dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
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).
DR. SEIDL: "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.]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. BOEHM.
HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, yesterday, in answer to the question of how long the redirect examination would take, I indicated too long a time. After looking through the material, I believe I can say that much of it has nothing to do with the SA; and that I can abbreviate the examination considerably. [Turning to the witness.] In connection with Document 4011-PS, Witness, I wanted to ask you again, in connection with the report that 21 groups were engaged in the transport of prisoners, how did the report originate and at whose orders did these people transport. the prisoners; that is, were these people ordered by the SA to transport prisoners, or was this activity carried out by these men in their capacity as soldiers?
JUETTNER: The report originated from the activity reports which the groups made every month and later every three months. The men were under the Wehrmacht for the purpose of guarding the prisoners; the Wehrmacht drafted and assigned them.
HERR BOEHM: Do you know the number of SA men who were active as Wehrmacht members in connection with the transport of prisoners?
JUETTNER: I do not know the number. They were quite small units.
HERR BOEHM: The prosecutor said yesterday that the so-called military training was the same before and after the beginning of the second World War. I should like to ask you, Herr Jöttner: was shooting on combat scale taught before I September 1939, or only small-bore shooting?
JUETTNER: Only small-bore shooting, such as was practiced previously. I already said yesterday that soon after the beginning of the war we laid more stress on defense sport exercise, while ordinary physical exercise took second place.
HERR BOEHM: Do you agree with the numerous affidavits which say in this connection that it was forbidden in the SA to conduct maneuvers on assumed military situations?
JUETTNER: That was forbidden, and besides we were not able to do so because most of the SA leaders had no previous military training and could not base exercises on military situations.
HERR BOEHM: Now a little historical question. In view of the assertions of the Prosecution in connection with the statements on Page 14 of Document 4011-PS, do you know, Herr Jöttner, when Memelland became part of the Third Reich? Do you know, perhaps, that it was in March 1939?
JUETTNER: I cannot say that exactly, but it is probably correct.
HERR BOEHM: Did the region of Memelland belong to Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, or was it part of the province of East Prussia? I believe I can say that the Prosecution is confusing the SA Group Ostland with the so-called Reichskommissariat.
JUETTNER: I should like to say: In East Prussia, that is SA Group Ostland, we had an SA unit, and we organized and directed it. In the rest of Ostland, in Lithuania, Latvia, et cetera, no German SA was ever organized or directed by us. This question is probably connected with the documents from which excerpts were read by the Prosecution yesterday. Perhaps I may explain to Your Lordship that since the beginning of the cross-examination I have been in solitary confinement and am not in contact with counsel for the SA. For that reason, I believe I may make the following three brief statements in regard to the documents presented yesterday, which contain monstrous and false accusations against the SA leaders and the SA as an organization. (1) To such serious documents one cannot reply exhaustively unless one has been able to look them over and check them at leisure. I have not been able to do that. (2) There were numerous documents, excerpts of which were read, about which no questions were asked-for example, the Blomberg letter. (3) When the various documents were submitted to me, only questions were asked which had scarcely any connection with the facts contained in them-for example, the report of Brigade 50 regarding the destruction of the synagogues. I still do not consider this report authentic, because what is actually contained in the report is impossible, and also because what was done according to the report could not be carried out in that short time. But I believe that the questions of the defense will clear up any doubt.
HERR BOEHM: From Document 4011-PS the Prosecution concludes that the SA Leadership concerned themselves with foreign peoples. In this connection I should like to ask you whether you did do that, and whether that was ever your intention?
JUETTNER: In the SA we did not concern ourselves with foreign peoples, nor was it ever our intention.
HERR BOEHM: Witness, you surely know the order of the Reich Government that in the Reichskommisariat Ostland the establishment of Party branches was prohibited. Could an SA Group or SA Brigade "Vilna", therefore have existed in Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania?
JUETTNER: No, it could not exist, and we did not organize or establish any. The men of the SA who were employed there were not under the SA Leadership. For example, the SA leaders Kunze and Kramer, who were mentioned yesterday, were Fuehrer for special purposes. They were not under the SA Leadership when they were employed there. These men also wore a different uniform from that of the SA. Perhaps the confusion is due to this.
HERR BOEHM: Would you have violated such an order of the Reich Government?
JUETTNER: No, under no circumstances.
HERR BOEHM: Would it have been possible therefore for the SA to have been entrusted with the administration of the ghetto in Vilna?
JUETTNER: The SA did not set up or administer ghettos and the SA as an organization, or the leadership, was at no time entrusted with such tasks.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. BOEHM, when you speak of an order of the 'Reich Government, are you referring to a document?
HERR BOEHM: No, but to an order of the Reich Government which is generally known. [Turning to the witness.] An affidavit of Herr Szloma Gold was submitted yesterday. In that connection I should like to ask you briefly whether the town commissioner of Vilna came under your jurisdiction in any way. Could you give him orders, and did he carry out any tasks on your instructions?
JUTTNER: None of the Kommissare in the Ostland were under the SA Leadership, and they did not receive orders from the SA Leadership. If I remember rightly women SA members were also mentioned yesterday in connection with the Kommissare. There were never any women members.
HERR BOEHM: Was the provincial commissioner of Vilna ever under you?
JUETTNER: I have already said that the Kommissare were not subordinate to the SA Leadership.
HERR BOEHM: This affidavit does not indicate whether the man concerned is a Kommissar. It merely says that the expert on Jewish questions was an SA leader called Murer. Was he under you in any way with respect to this activity in Vilna?
JUETTNER: The personnel working with the Kommissare was not under the SA Leadership, either, nor this man who is mentioned here. If he was employed there, he was released from the SA for the duration of his assignment there and he. carried out his tasks and duties there without the SA Leadership being able to influence him in any way.
HERR BOEHM: In connection with the indictment against another organization the Prosecution submitted a document, Exhibit US-276. I shall quote from Page 2 of this document, the last paragraph: "In the first hours after the entry, in spite of considerable difficulties, native anti-Semitic forces were incited to pogroms against the Jews. Acting on orders, the Security Police was determined to use every means to solve the Jewish question." In the case against the SD the Prosecution says that it was the Security Police who carried out the pogroms in Vilna, Schaulen, and Kovno. In the case against the SA, on the other hand, the Prosecution says that it was the SA. As defense counsel I should like to know which organization is actually responsible for the Jewish pogroms in these cities, and I ask you, did the Supreme SA Leadership, through orders or instructions, take any part in excesses against or murders of Jews in this district?
JUETTNER: At no time and under no circumstances.
HERR BOEHM: And then an affidavit of a Mr. Chaim Kagan was submitted yesterday. The witness asserts that he saw girls in SA uniforms. Were there ever female SA members?
TGTTNER: I have already answered that we never had any female SA members.
HERR BOEHM: Is not the absurdity of this accusation in the affidavit made obvious by the fact that it asserts that they were or must have been SA men because they wore a brown uniform? This assertion is made repeatedly in this affidavit.