unions. But Your Lordship is quite right. There is no specific date given after 1933. 1 will verify that point, My Lord. Much obliged, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, had you not better wait for your re-examination until after Dr. Seidl has asked questions, if he wants to ask them?

HERR BOEHM: Certainly, but I should like to make one suggestion. The declaration of Dr. H6gner was submitted at my instigation, as I learned a short time ago. Now I should like to ask that the statement of the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal in Braunschweig and the declaration of Dr. Schumacher and the declaration of the Mayor of the provincial capital of Braunschweig should also be submitted. These are affidavits which were placed in my pigeonhole with the affidavit of Dr. H6gner.

THE PRESIDENT: You ask that we should consider the other seven affidavits which were given to you at the same time, is that right?,

HERR BOEHM: Yes, certainly. I have learned now that the affidavit of Dr. H6gner was introduced because I referred to it yesterday. Now these other affidavits, which contain much evidence for the Defense, were placed at my disposal or given to me at the same time and I would ask the prosecutor to submit the affidavits which have just been mentioned or to read them into the record now, so that I may have an opportunity, when hearing evidence, to form an opinion, through a witness, on the contents of these affidavits.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-YYFE: My Lord, I have no objection, of course, to Dr. Böhm's putting away of the documents. We have given, I think, all, whether we have decided to use them or not. Some are -not in the form of a sworn statement, and we were not going to use them. If Dr. B6hm thinks that he can get any help from any document to be had from the Prosecution, the Prosecution, of course, make no objection to him using it.

HERR BOEHM: Mr. President.:.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr.Boehm, you can offer these affidavits or other documents in evidence, if you want to.

HERR BOEHM: Very well. Then I am in a position to-refer to the affidavits in the course of taking evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. But for the purposes of the record, you must offer them in evidence, and then they will be given, or you will give them, proper exhibit numbers.

HERR BOEHM: Yes, certainly.

DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for the Defendants Hans Frank and Rudolf Hess): Mr. President, yesterday the Prosecution submitted a new document, GB-602, a letter from the Commander of the Security Police in the Government General to the Defendant Dr. Frank.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the other reference to it? You said GB-602. It must have some other reference.

DR. SEIDL: D-970. It is a letter from the Commander of the Security Police in the Government General to the Defendant Dr. Frank, dated 25 September 1944. It appears from the document itself that it is an appendix, and I make application that I may be permitted to read into the record a short excerpt from the diary of Dr. Frank, which belongs to this document.

THE PRESIDENT: If it refers to this document, yes.

DR. SEIDL: This is an entry of Tuesday, 26 September 1944. "Conference with State Secretary Dr. Böhler..." and others. At this conference first of all the shooting of the Prior of the Carmelite Monastery at Czerna was discussed.

"As the report given by the Commander of the Security Police and the SD in the Government General"-that is the report put in by the Prosecution-"lacks clarity according to the opinion of the Governor General, and as the Police Office at Kattowitz wanted to take upon itself the responsibility that in the future not SA men but Police officials would carry out such undertakings, the Governor General told the Senior Public Prosecutor, Rother, to carry out a detailed investigation of that case."

The diary does not show what happened to these SA men. Therefore, I have taken an affidavit of the Defendant Frank which I ask to be permitted to submit in evidence here. It is very brief. It indicates that the men were tried and received severe punishment.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering the affidavit in evidence?

DR. SEIDL: I should like to offer this as Frank Exhibit 25.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you any other documents that you want to offer in evidence, or is this the only one?

DR. SEIDL: This is the only new document that I want to offer in evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then. I think we may as well put it in now, and you will put it in as Frank-25. And you did not give us ...

DR. SEIDL: Frank Number 25.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you give us the reference to the diary of Frank, the passage that you read?

DR. SEIDL: It is an entry of 26 September 1944.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that already in evidence? I know some parts of the diary are. But is that in evidence?

DR. SEIDL: It is a part of the Document GB-602.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state that again? What was the number of the document?

DR. SEIDL: GB-602.

THE PRESIDENT: That is not Frank's diary, is it? GB-602?

DR. SEIDL: No; it is the letter written by the Commander of the Security Police and submitted by the Prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: I know that. I was asking the number, if it has got an exhibit number, of the diary of Frank of 26 September 1944.

DR. SEIDL: It has the Number 10. The whole diary was submitted in evidence under this number.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsk for the United States): Mr. President, I do not wish to object to the submission of this affidavit, but I should like to observe that if other affidavits are offered by the defendants, it may be necessary for the Prosecution to have the right to cross-examine in this case. But it might very well call for cross-examination if they are now going to make an effort to put in further testimony on their own behalf under the disguise of an affidavit.

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, my original intention was to ask permission to recall the Defendant Frank to the witness stand and examine him on this question. If I submit an affidavit, this is done only to save time, and for no other reason. I would have preferred it the other way.

MR. DODD: I am not altogether sure, Mr. President, that this is done in the interests of saving time. I have some feeling it may be done in the interests of prolonging the time.

THE PRESIDENT: We do not need to hear any more, Dr. Seidl. We have admitted the document,

DR. SEIDL: I may 'assume that this very short affidavit may be read into the record. Exhibit 602 was also read into the record.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you not read it? Read it into the record then, if you say it is short.

DR. SEIDL: "In the second half of September 1944, Governor Dr. Von Burgsdorff reported to me that the Prior of the Carmelite Monastery Czerna had lost his life and that there was a suspicion of punishable action. I immediately ordered that preliminary proceedings be instituted and, if need be, punishment administered. In the course of these preliminary proceedings the Commander of the Security Police in the Government General made a report, on 25 September 1944, which has now been submitted by the Prosecution under the Number D-970, Exhibit GB-602. This report was also the subject of a discussion which I had with State Secretaries Dr. Bilhler and Koppe and other high-ranking officials on 26 September 1944, during the course of which I ordered the Public Prosecutor, Rother, to make a detailed investigation of the case.

"Further investigations have shown that the SA men mentioned in the report of 25 September 1944 (GB-602) did not belong to an SA unit of the Government General. Although, as shown in the report of 25 September 1944, the Monastery Czerna was situated within the boundaries of the Government General, nevertheless, on the basis of a Fuehrer decree in the summer of 1944, the Whole district, as far as customs, police, and military administration were concerned, came under the neighboring province of Upper Silesia, and therefore under the Reich.* The order of the Fuehrer had been issued in connection with the fortification work to be carried through in the East at that time. That explains, as is seen from Document GD-602, why the investigation was carried out by the State Police Office of Kattowitz, that is, by a State Police Office situated in the Reich territory.

"Ilkenau was not situated in the Government General, but in the Reich (Upper Silesia). For these tasks not only SA men were used, but also members of other organizations, for instance Volkssturm men. The investigations proved further that the participating SA men were not employed by any higher SA office, but by the building staff KattGwitz (Upper Silesia).

"On the basis of the investigations of Public Prosecutor Rother penal proceedings were instituted against- several SA men in Kattowitz. It was later reported to me that these proceedings resulted in the sentencing of several of the accused to severe penalties. (Signed) Dr. Frank."

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. B6hm, do you want to re-examine? DR. SEIDL: I do not want to ask any further questions, but I would like to call the attention of the Tribunal to a document, also in the name of the Defendant Frank, which was submitted today as GB-615, Document Number D-923. The report of the Defendant Frank of 6 September 1933 shows, under Number 3, that the defendant demanded with the utmost rigor that penal proceedings be instituted against the accused SA Fuehrer, and even ordered it.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal has noticed that document and it does not require having its attention called to it by counsel for the Defendant Frank. The Tribunal will consider the document.

DR. SEIDL: For the Defendant Rudolf Hess I should like to make application that the Prosecution be requested also to submit the answer of the Fuehrer's Deputy to Document Number 784-PS. This is a letter, dated 5 June'1935, from the Reich Minister of Justice to the Fi1hrer's Deputy. The document given to me does not show what occurred between this letter and the later decision of Hitler in this case. In particular the attitude which Hess took is not shown.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you not got the document you mean? You are referring to 784-PS and you are asking us to take notice of some other document. Have you got the document?

DR. SEIDL: No, I have not got it, but I should like to ask the Court that the Prosecution be requested to let me have the answer of the Defendant Hess to this document.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will request the Prosecution to produce the document if they have got it.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL J. M. G. GRIFFITH-JONES (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): My Lord, it will be done. I cannot say at the moment whether the document is in our possession. If it is, it will be done.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now, Dr. Böhm, do you want to ask any questions? Do you think that you will be able to finish by one o'clock?

HERR BOEHM: That is impossible, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you be able to finish shortly afterward?

HERR BOEHM: No. I believe that this re-examination after this cross-examination may last three hours. A number of new documents have been submitted ...

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We hope they will be relevant.

HERR BOEHM: Witness, the first question which the prosecutor asked yesterday was ...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. B6hm, the Tribunal thinks that three hours is not a reasonable time for the re-examination. You will remember that re-examination should not be put in the form of leading questions; that is one rule, and another rule is that it must arise out of the cross-examination and not be for the purpose of introducing fresh evidence which has not been dealt with by cross-examination. You will be kept strictly to these rules.

HERR BOEHM: I believe that the cross-examination by the Prosecution dealt with a number of new matters, especially with the matters which were freshly introduced today and yesterday afternoon.

THE PRESIDENT: We do not want any arguments from you, Dr. Boehm. I am telling you what the Tribunal rules. If your questions arise out of the cross-examination they are admissible. If they do not arise out of the cross-examination they are inadmissible. Now will you go on with your re-examination, please?

HERR BOEHM: Witness, the first question which was asked of you yesterday by the prosecutor was whether you, and I assume by that was meant you personally as SA Fuehrer, hence the whole SA Leadership, whether you had anything to do with the treatment of people outside of the borders of the Reich.

J'UTTNER: No. The SA Leadership was not concerned with the treatment of such people, unless they were Germans belonging to the SA and employed outside the Reich borders.

HERR BOEHM: A confidential report of the Supreme SA Leadership in the form of a third report on the activities of the SA in the war was submitted yesterday. In connection with this report the Prosecution asserted that its contents referred to the last weeks before 23 June 1941; that is the day when this report was issued. Now I should like to ask you whether it is true that the beginning of this report, under Number 1, on the first page: "The whole work of the SA from the beginning of the war," and on Page 2 the last four lines, I quote: "Decorations..."

THE PRESIDENT: Did you give us the reference to this document?

HERR BOEHM: The first document which was submitted yesterday, Number 4011-PS, on Page 1, the first line, and on Page 2, the last four lines. May I continue?

THE PRESIDENT: I only wanted the reference to the document. Go on.

HERR BOEHM: "Decorations given to the SA: 21 Knight's Crosses of the Iron Cross, and 31,125 Iron Crosses, first and second class."

Is it true if I say that this shows that the assertion of the Prosecution that the report was only a report on the weeks before 23 June 1941 is incorrect: Is that true? Is it correct if I conclude from this that the third report on the activity of the SA during the war is report beginning with the activity of the SA on the 1st September 1939?

JUETTNER: These reports were always comprehensive reports The third report-I believe I signed it myself-sums up the activity of the SA from the beginning of the war until the day of the report

HERR BOEHM: The Prosecution said yesterday that the activity of the SA in the "Hinterland" was the activity of the SA in occupied territories. Herr Jöttner, if you will look at Page 4 of this report where it says that when the disaster of the Elbe floods occurred in the spring of 1941, for example, it was the SA engineer unit who were the first to arrive to give assistance, and who by means of their floating equipment saved human beings and animals from drowning, can one assume from this statement that what you called "Hinterland" was within the borders of the Reich?

XTTNER: By "Hinterland" was meant the home area.

HERR BOEHM: And then please look at Page 5 of the same report.

JUETTNER: It was submitted yesterday.

HERR BOEHM: Well then, I will read it to you. On Page 5 o the same report, I quote:

"Many SA Fuehrer and Unterfuehrer were assigned to the German Labor Front for duty in the Todt Organization. The SA also carried out numerous tasks for the authorities, for example in the frontier control service."

Does this not show clearly that the SA seceded from the authority of the SA Supreme Leader-ship and was assigned to other authorities for certain tasks like other drafted German citizens?

JUETTNER: We released the men from the SA for duty in a these services. We did not offer them, we released

them. These agencies of the Organization Todt, or other authorities, selected such men. They wanted to engage them and they inquired of the S whether they could be dispensed with.

THE PRESIDENT: That is what he said already, is it not? I said already in cross-examination that these men, insofar as they were employed outside the Reich, were not operating as SA men in SA units.

JUETTNER: It was also true within the Reich.

HERR BOEHM: What I asked was supposed to lead up to the question which now follows. I should like to ask you, Herr Jttner, did not the same conditions apply when you made your report on the 21 groups of SA men who were assigned to guard prisoners?

THE PRESIDENT: That again, Dr. Böhm, he has already said. He said that all activities referred to in this report, insofar as they were by SA men, were not under SA men or SA units.

HERR BOEHM: Very well.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 1000 hours 16 August 1946.]