dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
JUETTNER: No, I do not know him. SIR DAVID MAXV~ELL-FYFE: My Lord, then I will again state it quite shortly: In the first two paragraphs the deponent says that he is a leather worker, and where he was working. In the third he says that he was cursed and beaten by the SA when he was at work. Then in Paragraph 4 he says that Schroepfer was there first, and afterward Bub. And in 5 he said: "It is hard to judge, but I estimate that there must have been 700 to 800 SA men there at the beginning, but they decreased in numbers later. I knew them as SA because they wore brown uniform with swastika armlets. Later on they used other Germans in the locality as auxiliaries." Then in 6 he says: "There were 4,500 Jews in the ghetto, which was very much overcrowded. In August 1941 the SA therefore surrounded the whole ghetto, and numbers of them went into the houses and took out women, children, and old men, and put them into lorries and drove them away. I saw all this myself. It was done exclusively by SA. I saw them take children by the hair and throw them into the lorries. I did not see what happened to them but a Lithuanian told me afterward that they had been driven 20 kilometers away and shot. He said he had seen the SA make them undress and then shoot them with automatic pistols." Then Paragraph 7 says they were shot if they took food into the ghetto and describes the shooting of a master baker who had four or five cigarettes and some sausage, and the hanging of this baker. Then Paragraph 8 deals with Gewecke, and My Lord, I ask the Tribunal to note: "The district commissioner in whose courtyard I worked was called Gewecke. I saw him every day. He was in the SA. The SS took over from the SA in September 1943, and the ghetto then became a working camp." Now, My Lord, if Your Lordship would be good enough to turn to Page 107, you will see a report by Geweeke, from Schaulen. My Lord, that is Document Number 3661-PS, which will become Exhibit GB-601.
JUETTNER: It is dated the 8th of September 1941, from Schaulen, where he was District Commissioner, to the Reichskommissar for the Eastland (Ostland). My Lord, I understood-I may be wrong-that Ostland included Lithuania, Esthonia, and Latvia only, but that is the position. This is a complaint about an SS Standartenfuehrer called J5ger coming into Gewecke's activities, and after explaining that he had managed to acquire-or rather, that his agent had been acquiring some Jewish silver and gold articles, he then says-My Lord, this fresh incident merely demonstrates that J5.ger does not consider himself bound by the instructions issued by the Reichskommissar and by the District Commissar regarding the seizure of Jewish property, and that he meddled in matters ...
HERR BOEHM: This document which is now being presented refers to an SS Standartenfuehrer JÖger. I do not think the case of the SS is being discussed, and I request that the document be presented when the SS is dealt with, because it has nothing to do with the SA.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the evidence is that the signatory of this document is a member of the SA. He was acting as commissioner, and my friend can make what argument he likes on that. He was a member of the SA and here he is protesting against the SS coming in and taking Jewish property, exactly the thing which the evidence states the SA have been doing in this area. My Lord, that is why I submit the document, as a useful corroboration.
HERR BOEHM: This man was not a member of the SA in that territory, but was working as a commissioner.
THE PRESIDENT: We have just had evidence that he was, and the witness in the box says he doesn't know, so I don't know on -what authority you say that he was not.
HERR BOEHM: It may be that he was one, but not in his capacity -as a member of the SA, but rather as a member of the Ministry for Eastern Affairs. The SA had nothing to do with it.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter which the Tribunal has got to consider. We will consider the evidence of this witness, who says there was no SA in this particular place at the time. We will also consider the evidence of the deponent in the affidavit, who says that this man Gewecke was there in SA uniform with a lot of other SA men. That doesn't make this document inadmissible, which is, a captured document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-PYFE: My Lord, the next paragraph is the only matter which I want to trouble the Tribunal with: "If the SS continues to overreach itself in this fashion, I, as District Commissioner, must refuse to accept responsibility for the orderly confiscation (Erfassung) of Jewish property."
THE PRESIDENT: Now I suppose that Dr. Böhm's argument upon that would be that this witness, Gewecke, was acting as District Commissioner and not as a member of the SA.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is a perfectly proper argument for Dr. B6hm to advance. Of course it is important, when Your Lordship has these affidavits in which this man is dealt with, that one should be able to tie it in with a captured document. That is really what I wanted to do. [Turning to the witness.] Well, now I come to a point that you have mentioned several times, for a moment. You said that the only SA organization in this area was a unit formed by the Defendant Frank in the Government General, I think in April 1942; that the SA unit of the Government General was formed under the orders of Lutze and the command was taken over by the Defendant Frank. That is right, isn't it? And you said that he had a special staff for the actual carrying on of the unit which, I think, was in the hands of two men called Selz and Friedemund, if I caught your evidence right. Is that so?
JUETTNER: No, that is not right. In the first place, the names were not Friedemund...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If those are not the names, please blame me. I took them down as I understood them. You tell us the right names. It is my fault entirely if I got them wrong. What were the names?
JUETTNER: The correct names were Pelz and Kiihnemund, and this operation staff was not under the former Governor General Frank, but directly under the Chief of Staff, who managed affairs, Frank being merely appointed leader of the SA there, as I have already described. As to the other affidavits, I trust I shall have an opportunity to state my views later. SIR DAVID AL1kXV%TELL-FYFE: My Lord, Your Lordship will find-it is in evidence, in Document Number 3216-PS, USA Exhibit 434, the extract from Das Archiv, giving that foundation of -the unit in the Government General. What I want you to tell the Tribunal, Witness, is: What was the -purpose of forming a unit in the Government General?
JUETTNER: There were two purposes; but first of all, may I put a question with reference to the affidavits of Kovno, Schaulen, and Riga; I have an explanation to make which is necessary in order to establish the truth. I wanted -to ask whether I may do so now, or* should I do so after dealing with the question which has just been asked?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that it will be better for -your counsel to put questions to you in re-examination upon that evidence.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I want you to tell me, as ,shortly as you can, what was the purpose of forming a unit of the SA in the Government General in 1942?
JUETTNER: There were two purposes. First of all, to keep the Reich Germans who were working in the Government General united in a comradely way, as far as they were members of the SA, and secondly, to bring people of German origin, who appeared inclined and well-adapted later to join the SA, into the community, by making them familiar with the German language, German customs, and so forth, and with the comradeship which we practiced in the SA.
SIR DAVID MAXWELI-FYFE: I want to get that clear. You said it was an entirely peaceful purpose in the Government General. Do you adhere to what you have told the Tribunal that there were no other SA formations operating in the eastern territories, and particularly, I ask you about the territory Ostland, that is, as I understand it, including the old countries of Lithuania, Esthonia, and Latvia ... I have already put certain evidence to you, but I want to get this clear. Are you prepared for your proof to be judged on the fact-on your answer to this question: Do you say that there were no SA units operating in Ostland?
JUETTNER: I am prepared to answer that question very clearly. The Supreme SA Leadership did not set up an SA organization in this territory of Ostland, which, if I understood you correctly, you just described as Lithuania and Latvia. A German SA was not formed there. If any SA were supposed to have been formed there, then it was a wild organization which had nothing to do with the SA leadership in the slightest. I know nothing about an SA having been organized there.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That's your answer. My Lord, I wonder if the Tribunal would look for a moment just at a part of the Document Number 1475-PS, which is also R-135, and it is in Document Book 16-B, Page 81, Exhibit USA 289-My Lord, it comes just after Page 81 in the book. It's 81-A-it should be, My Lord. Would you give the witness a copy? My Lord, that is the protest of the Reichskommissar for Ostland to the Defendant Rosenberg, and the Tribunal is probably familiar with that a bit. The first page is a protest against killing off so many Jews in the "Cottbus" project because they would have been useful for slave labor, and, in any case, the locking of men, women, and children into barns and setting fire to them doesn't appear to be a suitable method for combating bands. That is the effect of that. Now, My Lord, there is a catch to that. On the next page, the report of the 5th of June 1943, from the General Commissar of White Ruthenia to the Defendant Rosenberg, through th6 Reich Commissioner for Eastland, and, My Lord, it may be that the territory is slightly out of that mentioned, but at any rate, I'll make it perfectly clear. My Lord, it begins by saying: "The result of the operation, 4,500 enemy dead and 5,000 dead, suspected of belonging to bands," who apparently were the people who had been locked up and burned in barns. Then, My Lord, below it gives the booty, and then the next paragraph: "The operation affects the territory of the General District of White Ruthenia in the area of Borissov. It concerns in particular the two counties of Begomie and Pleshtchamizy. At present the police troops, together with the army, have advanced to Lake Palik and have reached the whole front of the Beresina. The battles are continuing in the rear zone of the army." Then there is another note to the effect that only 492 rifles were taken from 4,500 enemy dead. That is an obvious conclusion.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, My Lord, it is the next sentence: "By order of the Chief of Band Combating, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Von dem Bach"7-My Lord, that is the officer who gave evidence before the Tribunal some months ago-"units of the.. ."-Witness, I ask you to note this-"units of the Wehrmannschaften have also participated in the operation. SA Standartenfuehrer Kunze was in command of the Wehrmannschaften." Now, Witness, are you going to tell the Tribunal that the SA Wehrmannschaften were not a section of the SA and that the Standartenfuehrer Kunze was not operating as a member of the SA?
JUETTNER: Yes, I shall be very willing and glad to give a clear answer to that. First of all, it does not say "SA Wehrmannschaften." It says "Wehrmannschaften." Secondly ...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just a moment. Are you suggesting that Wehrmannschaften doesn't mean SA Wehrmannschaften? That it is not a unit of the SA-is that your answer?
JUETTNER: In this case, it was not a unit of the SA, I maintain that very definitely. If such Wehrmannschaften existed at all, they were not Wehrmannschaften which had been formed or organized by the SA. Secondly, if SA Standartenfuehrer Kunze commanded these Wehrmannschaften which had presumably been formed there, then in no case did he command them in his capacity as SA leader, but rather in connection with the Eastern Administration.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But -he was in' command of the Wehrmannschaften. Are you saying that when you have a well-known SA formation, the Wehrmannschaften, commanded by an SA Standartenfuehrer, you are telling the Tribunal that they weren't operating as SA at all, is that your evidence? You really ask the Tribunal to believe that? All right, I am putting another document to you. My Lord, if you will turn to Page 64-A, you will find ...
JUETTNER: In this connection I must add that it is not merely that I want to make the Court believe this, but it was actually so. SA Wehrmannschaften is a clearly defined term. There were Wehrmannschaften elsewhere, too, which had nothing to do with the SA, and apparently these here were of such a kind. We did not have any Wehrmannschaften there. Standartenfuehrer Kunze was not acting as an SA leader. The SA leadership and organization had nothing to do with these things, or with the events described in Schaulen, Riga, and Kovno.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, Witness, just do be careful before you answer this: Do you say that there were no SA Einsatzkommandos securing forced labor inside the Government General? That is a simple question. Do you say that there were no SA Einsatzkommandos collecting forced labor inside the Government General?
JUETTNER: The SA had no Einsatzkommandos.
SIR DAVID MAXWELTFYFE: Now, I suggest to you that is absolutely untrue.
JUETTNER: The SA leadership, that is...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will ask you to look at Document Number D-970, My Lord; that will become Exhibit GB-602, and Your Lordship will find it at Page 64-A. My Lord, this is a report to the Defendant Frank, as Governor General, dated the 25th of September 1944. The subject is: The Prior of the Carmelite Monastery of Czerna, who was shot at by one of the SA Einsatzkommandos mentioned. Let me quote: "The incident under consideration took place in connection with the operation to obtain people for carrying out special building plans in the district of Ilkenau. It came to the knowledge of the Commander of the Security Police and SD in Cracow via the branch office of Kressendorf and the sub-agency of Wolbron. As the place where the deed was committed lies within the area of the Einsatzstabi of Ilkenau, the investigations were carried out by the Regional State Police Headquarters at Kattowitz-branch post Ilkenau. The results of the investigations provided the following facts: "The possibility of carrying out the planned building operations in the area in question within the period laid down, was made doubtful by the fact that the various communities did not provide the number of workers imposed on them. "As a result, the construction staff at Kattowitz ordered a special detachment composed of 12 SA men to bring in workers from the various villages. The execution of this task by this SA Einsatzkommando was in every case carried out by them in such a way that they first approached the village mayor and presented the demand." Then it goes on to describe how, when it was refused, they searched the houses. Some of the inhabitants offered resistance when the houses were searched which had to be broken by the use of arms. "In view of the fact that partisans had several times appeared in this area during recent times, the SA men reckoned that partisans were living in the villages during the day disguised as civilians. Besides that, when workers were obtained, the local conditions were taken into account." That's the first one, collecting forced labor from this village.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, we have another SA Kommando: "The Prior of Czerna Monastery was seized by members of the SA Einsatzkommando in Novojewa Gora. He was told to remain with the men of the SA Einsatzkommando for the time being. While the members of the detachment were in a house in order to search it for workers, the Prior-according to what the Kattowitz Regional State Police Headquarters established-used this opportunity, which seemed suitable to, him, to escape. As he did not stop when challenged several times and after some warning shots had been fired, but on the contrary ran even faster and tried to escape, arms were used- "The Prior had been arrested because he was alleged to have made negative statements to other workers about the Ostwall-Eastern Defensive Line-and the building undertaking, which tended to influence the laborers' already weak will to work in a still more unfavorable manner. It was intended to take the priest first to the construction staff at Nielepice and from there to the office of the Security Police..." Now, note the last paragraph, and this is: "According to the report of the Regional State Police at Kattowitz: Steps are to be taken to insure that in future such operations are carried out not by SA men but by police officials." Now, Witness, why did y ou tell the Tribunal ten minutes ago that there weren't any SA Einsatzkommandos and that they never searched for forced labor in the Government General? Why did you say that; you knew it was untrue, why did you say it?
JUETTNER: That is not untrue. On the contrary, I shall repeat this statement once more and adhere to it, namely, that the SA did not have Einsatzkommandos. These SA men here were probably called in by the office furnishing this report and conscripted for emergency service-I have no other explanation-as auxiliary police, and the reporting office simply designated these conscripted auxiliary police detachments in its own terminology as SA Einsatzkommandos. The term did not originate with us. We had no such units, nor did we form any, and the responsibility for the actions which were carried out here did not lie with the SA, but with the office which employed the men. In addition, I can say that we repeatedly stated our objections to the police department of the Government General with regard to the too frequent use of SA members in the Government General for police purposes. We did not want that, we did not want to have any police duties performed by the SA. However, they were called in as auxiliary police officials from time to time by virtue of a legal provision. If it says at the end: "In the future SA men are no longer to be used, but police officials," then this undoubtedly means, not auxiliary police officials, but regular police officials.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But the Police have made objections to the SA doing this work, and have also objected to the brutal methods with which they carried it out. Do I gather, from that long answer of yours, that you do know that SA men were being used as auxiliary police in the Government General? Is that what you are telling the Tribunal?
JUETTNER: We repeatedly received reports from SA Leader, Kiihnemund, who was working there, that SA men had been conscripted for police service by virtue of legal provisions.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: At any rate, that is something. Now I want you to tell me this. You said, in your report on the war, that the SA had been used for guarding prisoners of war. Did not the SA also guard forced labor camps?
JUETTNER: I never knew that we are supposed to have guarded labor camps.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, let me give you the names of some of the camps which I suggest you guarded: Sakrau, a forced labor camp at which the inmates were all Jews; Mechtal; Markstadt; Faulbrueck; Reichenberg; and Annaberg.
JOTTNER: This is the first time that I have heard these names in connection with labor camps.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will find, at Page 131 of Book 16-B, an affidavit by Rudolf Sch6nberg. That will be Exhibit GB-601, My Lord. He speaks of the SA guarding these camps, and of the conditions. He finishes by saying: "All I wish t8 say here is that the SA in no way lagged behind the SS in their murderous and criminal methods at that time already," which was in 1940. Let me put another point to you. Do you remember the SA guarding a labor camp at Frauenberg, near Admont? That was a labor camp for shirkers and drunkards, of about 300 prisoners. Do you remember the SA guarding that?
JUETTNER: That is completely unknown to me. I have never heard about it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I put in the document-there is no doubt that it is a personal report to Himmler. Now just have a look at it. My Lord, it has a certain melancholy interest in that it deals with the selection of Auschwitz as a concentration camp. My Lord, the point that I am dealing with, and it is only on this one point-I beg your pardon, My Lord, the affidavit should have been Number GB-603, and this is Exhibit GB-604. [Turning to the witness.] Now, will you look at that?
THE PRESIDENT: What page is it on?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord, Page 132, the next page. That is a report from an SS Oberfuehrer called Gluecks, whose name I think we are not unfamiliar with. It is a report to Himmler of 21 February 1940, in which the man Gluecks deals with five possible concentration camps which Himmler might consider using, or rather, six possible concentration camps. The third of these is a place called Frauenberg, and he says: "Frauenberg is a labor camp set up by the Provincial Welfare Union of Styria for shirkers and drunkards. It consists of five wooden huts and can take 300 prisoners. "The labor prisoners are exclusively Styrians who are paid for their work by the Provincial Welfare Union of Styria during their time in the camp 27 to 57 pfennig an hour, less food. "The SA-about 20 men-do the guarding. The labor prisoners are employed in two quarries and on building roads." Then it says: "The whole place is now State property; formerly it belonged to the Admont Foundation." Now, Witness, how would it come about that these SA men were employed in guarding a labor camp, and you, the Deputy Chief of Staff, would know nothing about the fact that SA men were employed in labor camps? How could you be ignorant of these facts? Just explain to the Tribunal; how could you be ignorant?
JUETTNER: If these men were employed, then they acted as conscripted auxiliary policemen. Just as National Socialist Motor Corps (NSKK) men or any other citizens could be legally conscripted as auxiliary policemen, SA men, too, were conscripted as auxiliary police by virtue of legal provisions. Those were state measures which had nothing to do with the SA, which could not be influenced by the SA, and about which the SA did not even know. It was impossible for the SA leadership to know about the fate of every individual man, as it is being expressed in your question. That was quite out of the question. They were not SA men, but men who had been conscripted into the Police.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggest it to you, and I put in evidence of the way the SA were occupied during the war years. I now want to ask you a little about the training which brought them into the condition where they could do these pieces of work. Do you deny that the SA was the bearer of the military thought of Germany?
JUETTNER: Such questions were already asked of me during the preliminary interrogations. You are always confusing defensive thinking with military thinking. The SA represented and stood for defensive thinking. That has nothing to do with military service or military training.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you 'say that had nothing to do with the cultivation of the offensive spirit, do you?
JUETTNER: In no way, not in the least.