dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
HERR BOEHM: Then another article is contained in this document, which reads: "The difference between shooting and aiming is the difference between the training of the SA and that of the soldiers of the nation, the Wehrmacht"; and then it goes on to say: "military field observation was only a fraction of what is understood by SA field observation." Now I should like to ask you to what extent the SA field observation has anything to do with the military field observation, particularly whether it is important that SA field observation did not go far beyond the military points? Is it correct that perhaps the SA man by no means considered field observation merely from the point of view of shooting in the technical sense? Is it true that above all through this field observation he got to know his own country, and that with this end in view he was trained in marching and in field observation?
JUETTNER: None of these questions you have put were leading questions. It was clear to every SA man that our field observation in the SA could in no way be compared with the military field observation, which was along purely military lines. We in the SA combined field observation and field exercises with the ideological training of the man, namely, we wanted to awaken and deepen in him the love of his own country. Above all, this field service was intended to teach him to know the natural beauties of his country, the historical significance of the sector in which these exercises were carried out.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm afraid you don't understand what I say. I thought I had said to you that we quite understood your argument that the training which was given to the SA was not for military purposes but was for other peaceful purposes. Your argument isn't proved by repetition; and the Tribunal does not desire to hear any more of this.
HERR BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. Then I can skip the next articles. They are all more or less the same in content. I will not put any further questions. Then Document 4009 was submitted yesterday. It was to prove that the article in the SA Mann was a semi-official article of the Supreme 'SA Leadership. This is also a subject which has been repeatedly discussed. But if these things are submitted ten times, Mr. President, then I ask permission to comment on them ten times. These things were dealt with before the Commission down to the smallest detail, and every point, even the smallest, was elucidated before the Commission. Yesterday this document was submitted again; and therefore I am forced to comment on it once more, much as I dislike doing SO.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask the witness questions about the document. I suppose there is a difference in your language between making a comment and asking a question. Will you ask the witness a question?
HERR BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. Witness, a document was submitted here written by the press consultant of the paper Der SA Mann to a Herr K6rbel, who was at that time Reichsleiter. He was induced to write an article. Did that have anything to do with the Supreme SA Leadership?
JUETTNER: I did not quite understand. Körbel was not a Reichsleiter. The letter was sent to whom?
HERR BOEHM: The letter was sent to Reichsleiter Rosenberg.
JUETTNER: A letter from Körbel to Rosenberg?
HERR BOEHM: Yes.
JUETTNER: He wrote it in his capacity as editor of the SA Mann. If he wanted to have an article for the SA Mann, that was entirely his affair. If he also gives himself the title of press consultant of the Supreme SA Leadership, then in this capacity his task consisted merely in transmitting to the rest of the Germans press news which we wanted to have published, and in taking care of its publication.
HERR BOEHM: 750,000 subscribers are mentioned in this letter. It might be deduced, although it was not expressed here, that these 750,000 readers were members of the SA. Can you comment on that?
JUETTNER: I do not know exactly how these 750,000 subscribers were made up. I only know that the paper, about which we had very mixed feelings, did not meet with a very good reception, and consequently was little read in SA circles, comparatively speaking.
HERR BOEHM: But you know that this paper was then banned? J'UTTNER: It was banned in 1939.
HERR BOEHM: Another document was submitted yesterday, Number 366-1. That is a report of Mr. Köchling as a special delegate of the OKW with the Reich Youth Leader in connection with the Sudeten German Free Corps. I should like to ask you to explain the connection between the SA and the Sudeten German Free Corps.
JUETTNER: Your Lordship, as far as I remember, I have already commented on this before the Commission. I was assigned by the SA as Liaison Fuehrer to Konrad Henlein.
HERR BOEHM: Herr JUETTNER, perhaps I may shorten this by asking: Is it true that the SA associated or co-operated with this Sudeten German Free Corps only to the extent that these people, during the time they were in Germany as refugees, when they were not organized into a Free Corps, were given economic support by the SA; for instance, perhaps one or the other was given a blanket or something to eat out of, so that they should have what was necessary merely to exist.
JUETTNER: Individual groups of the Free Corps were helped by individual SA men without orders from us to do so, in the way which counsel has just stated. They helped to establish the refugees and supplied the Free Corps members with the necessary blankets, cooking utensils, and so forth. And then these SA men helped the men of the Free Corps in forming their groups. The Free Corps itself had no military value. If I may speak quite plainly, it was a loosely organized band, a group of people who had taken upon themselves the task of receiving the refugees who were coming in, some of them in great distress, bringing them to refugee camps, and preventing incidents and attacks at the border, which actually did occur. In other words, protecting their fellow citizens. This Free Corps did not have any military value.
HERR BOEHM: Then Document 3993-PS was submitted yesterday. It is a letter from the Chief of Staff, Lutze, to Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg, in which he thanks him for congratulations which he received because the premilitary and postmilitary training of the SA was entrusted to him. This has already been replied to several times. Is it true that this premilitary and postmilitary training had reached the stage it was intended to reach?
JUETTNER: I said yesterday that through the decree of Hitler of January 1939 ...
HERR BOEHM: May I ask you to be very brief, Herr Jöttner?
JUETTNER: ... this task was given to the SA ... THE PRESIDENT [Interposing]: The Tribunal has asked about it in cross-examination. What is the point of putting it to him again? He has given his account of it in cross-examination.
HERR BOEHM: Mr. President ' I asked him to be brief. I only did it to complete the evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the good of doing it if he has done it already? It doesn't matter whether you do it briefly or not; he is going to say the same thing.
HERR BOEHM: Document D-923 was also submitted yesterday. Are the cases....
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal wants you to understand that the function of re-examination is not to repeat what has been said in cross-examination, but simply to explain and to alter, or to explain and clarify-if you like the word-what has been said in cross-examination.
HERR BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. [Turning to the witness.] Document D-923 was submitted to you yesterday. It concerned the legal handling of the Pflaumer and Schl6gl cases. Did you have any part in the measures which were taken as a result of this case? Did you use any influence on any of the judges who acted in this case, or did you take the view that, basically, in all cases of amnesty, that amnesty or the amnesty decree was an affair of the State, and you naturally wanted to apply it to your SA members in cases in which this was possible?
JUETTNER: As I said yesterday, I had no part in these two cases. I did not know about them. The SA Leadership tried and punished offenders; that was its principle and it acted accordingly. In cases of amnesty, they applied to the SA as well. It might' be important to mention here that the punishment of the concentration camp guards at Hobenstein, the juridical punishment, was set on foot and carried out not at the suggestion of Reichsstatthalter Mutschmann, but at the suggestion of SA Obergruppenfuehrer Von Killinger. The SA Leadership asked for the punishment of the Hohenstein men and had the court carry it out.
HERR BOEHM: Then Document 784-PS was submitted yesterday, which was said to be a typical case of forcefully suppressing political opponents, and I have discovered in my study of the files that particularly old fighters of the NSDAP were ill-treated. For example, there was a certain Stahl who joined the SS in 1933, and a certain Seifert, an old fighter from the year 1924. There was the case of Kreisobmann Kröger of the German Labor Front, and a member of the NSDAP since 1931 by the name of Ginsk. In this connection, Mr. President, I should like to ask the members of the Prosecution to give me the letters which are missing here, especially the letter of the Chief of Staff, Lutze, and the letter of Hess, which my colleague Seidl asked for yesterday. Now, I should like to ask you, Witness....
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I had a search made, and we haven't got the documents, the answers from Defendant Hess or from Chief of Staff Lutze.
HERR BOEHM: That letter would have been very essential, Mr. President, to show the attitude of Chief of Staff Lutze in this case. Now I must go back to Document 1721-PS, Mr. President. It is a report to the Group Kurpfalz-Mannheim on action taken by Brigade 50, and concerns the order of the Supreme SA Leadership in connection with the objects which were possibly stolen or otherwise lost in the year 1938. Witness, the situation was dealt with here yesterday in crossexamination as if there were a number of indications which fitted together and vouched for the authenticity of the report of Brigade 50. Please note the report and at the top, at the right, look at the three letters which are contained in this document, "Z. d. A." The same letters appear on your order signed "Jöttner" at the left near the bottom, next to the reception stamp. You are not a handwriting expert, but even a layman can see whether these letters were written by the same hand. Please comment on this.
JUETTNER: As far as I can recall, I was asked yesterday whether I saw these letters. I said yes. As I compare them, I must say that on the one document they are written in a different handwriting from that on the other document. That is shown by the flourish and the peculiar "A" and "d.11 The "Z" also is different.
HERR BOEHM: It is not difficult for a layman to see that. Now, please look at the reception stamp on the left at the bottom on your order, in the first square... J-UTTN'ER: Yes, I see.
HERR BOEHM: These are two letters. Is it probable that these two letters which may mean the same thing were written by the same hand?
JUETTNER: On closer observation of the writing on the stamp, one must come to the conclusion that the stamp which follows the report of Brigade 50 is forged. The differences are so obvious. The "F," for instance, the "H," and the crooked "G," or whatever it is supposed to be, indicate that it is copied.
HERR BOEHM: Did you see anything else on the document...
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now. [A recess was taken.]
HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, I have but four more questions which deal with the affidavit, which was submitted yesterday, deposed by Minister President Dr. H6gner, and these are the final questions. Witness, in the affidavit deposed by Minister President Dr. Högner which was read yesterday, it says: "Already in the year 1922"-1 believe it was at the so-called German Day at Coburg the SA with its armed bands dominated the streets, made attacks on the peaceful population and particularly on people who held different political opinions, and traveled in lorries to all demonstrations of the National Socialist movement." Now I should like to ask you, what were the conditions in Coburg like and what were the occurrences which took place there? Who attacked whom? Please be brief.
JUETTNER: I did not participate in the first appearance of the SA outside of Munich, on the German Day in Coburg, but I was informed exactly by a number of colleagues who were participants. For quite some time beforehand the opposition press tried to prevent this SA rally and incited the people against it. Already when the transports left Munich conflicts occurred and the Police searched the departing SA members for weapons; the same thing happened when the transports arrived at Coburg. In Coburg there was a majority of the political opponents, the SPD and similar organizations. The SA was by far in the minority and the fact that the conflicts were not more serious is due entirely to the disciplined behavior of the SA. Coburg may be taken as a classic example of that. These attacks were started and carried out not only by the Coburg political opponents, but by people who had come in from the outside and who were overwhelmingly stronger, than the SA.
HERR BOEHM: Dr. Högner declares further in his affidavit: "The appearance of the SA was all the more dangerous because it had been trained by the Reichswehr as a sort of auxiliary unit and some had their own secret depots of arms while others had access to the secret depots of arms of the Reichswehr." Is that true?
JUETTNER: This statement is quite incomprehensible to me. The Reichswehr at that time, with the approval of the Government, carried on a training program for the purpose of protecting the border, especially after the incidents along the Polish border, which made it necessary to protect our home borders. The men who were brought in for this training were taken from such units as "Stahlhelm," "Jung-Deutscher Orden," and "Reichsbanner." Only one organization was not admitted to this training and that was the SA, which was mainly due to the instigation of the civil authorities, who, I remember, were very close to Dr. H6gner's party at that time. Secondly, the Reichswehr had arms depots for the purpose of protecting the frontiers, and these arms depots were kept very secret, and quite rightly so, for there were uprisings and riots all over Germany-I am thinking of Brunswick, Hamburg, et cetera. It was important that these weapons should not fall into the hands of unauthorized persons. On the occasion of the Polish uprising, in which I myself took part as a member of a Free Corps, one of these depots was used with the agreement of the Inter-Allied Military Commission. A British officer who belonged to the Commission, and whom I knew very well from the previous war, supported us in the most chivalrous manner. It is remarkable that Dr. Högner should try to lay these arms depots at the door of the SA, for he really must have known that Minister Noske, who was a close friend of his, had given the Reichswehr permission to set up these depots. Thirdly, I should like to say that between the SA and the Reichswehr an extraordinary state of tension existed. I know that from Generaloberst Heye. He was Generaloberst Von Seeckt's successor, and I knew him well from the previous world war. He also told me that General Von Lossow, in November 1923, was responsible for the failure of the action in Munich in which the SA also participated. It shows also that Generaloberst Von Seeckt was strongly opposed to the NSDAP. Dr.
JUETTNER: Högner must have known that too, for in connection with this question he afterwards ...
THE PRESIDENT: That is just argument.
HERR BOEHM: That will do. My question was only whether you had access to these depots, if they really existed as secret Reichswehr depots.
JUETTNER: No. That was completely out of the question. May I continue?
HERR BOEHM: That is quite sufficient. Dr. H6gner further asserts in his affidavit that on 9 November 1923 Ludendorff was chosen to be the man to unleash the national war. What do you know about that?
JUETTNER: I beg your pardon, but only a half-wit could assert such a thing. General Ludendorff after the first World War wanted a peaceful solution ...
THE PRESIDENT: It is quite sufficient if he says no to your question.
HERR BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. [Turning to the witness.] Do you remember that weapons were found in 1933 in the Trade Union House in Munich?
JUETTNER: Yes.
HERR BOEHM: And now one last question. What were relations like between the SA and Himmler?
JUETTNER: The relations between Chief of Staff Lutze and Himmler were the worst conceivable. The relations between the SA and the former Reichsfuehrer SS personally were definitely bad. In conclusion, may I give a very brief explanation to the questions which were put, Your Lordship?
HERR BOEHM: To which questions did you want to make a few remarks?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bohm, you can make, of course, in your speech what arguments you like, but unless it is in answer to some question from you, I don't think this witness ought to say anything on his own, unless there is something he wants to clear up in his evidence.
HERR BOEHM: The witness wanted to clarify some questions which I had put to him, Your Honor, as far as I understood him.
THE PRESIDENT: What question do you want to clarify?
JUETTNER: The question of whether the SA committed war crimes or crimes against humanity.
HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, I would like to ask that the explanation be permitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, if he does it briefly.
JUETTNER: I shall be very brief, Your Lordship. To conclude the questions put to me I should like to assure you upon my oath that we of the SA did not do anything bad. We did not want a war and we did not prepare for a war. We of the SA, the leadership and the organization itself, did only those things which in other countries are expected of the men of the nation as their moral duty, which Mr. Truman or Marshal Stalin or the statesmen of England and France expect of their men, namely, to do everything to protect the home country and to maintain peace. We of the SA did not commit any crimes against humanity, either. The leadership did not decree them, nor did they tolerate them, nor allow the organization to become guilty of any of them. When individuals committed misdeeds they should be punished and it is our win, too, that they should be brought to just punishment. We therefore do not ask for mercy or sympathy by portraying our domestic distress. We ask only for justice; for nothing else, for our conscience is clear. We acted as patriots. If patriots are to be labelled as criminals, then we were criminals.
HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER (Counsel for Defendant Frick): Mr. President, one document for Frick is still outstanding, a document which was granted to me before the end of the evidence, but which has not been handed in. I ask to be allowed to present it now. It is an answer to a questionnaire by Dr. Konrad in Berlin, which deals with the attitude of the Ministry of the Interior in the Church question. It is Frick Exhibit Number 15. I believe I may refer to this document without reading it in full. THE'PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, then, counsel for the Defendant Funk wanted to recall the defendant, did he not? Yes, well, will you do that now?
DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Göring): Mr. President, on 14 August I submitted a written application to present evidence which has not been decided upon, and which probably cannot be decided upon yet. It is not possible for me to tell whether this application for evidence will be considered unless I refer to it at the present stage of the proceedings. It deals with incidents which were discussed in the session of 9 August during the cross-examination of the witness Sievers by the British Prosecution. On that occasion it was said that the Defendant Göring was connected with medical experiments which were made with concentration camp inmates. It was in connection with the experiments to make sea water potable, to find a cure for typhus, and finally, with freezing experiments. These experiments allegedly were carried out on concentration camp inmates, and it was asserted that all of this took place at the direction of, or rather with the approval of, Göring. Now I should like to prove that Göring did not decree these experiments, and therefore they 'were not carried out on his instructions, and that he did not even have knowledge of such practices. In this connection I named as witnesses, first of all, Dr. Schroeder, the senior medical officer of the Luftwaffe, who apparently is a prisoner in British or American hands. I also named the Defendant Göring himself as a witness, for it is uncertain whether it will be possible to bring the witness Schroeder here in time. Therefore I should like to ask the High Tribunal's permission to have Göring recalled to the witness stand so that I can question him in regard to these questions which I have just mentioned and outlined.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you give, please, the Tribunal a reference to the transcript where the Defendant Göring testified upon the question of experiments.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I tried to do that, and I am anxious to prove that. I have not received the transcript, as yet. These documents were submitted in the afternoon session of 9 August. I could not get the individual numbers; I will submit them later today.
THE PRESIDENT: You are misunderstanding me. What I asked you for was a reference to the transcript where the Defendant Göring himself was questioned, as I imagine he was questioned, about experiments generally.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, he has been examined generally on this matter, and the witness Milch also testified in general. General Milch was heard on this matter on 8 March 1946. (Volume IX, Pages 51, 52). But I should like to point out that Field Marshal Milch testified generally to only a part of these questions. However, specific accusations have now been raised, which were unknown to me at the time and in regard to which I could examine neither the Defendant G6ring nor the witness Milch.
THE PRESIDENT: What I wanted to know in addition to General Milch was at what page in the transcript the Defendant Göring himself dealt with the matter, either in the examinationin-chief or in cross-examination or re-examination.
DR. STAHMER: I cannot tell you yet, but I will submit it immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the matter. Have the Prosecution any observations they wish to make with reference to the application on behalf of the Defendant Göring?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this is the first time that I had heard of the application, so I am speaking from memory. My Lord, my recollection is that the Prosecution put in certain correspondence about the experiments. That was put in cross-examination by Mr. Justice Jackson to Marshal Milch so that when the Defendant Göring went into the witness box the question of his connection with the experiments was a matter that was known to him and with which he could deal. My Lord, I would like to do the same as I understand the Tribunal wants-to check as to how far he did deal with it, and if there is any further point arising on that, perhaps I could mention it to the Tribunal later on.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you do that when we rise, or just before we rise today?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, My Lord. I will have it looked into at once.
THE PRESIDENT: And perhaps Dr. Stahmer could let us have a reference to the passages in the transcript at 1 o'clock, or even 2 o'clock. One o'clock would be preferable.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would help a lot.
DR. SAUTER: With the permission of the Tribunal, I will call the Defendant Funk to the witness box. [The Defendant Funk took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you understand you are still under oath?
FUNK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR.SAUTER: Dr. Funk, can you understand me?
FUNK: Yes.