dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 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.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 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.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 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.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 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.:.