dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
HERR BOHM: Very well. Then I submit this summary of affidavits to the Tribunal as General SA Number 90. Now, I should like to discuss the affidavits submitted for members of the Stahlhelm. and the SA Reiter Korps. The forced transfer of the so-called Junior Stahlhelm into the SA is dealt with in Affidavits 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 18, 37, and 42. Of all the affidavits submitted in this connection, the following have been translated: Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9. The forced incorporation of the Stah1helm into the SA Reserve is the subject of Affidavits Numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 19, 30, 33, 38, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43. The compulsory amalgamation of the SA Reserve with the SA is shown in Affidavits Numbers 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 40, 41, and 42. Affidavits Numbers 1, 2, 4, 15, 17, 18, 9, 10, 11, 12, 34, 40, 41, and 42 show that the resistance of the Stahlhelm against incorporation was overcome by coercion or deceit. Affidavits 1, 5, 6, 7) 9, 14, 16, 17, 37, 38, 41, and 42 show that, when the members of the Stahlhelm were taken over by the SA, they formed an independent unit within the SA in keeping with the assurances given to them: Affidavits 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 37, 39, 40, 41, and 44 further prove that even when the promise of corporative independence had been broken, the members of the Stahlhelm continued to represent a separate ideological block within the SA. The fact that the members of the Stahlhelm who were taken over into the SA condemned the war, may be seen from Affidavits 1, 2, 5, 9, and 40. The political tolerance and democratic views of the members of the Stahlhelm are confirmed by Affidavits 4, 5, 9, 13, 16, 37, 39; and 44. That the Stahlhelm did not advocate religious persecution is shown in Affidavits 1, 2, 9, and 18, and Affidavits 1, 2, 4, and 38 show that the Stahlhelm members who were transferred to the SA condemned racial persecution. .
HERR BOHM: In view of the arrest and persecution of the members of the Stahlhelm who, had not gone into the SA or who had left the SA again, those of the Stahlhelm members who had been taken over felt compelled to remain in the SA, and that is to be proved by Affidavits 1, 2, 3, 4, 37, and 39., That members of the Stahlhelm who had been taken over into the SA had reason to believe that upon leaving the SA they would encounter difficulties in earning a living, can be seen from Affidavits 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 16, 18, 34, 37, 38, 39, and 40. Affidavits 1 and 41 show that the Stahlhelm members who were transferred to the SA were kept in the SA by legal decrees and orders. That the members of the Stahlhelm who were taken into the SA Reserve remained reservists in practice, even if they were later formally assigned to active SA formations, may be seen from Affidavits 1, 7, 12, 19, 33, 40, 41, 42, 6, 12, and 30. Affidavits 5 and 42 show that the ranks of the Stahlhelm members in the SA were given out automatically and were in many cases only titles without corresponding duties. I don't think, Mr. President, it will be possible for me to be equally brief in grouping the affidavits for the Reiter-SA, because my data on this subject make it difficult ...
THE PRESIDENT: Before we hear... Haven't you already given us in your documents adequate evidence about the Riders! Corps? Surely, you have, given us four, documents generally which allege that the Riders' Corps was purely a sporting organization, and that being, I suppose, the topic of the affidavits, why not give us the numbers of the affidavits?
HERR BOHM: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: I am going to adjourn now. I am only indicating to you what you might do. We will adjourn. [A recess was taken.]
HERR BOHM: Mr. President, in connection with the Reiter Korps I should like to refer to Affidavits Numbers 1 to 5, which deal with the purpose, development, and organization of the Reiter Korps. Numbers 6 and 7 confirm that the Reiter Korps was concerned with horse breeding, care of horses, and training in riding Affidavits Numbers 9, 11, 12, 13, 86, 71, 72, 73, 74, 19 to 24, 87, and 88 are to establish the fact that the Reiter Korps did not commit criminal acts and had no criminal character. That the Reiter Korps was in no way connected with the Wehrmacht and did not furnish replacements in horses for the Wehrmacht, is confirmed in Affidavits Numbers 11, 13, 86. That the Reiter Korps did not participate in the seizure of power is established in Affidavits 71 through 74, and Affidavits Numbers 19 to 24, 87, and 88 prove that the Reiter Korps did not commit crimes against humanity. The attitude of members of, the Reiter Korps to the Jewish problem is proved in Affidavits 19, 20, 21, and 88; and their attitude to the Church question in Affidavits 22 and 23. That there were differences of opinion on political matters between the Reiter K6rps and the NSDAP, is explained in Affidavits 25 and 29; that the Party Leaders were even distrustful of the Reiter Korps is proved in Affidavits 31 and 85, and that those who belonged to the Reiter Korps could hardly have conceived the idea that their membership in the Reiter Korps made them members of a criminal organization, is stated in Affidavits 76, 34, 77, 33, and 35. Finally, I should like to give a brief list of affidavits dealing with the Reiter Korps in the various zones and areas of Germany. First the British Zone: Affidavits NSRK 37, 38, 39, 40, 78 refer to the Rhineland; 41, 42, 79 to Westphalia; 43, 44, 45 to Hanover; 46 to Oldenburg; 47 to East Frisia; 48 t8 Bremen, Hamburg, and Holstein. In the American Zone: For Bavaria, Affidavits 49, 50, 51; Wurttemberg, 52, 53, 54; Hesse, 55, 56, 57, 80; Baden, 58, 59, 60; Upper Swabia, 61, 62; Palatinate 63.
HERR BOHM: For the French Zone, Affidavit 81; and for the Russian Zone, Saxony, 64; Thuringia, 65; East Prussia, 66 and 67; Berlin and Brandenburg, 82; Pomerania, Mecklenburg, 83; Silesia, 84. Mr. President, I should now like to make two applications. The first application is that I may be allowed to introduce as evidence the affidavits deposed by Dr. Kurt Schuhmacher and Judge Advocate General Dr. Stapff, of Brunswick, which the Prosecution has obtained. I should like to ask that the affidavit of Dr. Kurt Schuhmacher be given Number SA-91, and that the affidavit of Judge Advocate General Dr. Stapff of Brunswick be given Number SA-92.
THE PRESIDENT: But are they already offered in evidence by the Prosecution?
HERR BOHM: They have not yet been submitted in evidence, but I should like to introduce them. I do not know whether they will be submitted by the Prosecution. At any rate, I think that valuable material for the defense of my organization is contained in these affidavits, which were obtained not by me but by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you refer to the Prosecution then?
HERR BOHM: The Prosecution has the original of those affidavits, Mr. President. I merely received a copy which was placed in my pigeonhole in counsel's room. That is how I learned of them, and I must mention that, because I now have to ask the Prosecution to give me the originals so that I may submit them.
I THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, is there any objection, Sir David, to the ... ?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, these were the affidavits to which we referred at the close of the evidence of the witness Juttner. My Lord, we proposed, as I told the Tribunal, to put in certain affidavits in rebuttal. These two were affidavits which we did not propose to use, but we gave copies to the Defense, and I said that I had no objection to the Defense using them if they so desired. If they think they can get any benefit from them, they can use them as far as the Prosecution are concerned. My Lord, that is the position.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well, then, Dr. B61im, you can offer those in evidence. SA-91 and 92, did you say?
HERR BOHM: Yes, Mr. President; and then I should like to make a second application with regard to the admission of an affidavit by Arnolf Rechberg. I wanted to submit that affidavit to disprove the allegation of the Prosecution that the SA was a uniform entity and that the conspiracy on the part of the SA must be regarded as a uniform action. This affidavit mentions that there ,vas quite definitely a lack of unity in the SA because elements faithful to Moscow had deliberately infiltrated into the National Socialist organizations of the SA and the SS; this process began already before July 1930, and by July 1932, 24,000 Communists, partly upon instructions from Moscow, had changed over to the SA., It is also mentioned that this infiltration continued after the seizure of power.
THE PRESIDENT: Has this affidavit been submitted to the Commissioners and has it been submitted to the Prosecution?
HERR BOHM: Yes, certainly, Mr. President, this affidavit was 'discussed before the Commission, but was not admitted by the Commission. However, I had the alternative of discussing the document before the Tribunal and of asking the Tribunal to admit it, ,and I have now made use of that alternative. I should like to explain my view by saying that this document is of the greatest probative value, namely, in the following connection: fundamentally, the SA was based on national ideas, whereas these people, whose ideas certainly did not run on national but on entirely different lines, brought into the SA a spirit which no doubt destroyed the uniformity alleged by the Prosecution and which made the alleged uniformity of the aims of the $A quite impossible, for the aims of National Socialism were surely quite different from the aims of the people mentioned in this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I object to this affidavit as being, completely irrelevant and based on sources which have no probative value whatsoever. My Lord, if Your Lordship has in front of you the proceedings before the Commission, at Page 3221, My Lord, there is a summary of the affidavit there. Paragraph 1 of this summary is, "Elements loyal to Moscow infiltrated into the National Socialist combat organizations, SA and SS, consciously, by order of Moscow." My Lord, that shows the sort of allegation that is made. It is made by Herr Rechberg who, of course, is a person who shows from the affidavit no possible grounds for any confidence being put in his statements. The same applies to the allegation in Paragraph 2 about the 24,000. My Lord, in Paragraph 4, there is some reference to correspondence which took place between Herr Rechberg and Sir Wyndham Charles and Sir William Turral, as he then was. But again I have seen the letters. They are clearly cases of somebody pestering these people with letters and getting a reply.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, what-in what way does this deponent describe himself? Is he a member of the SA?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I don't-I just saw the affidavit in German this morning. He does not say he is a member of the SA. He is merely a business man who had certain interests in these matters. He quotes two pages from newspapers, one a secondary sheet and one a practically unknown German paper, which contained declarations by a Soviet official. My Lord, it would be in my submission an abuse of the purpose of -the Court, if evidence of an unknown German paper, purporting to quote a Soviet official, were to be taken as a basis in this matter. And, My Lord, as I said, if it were all based on proper evidence, and if the affidavit were the affidavit of a person who showed any grounds of his affidavits being useful, it would still be completely irrelevant to the question of criminality which is before the Court. I respectfully request Your Lordship to uphold the learned Commissioner who excluded it when it came before the Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything you have to add, Dr. Bohm?
HERR BOHM: Mr. President, my view in this matter is quite different from that of the Prosecution ...
COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): My Lord, the Soviet Prosecution fully agrees with the point of view submitted by Sir David. I would like to add a few words to the objection which he made. Apart from the fact that the Commission has already rejected this document as being irrelevant and without any probative value, I would like the Tribunal to take into consideration that the author of this document is well-known as the source of a number of provocative anti-Soviet inventions. This document contains nothing but slanderous, provocative, dirty attacks in a style typical of the author; such attacks have, I repeat, nothing to do with the present case. At the same time I would like to bring to the Tribunal's attention our objection to Documents 85, 286, 287 and 132. Unfortunately, Sir David did not have the copies of these documents and therefore did not take them into consideration. All four of the documents I have mentioned refer to the year 1925, and to problems connected with the interparty strife in Germany. They therefore have nothing at all to do with the present case. The last document to which we object is Document 82, of which we have only just heard for the first time. It mentions some person whose name I have forgotten for the moment. Counsel said that he is a former Communist who comes to the conclusion that the SA is not a criminal organization under Article 6 of the Charter. We are of the opinion that this man is in no way competent to draw expert conclusions on questions which only the Tribunal can decide. That is all I wanted to say, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Do you want to say anything more, Dr. Bohm, before the Tribunal decides?
HERR BOHM: Yes, Mr. President. Naturally, I have no intention whatever of abusing the Tribunal, as the Prosecution has just suggested. But the Prosecution has on more than one occasion asserted-and this is shown in the record of 18 December, afternoon session, and 19'December, morning session-that the SA was a uniform whole and was also united in its aims, and it is my contention that this affidavit is evidence to the contrary. It is also wrong to say that the man's testimony is not trustworthy. The representatives of the Prosecution have known the contents of this affidavit ever since it was discussed before the Commission, they have all known the name of this man and his residence in Germany, -and if there had been any doubts about the credibility of this man, then they could have been brought up today, but obviously that was not done. The simple statement that one cannot believe him is no reason for requesting that his affidavit be rejected. Since I am still of the opinion that such a large number of people with different political views would disorganize and nullify the common, uniform aims of the SA, I must insist that this affidavit be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks the decision of the learned Commissioner was correct, and the document will be rejected for that reason, and on the grounds that it is irrelevant and the deponent has not stated any grounds for his knowledge. The document is rejected therefore.
HERR BOHM: Mr. President, I should like to clear up one more question. I was not able to deal with all the evidence contained in my document books, in view of the short time at my disposal. I should therefore like to know whether the judgment will consider the factual and legal aspects of all the documents in my book; for otherwise only part of the material which I regard as important would be taken into consideration. I would like to request, therefore, that all the material which I have submitted be taken into consideration. If I had dealt with all the documents, my evidence would have taken about 6 hours, and since that was impossible, I should like to be sure that all my documents will be considered in the judgment of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better hear you, Dr. B61im, about these affidavits which have been objected to by the Soviet Prosecutor: 82, 85, 86, 87, and 132. 1 take it that the Commissioner accepted these affidavits. Have you got the numbers?
HERR BOHM: Mr. President, all the documents and affidavits which I discussed during the session today were dealt with before the Commission.
COL. POKROVSKY: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. Evidently there has been a misunderstanding in the translation. I mentioned Numbers 85, 28~, 287 and 132. These documents are not written statements and, accordingly, were not submitted to the Commission. The last number I gave was 82. This document "was mentioned today for the first time.
THE PRESIDENT: What are they; are they affidavits, or what are they?
COL. POKROVSKY: They are document§, My Lord, with the exception of 82. Numbers 85, 286, 287, 132 are various documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, Colonel Pokrovsky, the numbers are not coming through accurately in the translation. What are the numbers? Read them slowly, please.
COL. POKROVSKY: 85 ...
THE PRESIDENT: 85 did you say? It just now came through as 285, you mean 85?
COL. POKROVSKY: 85. 1 keep repeating-85. Then 286, 287, and 132-these are documents. The last number is 82, which is an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Now, Dr Bohm, do you want to say anything about this?
COL. POKROVSKY: I beg your pardon, My Lord. On our copy I gave the number of a document incorrectly. Would you correct Number 85 to 285. So the numbers are 285, 286, and 287. We have just submitted a list of these documents to the Secretary of the Tribunal.
HERR BOHM: Mr. President ...
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. B6hm. The Tribunal -will consider the objections on these documents. And Dr. B6hm, I ought to give you the opportunity of saying what you wish about these documents.
HERR BOHM: First of all, I want to defend myself against the, charge that I did not discuss these documents with the Prosecution. There is not one document in my document book which I have not discussed with Mr. Griffith-Jones, -and no other documents have been added to the book. The documents objected to now were included in the book in agreement with Mr. Griffith-Jones. Documents 285, 286, and 287 are extracts from findings of the State Tribunal for the Protection of the Republic, and of the Supreme Reich Court. Their contents are known to the Tribunal; they are in evidence. We are not dealing here with the attitude taken by any particular side with regard to the activities of the Communists during the period under discussion, but with facts which have been established from a report made by the police headquarters at Stuttgart and based on a literal quotation from the verdicts delivered on the matters in question. My Document 132 is a photostat copy of the Deutsche Tageszeitung with a detailed Communist plan of operations for a proposed Putsch in Berlin. These plans are reproduced here, they are commented upon, and they show that in the Germany of that time it was necessary to create an organization capable of giving protection against such intentions. It is for this reason only that Document 132 was included in my document book. Affidavit Number 82 is, I believe, one of the last affidavits; it was also discussed with Mr. Griffith-Jones-with Mr. Marreco, and was admitted by the Commission. I think that the objections raised today in this respect are somewhat belated~
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bohm, the Tribunal will take into consideration the matter of these documents and will let you know their decision.
HERR BOHM: Very well, Mr. President. I have nothing further to say.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I have these few documents to put In in rebuttal. My Lord, first I have a document to which Sir David referred in his cross-examination of Juttner the other day, which was not formally put in. It is D-972, which becomes Exhibit GB-618. My Lord, secondly I have a document to put in in rebuttal of a document contained in the SA Defense Book, Number SA-156, which was a decree from the Munich University Department to the SA, which, on the face of it, appears to say that membership of the SA was compulsory for all students. My Lord, I have another document which is very similar in character, and based upon the same order of the Supreme SA Command, which was issued by the SA University Department for Cologne. It is dated two days before the Munich Decree which Dr. B6hm put in. I think you have been given copies of both translations d both, for your convenience. It will be dealt with later. I would only at the moment draw your attention to Paragraph 3 of each do6ument. My Lord, taking, if I may, the Munich Decree-that is to say, the SA document-Paragraph 3 reads: "According to the decree of 7 February 1934, SA Service (SS Service) is compulsory for all German students. In accordance with the decree of the Supreme SA Leadership, F 6914, of 27 March 1934, the ban on taking on newly matriculated students is raised in the period from 25 April to 5 May. All newly matriculated students are therefore bound to join the SA. They have to report at the latest on 5 May 1934 to the local offices." Now, if I might just refer the Tribunal to the similar paragraph in the order issued by the Cologne SA University Department, one sees, at least, that that was not common to all universities. The Tribunal will see that it starts in the same way: "According to the decree of 7 February 1934"-the same decree-"SA service is compulsory for all German students." My submission is that that SA service referred to there and in the Munich Decree is not membership in the SA, but a course of training run by the SA.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: If one might draw a parallel, it is practically the same as what we know in England as the Officers' Training Corps in the public schools. And then you see, the remainder of the paragraph is considerably different: "In accordance with the decree of the Supreme SA Leadership"-and it quotes the same decree-"the ban on taking on newly matriculated students is raised in the period"-the same period-"from the 25th of April to the 5th of May. Every student is thereby offered the possibility of joining the SA." The SA service is compulsory, but the joining of the SA, becoming a member of it, is left purely to the student himself. He simply is offered the possibility of joining. My Lord, the matter will be lodged by Sir David in his final address to the Tribunal, and I can leave it for the moment by drawing your attention to these two paragraphs. That document will be GB-619. The Munich Decree is, of course, SA-156, My Lord, and I have a number of short affidavits to put in in rebuttal of the many thousands which have been submitted by the Defense. Perhaps first I might draw the Tribunal's attention to those two which Dr. B6hm has asked to be submitted-first of all, to the affidavit of Dr. Stapff, which is D-946,- and I might mention that the only reason that these two affidavits were not going to be submitted by the Prosecution is because they are not actually in the form of affidavits, but a declaration. Some error was made in obtaining them, and they do not show on the face of them that they are affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Griffith-Jones, haven't we already admitted them? Sir David said that he didn't object to their admission.
LT. COL: GRIFFITH-JONES: I was only going to draw the Tribunal's attention to the one passage, if I might. I think, taking D-946, the second paragraph is the paragraph from which Dr. B6hm probably hopes to receive some assistance. I would draw the Tribunal's attention to the last paragraph which deals with the SS. The remainder of the document describes the appalling atrocities which were happening in Dachau in and around the year 1934. In fact, the last paragraph particularly, "As far as the SS proper is concerned-in contrast to the Waffen-SS, the conditions of which I am not in a position to judge-the pretext of compulsory membership cannot be credited in my opinion." And then he goes on to explain why he thinks so. My Lord, I have-...
THE PRESIDENT: This is SA-91 or 92, isn't it?