4000bce - 399
400 - 1399
1400 - 1499
1500 - 1599
1600 - 1699
1700 - 1799
1800 - 1899
1900 - 1999
HERR BOHM: Mr. President, may it please the Tribunal, yesterday I submitted some of the documents which prove that many people were forced into the SA through legal compulsion. I should now like to continue my presentation of evidence in that direction.
Documents SA-200, 201, '203, 208, and 213 demand service for young personnel in the financial administration.
It is regrettable that on account of the attitude of one of the occupying powers the witness Dr. Meder could not appear here. Defense counsel for the SA was able to correspond with him until it became known that he had been selected as a witness in this Trial. In spite of all the efforts of the General Secretary of this High Tribunal we have not succeeded in bringing this witness to Nuremberg from the Russian Zone.
This witness had been called to testify that in the years 1936 to 1944, 14 Reich Finance Schools ...
THE PRESIDENT [Interposing]: Dr. Bohm, we are hearing you now upon your documents; we are not hearing you upon the question of any difficulties there may have been in getting witnesses.
Kindly go on.
HERR BOHM: The following are the Finance Schools which existed in the Reich: Herrsching, Ilmenau, Meersburg, Wo1lershof, Berlin, Molln, Feldkirch, Leipa, Leitmeritz, Bodenbach, Thom, Sigmaringen, and Boppard.
Even private enterprises, to a large extent, requir6d membership in the HJ and the SA as a condition for employment. This is proved by Documents 215 and 216.
Document SA-218 states that the directive of 3 October 1933 ...
THE PRESIDENT: You are going a little bit too fast; your light is flickering.
HERR BOHM: Very well, Mr. President, I shall try to speak more slowly. Document SA-218 states that the directive of 3 October 1933 ordered that the Auxiliary Engineer Service of the Technical Emergency Service was to be transferred into the SA.
22 Aug- 46
Document SA-220 deals with the question of whether expulsion from the SA was a reason for terminating an employment contract, and under certain circumstances the answer was "yes."
A commentary on this point is furnished by Document 221, and quote:
"The obligation under the oath sworn to the Fuehrer means that leaving the SA or any other association is absolutely impossible. Only physical unfitness or an assignment to special work elsewhere can warrant leaving the SA."
This is an excerpt from the Handbook of the SA, published by permission of the Supreme SA Command.
Document 222 also shows that expulsion from the Party or from its formations might result in loss of occupation. The fact that this was stated in a basic official directive of the Reich and Prussian Ministry of Justice explains why this attitude was adopted in practice. Therefore it is not surprising that even non-German quarters pointed out the existing coercion. As may be seen from Document SA-243, a Note of the Holy See dated 14 May 1934 reads:
"The Holy See is aware of the extent to which freedom to make decisions is restricted in Germany today through the pressure brought to bear on officials, employees, workmen, scholars, even on the formerly free professions, in fact on almost 'all German citizens, by economic factors and by exploiting the anxieties for a bare existence."
THE PRESIDENT: Is it 243 in your Document Book?
HERR BOHM: 143, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
HERR BOHM: In the third part of my presentation of evidence, I should like to deal with the aims of the SA as they appeared to members of the SA who had no special leading position; thus, in keeping with the decision of the Tribunal of 13 March 1946, Paragraph 6, Figure 3, 1 shall quote testimony on behalf of the SA by members of the SA themselves.
In Document 224, an excerpt of the periodical Der SA Fuehrer, a magazine for the SA, the term "Wehrtuchtigkeit" is defined as follows: "Instruction in the use of arms and the mastering of the weapons of war and their use will be given. to German men in the Wehrmacht by service and exercises."
Document SA-224 shows clearly that the SA did not have anything to do with the Waffenschule (Military Training School), and it did not give military training to its members. This is also proved
22 Aug. 46
by Documents SA-225 and 226, again excerpts from the magazine Der SA Fuehrer, published by the Supreme SA Command. I quote:
"In addition one can recognize the clear limits drawn between the tasks of the SA on the one hand, and those of the Wehrmacht on the other; these limits always have existed and always will exist. After the HJ, the SA only creates the necessary spiritual, mental, and physical preliminary conditions."
Document 226 shows that Hitler was quite clearly and definitely opposed to giving the SA a military character, the character of a defense organization, of a militia or of a Free Corps.
Document 229 shows that members of the SA could not have known of the criminal aims of the SA, as the Prosecution calls them, because already on 21 March 1925 the Rhineland Commission lifted the ban on the German Freedom Party and the National Socialist Party. How well Hitler knew how to lull the people to sleep is proved by his order of 1 July 1934, in which he gave to the R6hm Putsch a background entirely different from the real facts.
Mr. Jackson has said that members of the various formations could not be charged with joining the organizations, but were charged with remaining- in the organizations, once they knew-as they did-of the conditions in the concentration camps. In this connection I should like to- submit Document 250, in which one of the most prominent members of the Catholic Church in Munich, who spent many years in a concentration camp, deals with the question of whether the injustices which took place in the Third Reich were easily apparent. The document quite clearly shows that the answer was "no." I quote:
"For eight years I collected everything available concerning National Socialist laws, decrees, police measures, information about injustices, acts of violence, infamy, crimes, blasphemies, persecution of the Church, murder, et cetera. Hundreds of pages of the book The Persecution of the Catholic Church, published in 1940, which I have already mentioned, come from my collection. It will carry all the more weight if I testify that as far as atrocities in concentration camps and crimes in the occupied territories were' concerned, I could discover and report practically nothing."
How, then, could the things which have now come to light be discovered by an ordinary person who moreover would not have at his disposal the sources of information available to Prelate Neuh5usler?
Now, I shall turn to the third part of the presentation of documents which deals with the assertion of the Prosecution that the SA was a terror organization. What the real facts regarding this
22 Aug 46
so-called terror were may be seen from Documents 285, 286, and 287. The pamphlet quoting from the judgment of the State Tribunal of the Republic illustrates clearly that it was the KPI) (German Communist Party) which incited the people against the democratic republic; and that it was the KPD which propagated the class conflict. As is shown in Document 286, this incitement to class conflict was embodied in the so-called idea of world revolution. In this connection I also submit Document 132, which describes how civil war was advocated by the KPD in 1921. The terroristic conflicts, therefore, originated with the political Left.
Document SA-287, a judgment passed by the State Tribunal on 14 January 1925 against Link and his associates, shows that in this period of latent civil war the call to fight the Fascists, that is the NSDA-P and the Reichswehr, was made again and again. The fact that the SA was established for this reason, namely, as a protection against the Leftists, is shown in Documents 311 and 314. These are excerpts from Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf.
Document SA-300, an excerpt from Gisevius's book, Until the Bitter End, also states that pressure from the Reds produced counterpressure from the Brown Shirts. Although these were very like times of civil war, even an opponent such as Herr Gisevius must admit, and this is evident from Document SA-301, that the National Socialist revolution claimed comparatively few victims. In Document SA-302, Herr Gisevius admits that when excesses did occur, it was on the whole just a very small clique which perpetrated them. May I quote:
"They were the group staffs, their hired staff guards, and that gang of hooligans which can be found wherever mischief is afoot."
Documents SA-304, 305, and 306 show how seriously Hitler, as the Supreme SA Leader, was determined to prevent a civil war. For that reason he repeatedly in his many proclamations demanded discipline. In this connection I would like to present the directive of 30 March 1931' as Document SA-306. It expressly says, in Figure 2:
"Every Party member, regardless of his position in the Party, will be immediately excluded from the Party if he should venture either deliberately to violate the regulations of the emergency decrees, or to tolerate or approve such offenses."
Document SA-312 deals with the directive forbidding terrorization of Jewish citizens.
In the fifth part of my document book I have set forth the attitude of the SA with regard to the Church. Document 316 shows that in 1933 the Party and the Church had come to an agreement. The proclamation of the German Episcopate shows that the Church believed it could be confident that the prohibitions and warnings
22 Aug. 46
previously issued were no longer necessary. For that reason, entire formations were again permitted to attend services.
Document SA-317 says that youth was asked to join the formations of the Party and to work in them for the future of Germany. I quote:
"For that reason, we mean to devote our entire Catholic heritage, Christian conservative ideas, and Christian progressive forces to the New Germany; to enhance her spirit and make it our own. We are, therefore, determined to work actively, with all the means and ways at our disposal, for the union of all Germans. And for the same reason, we commend to all our members a practical military training as their duty."
"It must particularly be the task of youth to work with courage for a union between our vigorous national movement and the eternal Christian values."
Document SA-320 mentions the assurance given in the 115th Session of the Bavarian Diet of 29 April 1931. It reads:
"On the contrary, our Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, has repeatedly stated that the Party will always be, led in a way which will not bring any Roman Catholic, as a faithful member of the National Socialist Party, into conflict with his conscience."
Document SA-327, the Hitler speech of 23 March 1933, contains the same assurance:
"The National Government considers both the Christian Churches factors of the greatest importance in the life of our nation. It will respect the agreements concluded between them and the administrations of the Under, and their rights shall not be infringed. The National Government will permit and safeguard the rightful influence of the Christian Churches in school and education. The Government is anxious to secure sincere co-operation between Church and State."
This shows that there was no reason to anticipate a struggle with the Church, particularly since, after feelings had run high, a directive issued by the Fi1hrer's Deputy on 23 January 1939, Document SA-321, stated:
"In my directives of 11 April 1937 and I June 1938 1 decreed that the Party, its formations, and its affiliated organizations were to abstain from influencing internal Church matters in any way."
Document SA-326 shows that in 'the year 1931 there was no thought of exterminating the Jews, which unfortunately became a reality later.
22 Aug. 46
Now I shall deal with the members of the Stahlhelm who came from the Stahlhelm into the SA. May I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the SA Document Book dealing with the Stahlhelm.
Document Number 1 is a radio address of the leader of the Stahlhelm, Franz Seldte.
THE PRESIDENT: Which book is it?
HERR BOHM: Book 4, Mr. President.
The first document is a radio address of the leader of the Stahlhelm organization, Franz Seldte, delivered on 27 April 1933. It contains the condition for the transfer which subsequently took place, a condition based on sovereign rights. I quote:
"Having no party affiliation, I hereby declare my entry into the National Socialist German Workers' Party, because this Party is the movement which will unite the entire German people in a single unit. I therefore place myself and the
Stahlhelm Association of Front-line Soldiers which I founded, as a soldierly unit complete in itself, under the command of the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler."
Document 2 contains a statement of the Reichsleitung of the NSDAP, signed by Rudolf Hess and dated I May 1933, as taken from the newspaper Frankischer Kurier. This document shows that the Stahlhelm, despite its subordination to Hitler, was to remain a unit complete in itself.
Document 3 is an excerpt from a report made by the leader of the Stahlhelm. on 28 April 1933. The first few paragraphs show that the deputy leader, Dilsterberg, was not willing to accept the contact established by the leader, Seldte, with the National Socialists. The next paragraph describes the immediate dismissal of the deputy leader, Dilsterberg, in a telegraphic order of Seldte. From the last paragraph of this document, I should like to quote the last sentence of Seldte's telegram of the same day:
"I herewith assume the sale dictatorial leadership of the Association."
Document 5 contains the open letter of one of the leaders of the Stahlhelm, dated 3 May 1933; the letter speaks of these events and states that as a result of Seldte's unconstitutional measures the opposition group Dilsterberg would no longer consider him as the lawful leader of the organization.
Document 6 contains an agreement between Hitler and Seldte.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bohm, if I remember right, one of your witnesses who was heard here before the Tribunal dealt with the entry of the Stahlhelm. into the SA, did he not?
HERR BOHM: Yes.
22 Aug. ~'G
THE PRESIDENT: And was he cross-examined at all to contradict him?
HERR BOHM: No, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if that is so, then surely these documents which relate to the introduction of the Stahlhelm into the SA can be dealt with quickly as a group. You can give us the numbers of the documents. As the witness has given evidence and has not been cross-examined, it isn't necessary to refer us in detail to these documents which merely support the evidence of your own witness.
HERR BOHM: Yes, Mr. President.
I now refer to Document Number 6 which shows that the so-called Jungstahlhelm was put under the Supreme Command of the SA. I turn to Document Number 7 which is a decisive order of Hitler, from which I should like to quote toward the end, Page 1, Paragraph 6:
"The entire Stahlhelm will be placed under the Supreme SA Command and will be reorganized according to its directives."
Then I should like to refer to Document Number 8 which shows that the Wehrstahlhelm was also taken over by the SA and especially that the members of the Wehrstahlhelm continued also to remain members of the Stahlhelm.
I also refer to Document Number 9, decreeing that the incorporation of the Stahlhelm be speeded up. Documents 10 and 12 show that the members of the Wehrstahlhelm were to be given equal rights, and a certain joint status, before their final incorporation. Then there are Documents 13, 14, 15, and 17, in connection with which I should like to refer particularly to Hitler's decree of 25 January 1934. Then Document 17 and Document 18. In the latter the complete amalgamation of the SA Resen7e I, that is, the former Stahlhelm with the SA is proclaimed. .
Document 18-A states that all age classes over 45 years will be incorporated into the SA Reserve. Then I submit Document 19 and Document 21, from which I should like to quote briefly Paragraph 2: "Members of the former Stahlhelm who have already been transferred into SA Reserve I, cannot of their own volition sever their connection with SA Reserve I for the sole purpose of joining other associations. Anyone who, because of a physical defect, cannot discharge his duties or who for other reasons wishes to leave the SA Reserve, must apply for his discharge, stating the reasons for his request. Dual membership in the SA Reserve I and in the NS Veterans' Association is permitted, provided the individual joined the former Stahlhelm before 30 January 1933."
22 Au.~ 46
Now I should like to refer to Document 22, which shows how in practice a member of the Stahlhelm in the Rhineland was incorporated into SA Reserve I.
Document 23 deals with the dissolution of the National Socialist German Veterans' Association in November 1939.
Document 26 contains several quotations from the Stahlhelm handbook, published by Heinrich Hildebrandt and Walter Kenner. I should like to quote one sentence on Page 17:
"The Stahlhelm has experienced war and therefore desires; peace."
Then I should like to refer to Documents 29 and 30, which prove that members of the Stahlhelm attempted to leave the SA Reserve L The documents which follow deal with the members of the Stahlhelm who did not agree with the incorporation into the SA.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bohm, couldn't you tell us what the effect of all these documents is rather than read all through 30 documents? You have told us now about the Stahlhelm. Haven't you got any idea what you will come to?
HERR BOHM: I submit these documents to show the High Tribunal that the Stahlhelm was not at all in agreement with the measures taken at the time when the organization was transferred
-to the SA;~ that members of the Stahlhelm. tried to leave the SA, that they met with difficulties in such attempts, and that the ideology of the Stahlhelm was, in a large measure, quite different from that of the SA.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
HERR BOHM: I should like to refer now to a series of newspaper articles which are contained in Documents 32, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49.
Document 34 is a report made by a Sturmbannfuehrer of the SA about a conspiracy of the Stahlhelm against the SA in 1933 in Pomerania. Document 36 is a poster containing a warning and threat by Gauleiter Loeper of Magdeburg-Anhalt against the National Socialist Veterans' Association. '
Document 33 states, may I quote quite briefly:
"The Stahlhelm in Brunswick has been dissolved. 1350 men were arrested and interned." From the second paragraph in the center ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bohm, you have given us a long list of newspaper articles. Now, what is the object of them? Is there anything which connects those together, makes them into a group?
HERR BOHM: There is a certain connection between all of them, Mr. President, inasmuch as they are to prove that units of the
22 AU9. 46
Stahlhelm. were dissolved in various places, that members of the Stahlhelm were arrested, and that they encountered difficulties because most of them disagreed with their incorporation into the SA, and with the political and intellectual attitude of the SA.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, I understand then that they are illustrations of the difficulties which the Stahlhelm Organization had with the SA incidents.
HERR BOHM: Yes, quite. I should like briefly ...
THE PRESIDENT: The contention, I suppose, is that the Steel Helmet weren't volunteers into the SA; is that it?
HERR BOHM: Yes, Mr. President, they came into the SA on the strength of an order.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then you can pass from that group, I think.
HERR BOHM: Yes. Now I should like to turn to Document Book Number 5, which contains documents relating to the Mounted Corps. Documents 56 and 57 deal with the origin, the development, and the organization of the NS Mounted Corps. Document 56 is an excerpt from the official periodical of the Reiter Korps, Deutsches Kaltblut, of the year 1933. 1 think it is important to mention here the statement of the president of the rural riding associations, namely, that these associations were to be turned into a National Socialist Reiter Korps so that all rural riding interests would remain embodied in a special organization with its own administration without being permanently incorporated into part~ of the SA.
Document 57 contains the diagram showing that the NS Reiter Korps was connected with the General SA only at the top level.
The next documents deal with the tasks, aims, and activities of the NS Reiter Korps. Documents 59, 60, and 61 are extracts from the regulations of rural riding clubs before 1933; members of these clubs were not permitted to engage in political activity within the clubs, and this rule was retained after 1933.
Documents 62, 63, 65, 66, and 67 are official orders showing the activity of the NS Reiter Korps.
Document 69 is an official brochure on the requirements for obtaining the rider's certificate. This document, too, has no military or political character at all. Document 70 lists the prerequisites for winning the German rider's emblem, and again in this connection military and political considerations have no part. The emblem was a sports badge of honor, and it was the highest aim of all members of the NS Reiter Korps to win it. I submit this rider's emblem-it is made of silver-to the High Tribunal as Document 71, and perhaps I might add that I think it is the only emblem which bears no National Socialist insignia.
22 Aug 46
The last four Documents 101, 102, 103, and 124 have been selected from a tremendous number of photographs typifying the activities of the Reiter Korps.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. B6hm, will you please continue.
HERR BOHM: I shall now turn to the affidavits, Mr. President, and deal with the first group of affidavits which I have submitted. I should like to refer to the General SA Affidavits Numbers 17, 74, and 81, which deal with coercion, legal coercion, regarding entry into the formations. Affidavit General SA Number 1, deposed by Dr. Menge, also deals with the problem of compulsory incorporation into the SA, in this case, the incorporation of water sports clubs into the Marine SA.
Affidavit General SA Number 60 deals with the compulsory incorporation of sports clubs as separate units of the SA.
Affidavit Number 61 deals with the impossibility of leaving the SA. -
That the SA did not assist the state government in preparing for war, is stated in General SA Affidavits 38, 39, and 40, which also show that preaching a war of revenge against France resulted ' in expulsion from the SA, because the SA Command had forbidden all discussion of the questions of South Tyrol and Alsace-Lorraine.
Affidavit SA-38, deposed by Dr. Busse, characterizes the Chief of Staff, Lutze, as an opponent of warmongering. The Affidavit SA-1 of Dr. Menge deals with the agreement between the Wehrmacht and the SA, that in the event of a conflict between the SS and the Wehrmacht, the SA would side with the Wehrmacht, and also shows that the Chief of Staff, Lutze, strongly opposed a war against Poland during a conference with Hitler and Goebbels in the autumn of 1939.
Affidavits General SA Numbers 5 and 6 deal with the preparations of the SA for the Party Rally in 1939.
Affidavit Number 76, deposed by General Von H6rauf, deals with the negotiations of R6hm in 1931 and 1932 and the agreements he reached with English and French political circles on the following points:
"1) Within a brief period of time R6hm will put himself at the head of the NSDAP.
"2) The press of the NSDAP will come under British influence.
"3) The establishment of a foreign political and military political bureau. In connection with these negotiations.. ."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. B6hm, the Tribunal is finding this very difficult to follow. You have here, I suppose, about 200 affidavits, something like that. Now, wouldn't it be the best way to put them into groups, and tell us the numbers of those which relate to some
22 Aug. 46
subject? Don't they relate to any particular subject, or are there 200 subjects that they relate to? Have they no possibility of being grouped together?
HERR BOHM: Well, Mr. President, that will be hard to do, because within the individual affidavits there are always special points which have to be emphasized and which are not found in any other affidavits. However, I shall willingly shorten this procedure, and I did so when I grouped the summaries of the affidavits together; but as far as these individual affidavits are concerned, it is not really possible to find a common denominator.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a great deal more difficult for the Tribunal to follow.
HERR BOHM: For instance, only one affidavit, namely Number 76, deposed by General Horauf, deals with the aims of R6hm. If all the affidavits ...
THE PRESIDENT: Surely, Dr. Bohm, if you are going to inflict upon us the whole of these 200 affidavits, you might at least do it in order.
HERR BOHM: I turn then to Number 83, deposed by Adolf Freund...
THE PRESIDENT: I would think that if it is up to 83, we are not going to hear any more about it, or are we going to jump back to 1, 2, 3, and 4?
HERR BOHM: Mr. President, these affidavits have already been grouped according to certain subjects, and I cannot. therefore present them in consecutive numerical order.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all I asked you,... I am afraid I must not be speaking clearly or else the translation is not coming through to you clearly. What I asked you to do was to give us the topics with which these affidavits deal, and then give us the numbers of the affidavits which deal with each topic. Now you are telling me that there are groups, and that the affidavits are grouped with reference to topics. Well, will you kindly give us the topics and the numbers of the affidavits?
HERR BOHM: Certainly, Mr. President. I told you, Mr. President, that I was able to group the summaries of the affidavits, but that it was very difficult to follow the same procedure completely with regard to the individual affidavits. That, at any rate, was my meaning.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
HERR BOHM: But I shall try to adhere to this grouping as far as possible.
22 AU9. 46
I now turn to the group- of affidavits which show that the SA was not a military formation. This topic is dealt with in Affidavits 25, 27, 28, and 30. That the schools set up by the Chief of Training did not have a military character is explained in Affidavits 32, 33, and 37. The sport insignia of the SA and its significance is dealt with in Affidavit Number 8. The question of whether and to what extent the "Feldherrnhalle" Division was subordinate to the Wehrmacht or to the SA is clarified by General SA Affidavit Number 18, deposed by Major General Gunther Bade, the Commander of the 1st Panzer Division "Feldherrnhalle."
The next group of affidavits deals with the charge that the SA was a terrorist organization. Affidavit Number 15, deposed by General Von H6rauf, shows that it was Reich Minister Severing who approved the SA service regulations. Affidavits Numbers 19, 20, 21, 22 ...
THE PRESIDENT: Well now, Dr. Bohm, I don't know whether you were in Court yesterday, but I pointed out to the counsel who was dealing with the matter then that it is utterly useless to simply read over to us the summary which we have before us. Now, you have just referred us to Affidavit Number 15 and the summary before us is this: "Franz von HE)rauf. 24.6.46. Former Reich Minister Severing's failure to object to the SA service regulations." That is to say, practically the identical words which you have just repeated to us. Now, what is the good of that?
HERR BOHM: Mr. President, I do not know the summary you have before you, I have not read it, and I have not received a translation of it. So I don't know what is contained and what is not contained in your summary.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you haven't got this summary?
HERR BOHM: I received a book and I repeatedly asked that I should also receive a translation of it, because since my assistants are fully occupied I myself cannot have it translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you were here yesterday, you must have heard me say over and over again to counsel who was presenting the documents that we had before us a summary and that it was useless for him to repeat the summary to us. Now, what would be useful would be, as I have already pointed out, if you would group these affidavits and tell us what topics they relate to, and also tell us which of them have been translated, and if there are any to which you particularly desire to draw our attention, which have been translated, then draw our attention to the passages in those which you wish to draw our attention to.
HERR BOHM: The last group which I compiled is to prove that the SA was a protective organization against terror, and in this connection I mentioned Affidavits Numbers 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.
22 Aug. 46
The fact that excesses in Berlin were restricted to a small circle of persons is proved by Affidavit Number 84.
THE PRESIDENT: Have any which you have just given us, which show that the SA was not a terrorist organization, been translated?
HERR BOHM: The translations of my affidavits have not yet been returned to me, Mr. President, and I am not in a position to check which have been translated and which have not been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: But surely you must know which you have asked to be translated?
HERR BOHM: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Somebody must have asked it.
HERR BOHM: But I don't know whether they have actually been translated, as I did not receive any copies.
THE PRESIDENT: You can tell us which ones you wanted to have translated, couldn't you, which were being translated.
HERR BOHM: I applied to have 21 affidavits translated; they are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 76, 79, 82 and 89.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now go on with your group, if you will. The last one you gave us was 84, which you said showed that the excesses were only very exceptional.
HERR BOHM: On the same topic, I should like to submit Affidavit Number 87, showing the many measures taken against excesses in the West. Affidavits Numbers 84 and 57 show that the attitude of the SA toward the Jews was not hostile, as the Prosecution asserts, and Affidavits Numbers 54 and 53 show the same. Affidavits 85 and 86 deal with Document 1721 which has already been discussed here, and prove a specific case, namely, that the Gruppenfuehrer of the Brigade "Kurpfalz-Mannheim',' did not order the destruction of the synagogues. In the same connection, I should like to mention Affidavit Number 89, and finally Affidavit Number 76, which shows that after 9 November 1938, Lutze prohibited the use of the SA for purposes of the Political Leaders, insofar as he ordered that in the future the higher authorities had to approve the use of the SA at any time.
Affidavits 71 and 72 deal with the attitude of Chief of Staff Lutze himself. Affidavit Number 70 shows how people who participated in the incidents during the night from 9th to 10th November 1938 were punished. How the SA took measures of its own accord against those who had participated in the events of that night in November 1938, may be seen from Affidavit Number 4. The basic
22 Aug. 46
attitude of the SA toward the Church is described in Affidavits 43, 44, and 45. The activity of physicians in the SA is evident from Affidavits Numbers 62 and 63. The facts regarding, the connection of the SA with concentration camps are contained in Affidavit Number 16, deposed by Leonhard Gontermann.
Finally, to conclude this group of affidavits, I should like to submit Affidavit Number 62, deposed by Priese who is a member of the KPD and an official in the Bavarian Ministry for Political Liberation. As a political opponent who was able to obtain an over-all picture, he states that the SA cannot be called a criminal organization in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter.
THE PRESIDENT: Which number was that?
HERR BOHM: That was -Number 62, no, I beg your pardon, there seems to be a typing error-82.
Mr. President, I come now to the collective affidavits. They are summarized on about 21 pages, but I need not discuss them now, if I could have this document translated. The document is of importance because it is a summary of more than 17,000 statements, which would in my opinion ...
THE PRESIDENT: 17,000 what?
HERR BOHM: 17,000 affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
HERR BOHM: I have summarized the whole contents of these affidavits in 21 pages and I believe that it might be of value to have the document translated. It would then not be necessary to deal with the summary now.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Bohm, it may be translated, but it should not be translated till after your speech has been translated.
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,
22 AU9. 46
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. .
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?
22 Aug. 46
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.
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
22 Aug. 46
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.,
22 Aug. 46
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,
22 Aug. 46
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
22 Aug. 46
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.
22 Aug. 46
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
22 Aug. 46
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."
22 AU9. 46
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. 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
22 Aug 46
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?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: 91. 1 had forgotten that they had been given. And the second one is the affidavit of Dr. Schuhmacher, D-947, which will be handed up to the Tribunal, SA-92. I think the second half of Paragraph 1 is probably the paragraph to which Dr. Bohm referred: "That voluntary membership remained customary extensively after 1934..."-well, he is dealing now with the SA and the SS--In a great number of cases membership resulted also from direct or indirect pressure or was the result of personal wrong speculations." And then he says that that is so particularly in the case of the Stahlhelm, and that the Stahlhelm consisted of a number of persons who were not-National Socialists.
My Lord, I would draw the Tribunal's attention particularly to the last paragraph, Number 4, of that affidavit, which deals with Blockleiter and Zellenleiter. They "were the foundation for the whole system of terrorism, including the activity of the Gestapo."
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, this, document which is being introduced is directed against the Political Leaders, and I object to its use, but for a reason different from the one which has so far been mentioned. I have received a number of copies of these affidavits, and they are the outcome of a general inquiry which has been made. Only some of the answers to this inquiry are contained in the document, and it is my contention that if the result of such an inquiry is utilized at all, then all answers available should be submitted. I think that if, say, one hundred questionnaires were sent out, then there must be material for the defense of the Political Leaders in those answers which the Prosecution has not submitted. I request, therefore, that if the document is admitted, all the results of the inquiry be submitted. We can then obtain a true picture, which might be more useful to me than the testimony of the members of my organization, because the people who have deposed those important affidavits are opponents of National Socialism, and because I must assume that favorable arguments, which might be very valuable as part of a general picture, are contained in those affidavits which have not been submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Griffith-Jones, the Tribunal doesn't think it is right at this stage of the Trial to allow this document
22 Aug. 46
to be put in against the Political Leaders, and therefore the document will have to be excluded altogether.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, if that is so, then that, of course, will apply to the other eight or nine affidavits that the Prosecution has got. These affidavits were obtained to rebut the vast mass of material which has been put in in the form of affidavits by all those organizations. In actual fact, I can state that there were no other affidavits other than the ones that I am proposing to put before the Tribunal, and these two which we were not intending to put because, as I say, they were not in the form of an affidavit; but there are no other affidavits that we have obtained and they, all of them, or most of them, deal with one or more or all the organizations. They are put in simply in rebuttal of the mass of material which has been presented to the Court on behalf of the defense of those organizations. And, if I might say so...
THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better offer those so we may see them. We have seen this one, and we know, of course, from what you have told us that it is one which the Prosecution had before and did not propose to offer, but the others may be different.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, they are all in very much the same form, and of course, Defense Counsel have had copies of them now for nearly a fortnight.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you had better offer them to us and we can look at them.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And without referring the Tribunal to any particular passage?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think you had better offer them and refer to the passages, and we will see whether we will admit them.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: If Your Lordship pleases.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I add one remark? These affidavits all originate from persons who are today holding high government offices. They are probably the most important of all the affidavits which have so far been submitted, and I shall now have no opportunity to investigate ho-%v they may be refuted in detail. I should like to be in a position to do so, but that, of course, is no longer possible at this stage. Moreover, I did not even know whether these affidavits would be introduced or not, and I have now completed my evidence and am ready with my final speech.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, might I say this? Sir David, of course, asked the Tribunal's permission to put these in some days ago, the Tribunal will remember. Ever since then Defense Counsel have had an opportunity of investigating and seeing these documents and Dr. Servatius says that he has no-he had no
22 AU9. 46
opportunity to investigate, whatever he means by that, these documents. The Prosecution has had no kind of opportunity to investigate the 300,000 affidavits that have been put in on behalf of the Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that they had better look at them and see.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I draw your attention to a point of formality? I have not got the documents at the moment, but as far as I was able to see, they were deposed after 7 May, which was the key-date, and they do not comply with the formalities. They should have been certified before an officer, but some of them were only certified before a- notary; so that according to the rules of the Tribunal which have been in force up to now, they would have to be rejected. I myself have not ' been able to introduce any statements which were not certified or sworn to before an officer.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: At least half of them were performed before Mr. Marreco, counsel, whom you know. Others, from the north of Germany, were-there I agree-some of them performed before local notaries. My Lord, some were performed before Mr. Marreco, of course, who is an Allied officer, and others appear to be sworn before notaries. And as I say, the two that Dr. B61im had hoped to put in were not signed before anyone.
THE PRESIDEN~: I think we should see the documents before we consider the objection.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Might I hand up first D-929, which becomes GB-620. My Lord, it is an affidavit by Dr. Anton Pfeiffer, Bavarian Minister of State, in, the State Ministry for Special Tasks.
THE PRESIDENT: When was he Minister?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: He is now-he says that: '~At the time of the seizure of power, in the year 1933, 1 was Secretary General of the Bavarian People's Party."
DR.BOHM: Mr. President, it was precisely in order to prevent the type of proceedings which are developing now, that during the hearing of the witness Aittner I...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bohm, the type of proceedings which are now going on are the type of proceedings which the Tribunal has just ordered. The Tribunal wishes to ~ee the documents in order to decide upon them. Go on, Colonel Griffith-Jones.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, in that affidavit he says that pressure was brought to bear on certain officials to make them join the Party, that is, civil servants. And then he goes on in the latter half to say how he and other people heard of and knew
22 AU.-. 46
about the atrocities that happened in the East and the annihilation of the Jews. He says in the center paragraph, "I am not aware that officials who were Party members were threatened with dismissal from the service if they refused to accept a political Party job, like Blockleiter or Zellenleiter." At any rate, he says: "I never heard of such a case." My Lord, I don't think it is necessary for me to read any other passages of that affidavit, Number D-929.
My Lord, the next affidavit to which I shall refer is D-949, which becomes GB-621, from the Lord Mayor of Brunswick. He describes himself, he gives his own personal data. He then goes on to describe the activities of the SA from 1921 to 1923, in the first paragraph of Number 1; that is, he then goes on to describe their activities in 1933, how he himself was removed from his office by the SA. On the next page, he describes how he was led out of the town hall and put into prison, by this SA again. In the next paragraph he states that membership in the SA was absolutely voluntary until 1937. "While until 1933 one could assume that many SA members acted in good faith, believing that the SA had a just task for combating Communism, after the events of March 1933 there was, in my opinion, no longer any doubt that the SA acted contrary to law by their participation in the seizure of power by Hitler." Then he goes on to say how they distinguished themselves later in illegal manner.
He deals then with the SS. He says that they were voluntary except for those SS that were compelled to join during the course of the war, or drafted to the SS during the course of the war.
He then goes on in the last paragraph of that page to describe his own illegal arrest by the SA-SS and the appalling torture to which he was subjected by members of that organization. He says, some 12 lines down that next page: "Before I was ill-treated, I pointed out that I was a war cripple, to which Sturmfuehrer Meyer replied that in that case the arm would be spared." And he was then beaten with hippopotamus-hide whips until he was unconscious; when he was knocked out, he was revived with cold water and beaten to unconsciousness again.
The second small paragraph on Page 3: "The organization and the ideology of the SS were aimed -so exactly and so pitilessly at eliminating political opponents and so-called racially inferior persons that everyone who joined it was bound to realize its criminal nature."
My Lord, I pass on to the next one that I offer to the Tribunal, D-938, which becomes GB-622. That is an affidavit from Dr. Viktor Fenyes, President of the Central Committee of Former Political Prisoners of the Province of Hanover. It first of all deals with the Leadership Corps, in particular the Block- and Zellenleiter.
22 Aug. 46
THE PRESIDENT: Would you tell us, as you introduce each one of these, how they were taken and before whom?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I am very much obliged, of course. That one was taken-if the Tribunal would look at the next page of it, it was taken on oath before a notary in Hanover. The previous one-My Lord, the previous one states that it was taken on oath, but I am afraid it is not witnessed.
My Lord, dealing with D-938, as I said, he deals with the Block and Zellenleiter and he states there was definite pressure brought on people to join the Party, pressure by way of threats; that they assisted in the persecution of the Jews and that the Block- and Zellenleiter participated, almost without exception, in the setting on fire of the synagogues in 1938. It then deals with the SA, "membership, was voluntary." In the last three lines he states that former members of the SA protest to-day they entered the organization under pressure. This is not true, for actually not everyone was admitted into the SA. My Lord, he then goes on to deal with the SS; I think it is only cumulative to read any of it again.
My Lord, the next document was one which was signed before Mr. Marreco, D-931, which becomes GB-623. He is the Secretary General of the Bavarian Peasants' Union in Munich, Dr. Schl6gl, who was a delegate of the Bavarian Diet at the time of the seizure of power by the Nazis.
Dr. Alois Schl6gl, My Lord, was the victim of an assault. And the decision of the Court against the SA men who perpetrated that assault is already before the Tribunal. It was D-936, GB-616, and the Tribunal will remember that, because the decision stated that the deeds and intentions of the SA men were only aimed at the well-being of the National Socialist movement. Political reason and the purity of the intentions was thus beyond doubt. Dr. Schl6gl in his affidavit described the ill-treatment he received. And then he says in the third paragraph, "Following my complaint, the perpetrators were not punished but pardoned, the ringleader Bernhard was promoted as a reward and, as I have been told now, rose to the Tank of Brigadefuehrer."
He goes on to say that in his opinion the criminal nature of the SS and SA were common knowledge and that everybody who joined them must have known to what use they were to be put by the Party. And then he-in the last paragraph he ...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps you could just hand them up and not read them into the record, because the Tribunal reserves the right to reject them.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Yes, My Lord. I submit D-934, which is an affidavit-D-934 becomes GB-624, which is an affidavit
22 Aug. 46
sworn before Mr. Marreco, an affidavit by Albert Rosshaupter, Bavarian Minister of Labor in Munich.
D-932, which becomes GB-625, is an affidavit also sworn before Mr. Marreco.
D-933, which becomes GB-626, by a Joseph Ackermann, a director, of Munich, also sworn before Mr. Marreco.
And Affidavit D-950, which becomes GB-627, of a Mr. Adolf Fahlbusch, which was sworn before a notary in Hanover.
Perhaps I ought to say of all the affidavits which were not taken by Mr. Marreco, they were taken by the Legal Division of the Control Commission for Germany, or were taken under their auspices. This Legal Division of the Control Commission for Germany were asked to obtain these affidavits and that is how it comes about that they were perhaps not sworn in accordance with the regulations laid down by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I have one further affidavit of a somewhat different nature, which shows the credit of, or the value the Tribunal should place on, the affidavits which have been submitted by the Defense. It is an affidavit of an SS man who was in one of the internment camps in the British zone when the questionnaire was filled out at the camp, the questionnaire which I understand the Tribunal allowed the Defense Counsel to submit in these camps. My Lord, I have this affidavit, which I shall hand up to the Tribunal; it is D-973 and becomes GB-628, an affidavit by Mr. Kurt Ehrhardt.
My Lord, he was an SS man who joined the SS in 1933; he never took any part in their activities and was dismissed from the SS in 1937 because he had a Jewish partner and a Jewish brother-in-law. He was ...
THE PRESIDENT: I can get all this from the affidavit, I suppose.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, that affidavit does not show on the copy that it was signed on oath and before whom. My Lord, the original shows that it was sworn before Major Hill of the British Delegation. My Lord, that ...
THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell me when it was that Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe offered to introduce these affidavits, or intimated he was proposing to do so?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I shall check it during the adjournment; I would have thought it was the Friday before last, because it was before-My Lord, it was certainly before-I cross-examined the SA witnesses. As Your Lordship may remember, I offered as the alternatives either to put the affidavits to the
22 Aug. 46
SA witnesses or to put them in with the-after the documents of the Defense Counsel were presented.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I wanted to know. That will be in the transcript, I suppose, that you said-if you could let us know.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, I understand it was accepted that Your Lordship asked if there were any objections and I said that I would give copies at once. And, My Lord, there was no objection from those over there. That is my neglect and I will find the place for Your Lordship.
. HERR BOHM: Mr. President, I recall this matter very clearly. I brought up the subject of these affidavits during the examination of the witness Juttner, and in view of my objection the Tribunal stated at the time that, if these affidavits were to be presented, they had to be presented then. My objection was that I would no longer be in a position to refute the affidavits once my last witness had been heard, because I would then have no other means of introducing new evidence. I took the decision of the Tribunal to mean that the Tribunal agreed with me that affidavits should not be submitted by the Prosecution once I was no longer able to reply to them as part of my own evidence, and that these affidavits should be submitted while the evidence was being taken, or before that.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bohm, we will refer to the transcript to see exactly what happened.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, they had already been mentioned before the incident arose. That was an incident that arose with regard to Dr. H6gner's affidavit during the evidence of Juttner. All the affidavits were mentioned at an earlier date which I'll discover for Your Lordship during the adjournment.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then the Tribunal will adjourn now and will sit again at 2:30.
[A recess was taken until 1430 hours.]
22 AU9. 46
. Afternoon Session
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the first group of documents which were objected to by the Soviet Prosecutor, the Tribunal thinks that, as those documents had been included in the Document Book for the SA after the agreement and the Affidavit 82 had been allowed by the Commission, in spite of the fact that those documents relate to a remote period, they ought to be allowed. They are, therefore, admitted. They are Documents 285, 286, 287, 132, and 82.
With reference to the 11 affidavits-perhaps I should say to the 10 affidavits which the British Prosecution offered in evidence, the Tribunal has reconsidered the shorthand note which shows what Sir, David Maxwell-Fyfe said on the 9th of August and what was said on the 14th of August and on the 15th of August, and although there was at that time no doubt a suggestion that these documents might be put in, the Tribunal considers that the question still has to be considered whether the documents ought to be admitted as rebuttal. In view of the nature of the documents, the Tribunal thinks that the documents are not proper evidence in rebuttal on the whole, and that therefore they ought to be excluded. That includes all the affidavits with the exception of the affidavit of Kurt Ehrhardt, 'which stands in a different position. In view of the nature of the evidence contained in that affidavit, it will be admitted.
That is all.
HERR BOHM: Mr. President, I should like to ask you to hear me a moment longer. In my presentation of documents, I avoided quoting from my document books. As, however, this morning the Prosecution put Document SA-156, which is a directive of the SA University Department in Munich, in juxtaposition to the same directive as given out by the SA Hochschulamt in Cologne, I should like to point out that in Figure 3 of both of these directives the same decree of 7 February 1934 is mentioned and that when these two documents are put in juxtaposition, 'it says in each case, "For all members of the German student body service in the SA has been made obligatory." In order to make it understandable that the Prosecution believed they had found a contradiction, I should like to read the last sentence under Figure 3 of the directives issued by the SA University Department in Cologne.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the true interpretation. We quite understand that on the one hand you are contending that the service in the SA was compulsory and the Prosecution are contending the opposite, and they are putting in
22 Aug. 46
this other document which they say supports their view. It isn't necessary to have an argument about it at this stage.
HERR BOHM: I merely wished to add four more words, four words to the last sentence of Figure 3, ". . or not to study."
Then the Russian Prosecutor stated today that Document 91 ...
THE PRESIDENT: Are you saying that there is some misprint in the document or what?
HERR BOHM: No, Mr. President, I wanted to ...
THE PRESIDENT: Then you are simply arguing on the interpretation Of the words and I have told you that the Tribunal will consider the interpretation and decide the interpretation for itself.
HERR BOHM: Very well, Mr. President; but may I put in the next document, which the Prosecution asserts I submitted only because of the last paragraph. That is not correct. The next document, General SA-91, was not submitted by me because of the last paragraph, but rather because of the first paragraph. That refers to the attitude of the Attorney General with the District Court of Appeal in Brunswick.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. We understand that you rely on the first paragraph and not on the last paragraph.
HERR BOHM: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you very much.
HERR PELCKMANN: Your Lordship, may it please the Tribunal. Yesterday, on behalf of the SS which I represent, I submitted a summarization of 136,213 affidavits. I ask you not to confuse this summarization with some statistics, which I said at the conclusion of yesterday's session I would submit without comment. Everything that I said yesterday about the testimony and points of view of SS men refers only to the 136,000 affidavits which contain a complete text and which are independent affidavits. The statistics which I mentioned toward the end of yesterday's session are based on a questionnaire, and are not to be confused with those 136,000 affidavits which I used. This questionnaire, however, was not asked by me. I did not attach any value to this questionnaire and the replies made in answer to it, and I merely handed it in-merely handed in these statistics-in order to get rid of all the -material which I had received. I did not ask for this questionnaire, and I was not the attorney or defense counsel for the SS mentioned by Herr Kurt Ehrhardt in his affidavit. It is well known to the High Tribunal that the defense has changed counsel in the meantime.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we quite understand that it was not asked for by you. We accept that.
22 AU9. 46
HERR PELCKMANN: Still, I should Eke to clarify matters by stating that the assertion made by Herr Ehrhardt does not refer to the 136,000 affidavits, but rather to the answers to a questionnaire. I should expressly like to withdraw as evidence the statistics which I announced yesterday in a couple of words, and which the General Secretary now has. I do not attach any value to these statistics.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, you are 'going to make a speech, aren't you, in a few days time. Isn't this a matter with which you will deal then? You will have the opportunity of criticizing Ehrhardt's affidavit. This isn't the time to do it.
HERR- PELCKMANN: Mr. President, I believe it is my duty to state my views concerning an affidavit which has been submitted by the Prosecution even though the presentation of evidence has been concluded. I will do more ...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Pelckmann, I just told you that it is not your duty and you will be able to deal with it when you make your speech and therefore the Tribunal doesn't desire to hear any more about it.
HERR PELCKMANN: In order to reply to this affidavit by Herr Ehrhardt, although I attach no value to the statistics, I request you to summon two, witnesses from this camp, for naturally I cannot..
THE PRESIDENT: If you want to make an application, you must make it in writing. Now, Dr. Servatius.
CHIEF COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE COLONEL L. N. SMIRNOV (Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): Mr. President, I ask to make two short applications on behalf of the Soviet Prosecution. The first one is concerned with the excluding from the record of the morning and afternoon sessions of 23 April 1946 of the discussion which ...
THE PRESIDENT: Don't go too fast, April what?
COL. SMIRNOV: 23 April, Mr. President; the morning and afternoon sessions of 23 April. The discussion which arose about the official appendix to the report of the Government of the Polish Republic. I mean the directive from the Department of Propaganda in Poland. The witness Biffiler declared here that he doubted the authenticity of this document and referred to certain expressions which seemed to him not quite German, but alien to the German language. Upon investigation of this episode, it appears that the witness had not seen the German original but a translation from. German into Polish and then from Polish into English and then from English back into German which, of course, caused a certain confusion in terminology. As far as I was informed,
22 Aug. 46
Dr. Seidl, counsel for the Defendant Frank, became familiar with this document and has not objected to excluding this part from the minutes inasmuch as it was caused by the defects of translation. All these documents have, therefore, been submitted -to the Secretariat of the Tribunal. That is the first application which I would like to submit to the tribunal. The second one is ...
THE PRESIDENT: I am not certain, but I thought we had already dealt with that point, in view of Dr. Seidl's withdrawing his objection to that document, and perhaps you can find out afterward whether we have already dealt with it. There was certainly a document presented to us from Dr. Seidl in which he said that, having checked up on the particular document with which he was dealing, he was now convinced that it was all right.
COL. SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. As far as I know, Dr. Seidl does not object to excluding this part from the record because the confusion was caused by a faulty translation.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that your application is to strike out Biffiler's evidence?
COL. SMIRNOV: On the part concerning this document.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider your application, Colonel Smirnov.
COL. SMIRNOV: The second application consists of the following., In the report of the Polish Government submitted to the Tribunal, in many cases only incomplete figures are stated for the losses suffered by Poland as a result of the war. This was caused by the fact that at the time when the report was made, these losses had not been calculated yet, and I would like to ask the Tribunal to admit an official memorandum of the Presidency of Polish Ministers, War Reparations Branch, which contains the complete figures of the losses suffered by Poland during the second World War. The text of this document has been translated into all four languages; that is to say, into English, Russian, French, and German. That is my second application to the Tribunal. I have no more applications to make, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you suggesting that this is evidence in rebuttal?
COL. SMIRNOV: No, Mr. President, it was caused by the inexact translation. This is a document supplementing the governmental report of the Polish Republic with the exact figures of the losses suffered by Poland during the war. It contains data on the military losses of Poland during the second World War, on the losses in manpower and in property. It is a supplementary document and not one in rebuttal.
22 Aug. 46
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, the document is dated 29 January 1946, and now you wish to offer this document in evidence at the end of August 1946, at the very end of this Trial.
COL. SMIRNOV: Mr. President, this document was given to the Soviet Delegation only recently, quite recently. Obviously some time was needed for the translation of this document into four languages. Anyhow we received it only very recently.
THE PRESIDENT: I wasn't suggesting that you were in any way to blame, Colonel Smirnov. The Tribunal thinks that this document can't be put in at this late stage; the document appears to have been made a long time ago and though it may have been received by you recently, it isn't proper that it should be admitted at this stage.
COL. SMIRNOV: I submitted this document, Mr. President, exclusively for one reason; I considered that the data contained in this document lend substantial significance to the picture of the general losses suffered by the Polish Republic. I think that the data could only be completed by submitting this document and that was the reason why I submitted this application to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That may very well be, Colonel Smirnov, but the reason why the Tribunal rejects it is because it is submitted at such a late stage when it is impossible for the Tribunal to go into the facts which are alleged in it or to give the defendants the opportunity of contradicting it. We will consider the other matters you have drawn our attention to.
DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): Mr. President, since Dr. Servatius, my colleague, has just been called upon to deliver his final plea, I believe I may assume that the presentation of evidence against the Organizations is now to be considered as concluded. Now, I should like to ask the High Tribunal when the right time would be to settle the applications for evidence which still have to be attended to. This concerns the individual defendants who have made applications for evidence or have submitted affidavits in the course of the proceedings against the Organizations. Can that be done right now, or when should it be done?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal understands that you have got some evidence which you have already applied for, which you want to offer. You have it all ready, is that right?
DR. NELTE: Yes, indeed, I have already handed it in and submitted it to the Prosecution and I informed the High Tribunal about this in writing on 9 August. It is a question of just when I should ... it is a question of how I can introduce three affidavits here.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the evidence now?
22 Aug 46
DR. NELTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Nelte, we think that you might offer these affidavits now unless they are objected to by the Prosecution.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no objection as far as I know. There is certainly none from Mr. Dodd and myself. I haven't heard from any of my colleagues, but I haven't heard of any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: You may offer them now. With reference to the other defendants, they will...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I beg your pardon, there is no objection from either one.
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the other defendants, counsel will understand that if they have any fresh evidence arising out of the evidence submitted on behalf of the Organizations, they will have to offer it during the course of the speeches for the Organizations or immediately at the end of the speeches for the Organizations; and that after that has been done, no further evidence can be offered.
We will take the offering of your evidence now.
DR. NELTE: These affidavits, however, have not yet been translated, since I could not apply for the translation until I had the approval of the Prosecution. May I submit ...
THE PRESIDENT: You are suggesting that we postpone hearing the affidavits until we get the translations?
DR. NELTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I still have two interrogatories to pass in. Two interrogatories which were duly approved by the High Tribunal, and which in the meantime have been returned, and which I have already submitted in the prescribed way. One is Interrogatory Number 137, Baldur von Schirach, Document Von Schirach 137, an interrogatory by a certain Gunther Kaufmann, who used to work on the staff of the Defendant Von Schirach in the Hitler Youth Leadership. This interrogatory deals chiefly with Schirach's attitude on the question of war, his attitude to foreign policy, his attitude on the treatment of Eastern peoples, and his attitude on the Jewish question, and finally, on propaganda abroad. This interrogatory is being given Number 137 in the Document Book Von Schirach.
The next interrogatory will receive Von Schirach Number 138. It is a Russian interrogatory deposed by a witness, Ida Vasseau, I repeat, Ida Vasseau, who, in the meantime, has been interrogated once more. In this interrogatory I consider only two sentences on Pages 4 and 5 of any value, which I have marked in red in the
22 Aug. -56
margin. This interrogatory, as I said, is being given Von Schirach Number 138.
And finally, may I give you the number for another piece of evidence. On 11 July 1946 1 submitted to the High Tribunal the original copy of a newspaper, the Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung of 6 July 1946, together with a supplementary document, for the purpose of proving that the witness Lauterbacher, who was heard before the Court in the case of Schirach, has in the meantime been acquitted by a British Superior Court in the well-known matter where a certain Kremer had accused Gauleiter Lauterbacher of ordering the murder of the inmates of the Hamelin penitentiary. An original copy of this newspaper article was already submitted to you on 11 July 1946., It is being given Schirach Exhibit Number 139.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, that matter has been raised so many times by Dr. Sauter; I think we should make the record clear. The time that I used that paper that was in our hands for the purpose of cross-examining the witness Lauterbacher, the Tribunal ruled that the matter should not be submitted or would not be accepted in evidence, and so it never has become evidence before this Tribunal. I pressed for it at the time, I am frank to say, but the Tribunal very briefly, as the later events revealed, refused to have it submitted in evidence. If Dr. Sauter takes pleasure in talking about it once in a while, I have no objection to it, but it doesn't help this Court very much, and it doesn't seem to do very much good to constantly bring it up.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the newspaper article which I submitted on 11 July bears the date of 6 July 1946, the sixth day of the seventh month of the year, and thus dates from a time after the witness Lauterbacher was interrogated. Therefore, it obviously could not have been taken into consideration during Lauterbacher's interrogation; however, it might be of importance for judging the character of the witness Lauterbacher. For the High Tribunal will perhaps remember that it was precisely Mr. Dodd who at that time confronted Lauterbacher with this business of the Hamelin penitentiary. Lauterbacher contested this under oath, whereas a witness named Kremer asserted everything in an affidavit. In the meantime this witness Kremer has been convicted, but the witness Lauterbacher has been acquitted, and I believe that this fact would appear to be of importance to the High Tribunal in judging the credibility, the reliability, of the witness Lauterbacher.
MR. DODD: I will withdraw my objection. If Dr. Sauter wants to prove that he wasn't a hangman, I have no objection to it. I don't suppose it is very important. I won't object to it if he wants to put it in that he wasn't poisoning some people and hanged nobody. Von Schirach rejected the document. Now, Dr. Sauter
22 Aug. 46
wants to prove that he wasn't anyway. I don't suppose we should object to it.
THE PRESIDENT: He just wants to show that Lauterbacher was freed by some ...
MR. DODD: He was freed of the charge I raised against him here. Dr. Sauter is not content with that; he wants to prove it over again. He wants to prove that he wasn't a hangman and not a poisoner. We don't object to that.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, of course, I do not wish to prove that Mr. Lauterbacher is not a hangman, for up to now even the Prosecution has not been seriously able to maintain that. I merely want to prove that the witness whom the Prosecution brought forward with an affidavit-namely, this Dr. Kremer-is not a trustworthy witness and that he did not tell the truth. And that in the meantime has been legally established by the judgment of a British court. That might be of importance in the question of the credibility of the witness Dr. Kremer in his affidavit, on the one hand, and that of the witness Lauterbacher who appeared here, on the other.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the document you are wanting to put in? A newspaper article?
DR. SAUTER: The -name of the newspaper-I have submitted it to you-is the Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung, R-h-e-i-n N-e-c-k-a-r Z-e-it-u-n-g, of 6 July 1946, and I submitted it to the Tribunal with the proper form on 11 July 1946.
Mr. President, I think that will be all I should like to say regarding requests for evidence. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider it. Now, Dr. Servatius.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the English translations were to have been completed this morning, and it is quite possible that they are ready now. But I am not certain on that point. Therefore only the German text is available. I gave a 'copy to the interpreters.
Mr. President: May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution has moved to have the Corps of Political Leaders declared as criminal. What is the charge against the persons grouped together under this name?
Topics of investigations were: the persecution of the Jews, the conflict with the Church, and the dissolution of the trade unions; the incitement to lynch flyers who made emergency landings; the maltreatment of foreigners; the arrest of political opponents, and methods of surveillance and police spying-
In relation to this, the fundamental legal point involved in the accusation raised by the Prosecution has to be expounded. The accusation is to the effect that the Corps of Political Leaders collectively
22 Aug. 46
committed the deeds mentioned for the purpose of unleashing a war of aggression, or that they had banded together in order to commit the above-mentioned war crimes.
It must be made clear at the outset that deeds which do not result from these motives, or which as individual actions do not belong to the Common Plan of the Conspiracy, are not included in this accusation. The major crimes, such as the extermination of the Jews and the killing of political opponents in concentration camps, are not crimes against humanity within the meaning of the Charter, and the minor measures of police spying or election frauds are in them selves insignificant in this ' Trial, provided that they were not carried out with the aim of being crimes against international law, crimes against peace, and war crimes as set down in Article 6 of the Charter.
I have already referred to this legal position without meeting with any contradiction. In order to support this opinion, I should like to refer to the Supplementary Berlin Agreement to the Charter of 6 October 1945. This concerns an agreement of the four Signatory Powers to the Charter, the sole point of the agreement being the changing of a semicolon to a comma. Through this agreement, we have the correction of the text of Article 6 c, which had been ,separated into two parts by the semicolon in the English and French texts. The result had been that crimes against humanity could have been prosecuted without being connected with crimes against peace or war crimes, which are under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
This possibility of interference with the internal matters of a state without any connection with a war does not now apply, after Article 6 c has been drawn up in accordance with the Russian text. Any interference for humanitarian reasons alone is, therefore, denied the Tribunal.
In all of their basic statements, the Prosecution have continually tried to establish the connection of all their charges with crimes against peace and war crimes by proving a conspiracy. Who is included in the Indictment brought against the Corps of Political Leaders?
According to the Charter, it is for the Prosecution to determine that circle of individuals which is to be declared criminal as an organization or as a group. Here the Indictment is directed against the Corps of Political Leaders, according to 1~ational Socialist terminology.
Despite the designation which refers to an organization, such an organization did not exist. The designation "Political Organization," which had been chosen for the same group of persons, was even expressly prohibited by a decree of the Fuehrer's Deputy in the Party, Hess~, on 27 July 1935 (Document PL-12). The reason given
22 Aug. 46
for this was that there could not exist any special organization within the Party. Actually, this group of persons consisted only of functionaries such as exist within every party as executive and administrative agents.,
But there is no doubt that there are a great number of people who, because of their titles, must be defined as Political Leaders. It is not a group which banded together, for one could not enter the circle of Political Leaders merely by joining, but only through an appointment which took place, without any effort on the part of the person concerned, by an act of sovereignty. The legal position is comparable to that of any civil servant who enters the circle of his colleagues through his appointment.
How does this circle denote a special group? Besides being appointed, only by the right to wear a uniform, which was connected with it. In addition, there is the oath, but that did not represent, anything special, inasmuch as all civil servants and soldiers had to take this in the same way.
The duties and activities of the members of the Corps of Political Leaders, however, are completely varied according to their nature and importance. There were Political Leaders who worked in associations, such as the German Labor Front and the National Socialist Peoples' Welfare Association, and who wore uniforms during their practical administrative work only for decorative reasons. These are the members of the various affiliated associations who have deliberately not been included in the charges of the Prosecution.
Besides these, there are Political Leaders who directed the actual political machinery; these were the Hoheitstr5ger and the members of the Political Staffs, who are characterized by the Prosecution as "top leaders" or "main leaders".
From the reasons given by the Prosecution to support their Indictment it appears that by the Corps of Political Leaders they mean only the latter individuals who are enumerated from Reich Leaders to the Block Leaders. From the affiliated organizations, Political Leaders were included only insofar as they were active on the Political Staffs which grouped themselves around the Hoheitstr5ger.
This circle of persons can be comprised in a special definable group, insofar as a connection exists between them through the relationship of subordination, disciplinary power, and business routine. The number of persons so affected has been estimated by the Prosecution at about 600,000, according to the number of offices existing in the year 1939. As the document used as a basis for this shows (2958-PS), the posts in the staffs are not included. The figures show that, in addition to the Hoheitstr5ger, including the Cell and
22 Aug. 46
Block Leaders, there were some 475,000 such posts which were filled by Political Leaders. The number of Political Leaders on the Political Staffs for the year 1939 is thereby increased to about one million. As can be estimated from Party statistics, the figure is increased one and a half times because of the heavy turnover of personnel over 12 years, that is, to about two and a half million. In this connection, the fact is taken into account that in the beginning the number of posts was only half that number. If the members of the Ortsgruppenstelle are deducted a figure of about one and a half million remains. Not included in these figures are the office holders from the staffs who were not appointed Political Leaders, nor those who were ordered to serve on an honorary basis as Political Leaders during the war in subordinate positions; during the war the latter were primarily Cell and Block Leaders. According to the testimony given by witnesses, their number may be estimated at 600,000. If, as the Prosecution does, one includes these individuals in the circle of Political Leaders, then the entire figure of persons involved rises to 2,100,000. This figure is still further increased because there were also other office holders on the Political Staffs who were not appointed Political Leaders.
Because of the fact that the charge raised by the Prosecution is restricted to Political Leaders, a part of the persons on the- staffs are not included. They are the ones who were not appointed Political Leaders even though they held office. An extension of the charge to these persons cannot now take place subsequently without legal prejudice to those affected, since they were not given an opportunity to apply for a legal hearing in the first proclamation by the Tribunal.
Before dealing with the question as to whether this specific group is to be declared criminal, we must discuss the question of whether the charges are admissible under international law. According to Article 50 of the Hague Rules of Land Warfare, a collective punishment of the population is only admissible if all the population are considered jointly guilty for individual actions. This is an exceptional regulation which serves solely for the protection of the occupying power.
Thus a similar measure arising out of general political considerations is prohibited. You may not punish a group because the guilt for a war is imputed to its members, or because you held them responsible for moral resistance. You cannot arrest all "Political Commissars" or Jews, and condemn them because of their political attitude. This prohibition of the Hague Rules of Land Warfare is based on the individual principle of democratic criminal law, which has not lost its prestige.
Whether the charges of the Prosecution are legal or whether the Charter has invalidated Article 50 of the Hague Rules on Land
22 Aug. 46
Warfare, must be examined officially. If you consider the proceedings admissible, then we shall have to examine whether the group's complicity in guilt can be considered proved. How such proof is to be furnished neither the Hague Rules of Land Warfare nor the Charter indicates.
We can follow two principles: either that of justice or that of expediency. The principle of justice demands proof of individual guilt, and the condemnation of a group is to be rejected, "if there is only one just man among them." The principle of expediency admits the possibility of outvoting the innocent ones, and thus shows a preference to punish the innocent rather than to let the guilty ones go unprosecuted.
The Prosecution has stated repeatedly that the aim of the Indictment was to punish only the guilty ones and not to set a trap for the innocent, or catch them all in one net. These words are in accordance with the principle of justice, but the motion to characterize the group as criminal in itself rests on considerations of expediency. This apparent contradiction can be resolved only by requesting the Court's decision on a matter of procedure in order to meet an emergency. Accordingly, it is true that a number of innocent persons were included in the preliminary proceedings here before the Tribunal, but in subsequent proceedings they ate to "have the right to raise any objections," as Justice Jackson has stated.
In its decision of 13 March 1946 regarding the regulation of the procedure for taking evidence, the Tribunal expressed itself in a sense which makes a majority ruling appear possible; a clear basis for the decision itself, or its ultimate influence on the subsequent individual trials, was not created. The decision of the Tribunal in this regard must depend essentially on the results which its Verdi can be expected to have.
Therefore, Law Number 10 of the Control Council, of 20 December 1945, is of the utmost importance. From the text of this law it appears as if mere membership in an organization or a group which has been declared criminal will be punishable. If that were the case, the inclusion of innocent persons in the present proceedings would seriously impair the principle of guilt which forms the basis of modern criminal law.
Such an interpretation would not be compatible with the text of the Charter. There, indeed, Article 10 declares the objection that an organization was not criminal to be inadmissible, but one may still raise the objection that one did not know about its criminal character.
It follows also from Article 11 of the Charter that a conviction is contemplated only because of participation in the criminal activity. The informed press and the radio have also expressed themselves in the same vein.
22 Aug. 46
The question arises as to how the criminal character of the group is to be established, which is decisive for its conviction. The attitude of the Tribunal can be learned from its ruling of 13 March 1946. The essential factor is participation in the conspiracy. This presupposes the formation of the group for the commitment of a specific act which has been declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter. Such a formation, however, in the case of every conspirator is based, among other things, on concrete knowledge of the crime contemplated.
As proof of this knowledge the Prosecution alleges the notoriety of the crimes or the comprehensive information available to the Political Leaders. The persecution of the Jews and the conflict with the Church were publicly known as general tendencies. The criminal excesses proceeding from them were not known.
In this connection the following is also important: The thing that matters is not the general knowledge of the facts, but the general knowledge of the motives behind them. Unless We are concerned with, genuine war crimes, the motive for aggressive war must be known; the actions must have been recognizable as the first stage of a war of aggression. Only in this way could participation in the criminal conspiracy result.
The Prosecution concludes that these motives must have been self-evident to the persons affected from the doctrine of National Socialism. There, it is claimed, aims were stated Which of necessity had to lead to a war of aggression. In this way even building up the Party and recruiting members, as well as the seizure of power,
become criminal, proceeding from the motive of a war of aggression. It is claimed that an alliance existed for waging an aggressive war or for the commission of war crimes. Is this conclusion correct?
As manuals, the Political Leaders had the Party Program and the book Mein Kampf. The Party Program had been attacked vigorously by domestic opponents, but no official foreign agencies had objected to it. In 1925 the Interallied Rhineland Commission in Coblenz had approved the Party Program for the Rhineland, and later the League of Nations had done likewise for Danzig. The Party was permitted, including its philosophy as expressed in the book Mein Kampf. Besides, it was known that Hitler had declared that his book was out of date in many points.
It is true that the goals to which the Party aspired could lead to a war, and it is also true that a war which aims at something which infringes on the property of someone else, must include an attack on such property. But the slogans "Lebensraum" (Living Space) and "Los von Versailles" (Away with Versailles) just as little as the slogan "Workers of the world unite" is bound to result in aggressive war. A door always remains open to negotiation
22 Aug. 46
through an appeal to reason. Just as strikes, uprisings, and revolutions within a state can be justified for workers in their struggle for existence, so wars may come about in the life of nations. But the normal way is that of negotiation. Otherwise, any member of an opposition party could be prosecuted for high treason.
That an aggressive war was actually waged, which would obviously go beyond the technical concept of the opening of hostilities, has been contested with cogent arguments in the proceedings before the Tribunal by many of the major defendants. If Hitler demanded living space, the result of the war forces one to believe that other nations are taking it without condemning the principle which as a "law of life" is supposed to have been the cause of this war. The archives of the world remain closed.
For the Defense it is not so important to determine whether an aggressive war was waged, but rather to determine whether the Political Leaders knew about it and whether it became generally obvious to them.
The facts themselves speak eloquently against the general knowledge of aggressive intentions. To every Political Leader Hitler's offer to disarm down to the last machine gun must have been impressive, and also his repeated declaration that the misfortune of other peoples could not bring any advantages to his own people, but rather that the welfare of all should be the basis of international life. Equally impressive must have been the naval agreement with Great Britain, his declaration to France that he did not intend to make further territorial claims, the Munich Pact, and finally the Treaty of Friendship with the Soviet Union. The latter in particular caused a wave of rejoicing because it seemed to bring about peace with the, very adversary who had hitherto been designated as our worst enemy. Precisely this treaty proves at the same time how impossible it is to derive any directives for practical use from the book Mein Kampf.
Of primary importance for judging the rearmament of Germany as far as the Political Leaders are concerned is Hitler's repeated declaration that "Bundnisfuhigkeit" (the ability to conclude alliances) must be established by an equality of armaments. The extent of rearmament was not perceptible in relation to the strength of our opponents, and Hitler himself had declared it to be folly for a small nation to challenge the whole world.
However, the cornerstone of the conviction of all the Political Leaders that no war was being planned was the fact, emphasized again and again, that Hitler himself had served as a frontline soldier in the first World War; one could not, therefore, expect him to bring on the miseries of a new war.
22 Aug. 46
Thus at the 1936 Party Rally in Nuremberg, on the occasion of an appeal directed exclusively to the Political Leaders, Hitler literally stated:
"During these long years we had no other prayer than 'Lord, give our people domestic peace and grant and preserve for them peace with other nations'. In our generation we experienced so much of fighting that it is understandable if we long for peace....
"We wish to care for the future of our nation's children, and to work for the future, not only in order to safeguard their lives but also to make them easier. So much misfortune lies behind us that we have only one request to address to a merciful and benevolent Providence: 'Spare our children that which we had to suffer!' We desire nothing but peace and tranquillity for our work." (Document PL-41a.)
These words were directed to the very same men who as Political Leaders are today affected by the Indictment.
In contrast to thought of war there were strong foundations for a positive policy of peace. For all those who fought for Socialism and who believed in the realization of peace plans, the fact that Hitler himself had been a worker was of primary importance. The elimination of unemployment appeared as the greatest possible accomplishment of peace; a success which was convincing for everyone who regained employment. It was not Hitler's demoniacal magic which brought 7 million unemployed and the same number of partially employed people with their families to his ranks; what moved the masses was the fact that he gave them work and bread again.
It cannot be denied that the position of the worker was improved to something beyond a bare existence, and that his social standing was raised. At the beginning of the war a great social work was in the process of construction, namely, the universal old-age insurance system. To the Political Leaders this did not look like aggressive war.
There is still one more important reason why the occurrences and their motives were not generally known: it is the system of secrecy. The means of preserving secrecy are known to the Tribunal from the evidence they have heard. I would like to emphasize another point which helped in a particular way to preserve secrecy; it is the confidence which Hitler enjoyed.
This confidence was nourished from the huge reservoir of social success which he had gained by eliminating unemployment, which had brought human beings to the edge of despair. To this were added his successes in foreign policy, which had been recognized abroad. Everything was supported by the traditional authority of the State and by emphasizing that tradition; both are things which
22 Aug 46
have much influence on the people. To that was added a hitherto unknown frankness of speech in matters of foreign policy which the French Prosecutor has called naiveté Within Germany this frankness brought about the conviction that Hitler would not instigate anything secretly. That picture was completed for the millions of followers by the facade of respectability and dignity which was kept up by that very circle around Hitler from whom criticism and warnings were first to be expected. From all this one has to conclude that the Political Leaders could not have gained knowledge of any aggressive intentions.
The assumption by the Prosecution that special information had been given about these plans also seems untenable in the light of the evidence submitted during the Trial. The Prosecution's allegation presumably rests on their original assumption that it was a part of the normal business routine to inform all Hoheitstr5ger, whereas it has now been established that only a very small circle was initiated.
The situation is different with regard to the war crimes: here the deciding factor is not proof of the motives for known occurrences, but the knowledge of the facts themselves. It is certain that war crimes, because of their despicable motives, are kept secret as a matter of course. In the course. of testimony the Tribunal has learned of the ring of silence which was drawn around the worst atrocities. Other war crimes with which the defendants are charged are individual cases which did not become publicly known. We shall comment on these in connection with the individual points of the accusations.
A number of happenings have been adduced by the Prosecution which according to the Charter itself do not constitute crimes. Evidence has been given concerning the development of the Party, the seizure of power, and the maintenance of power. These are occurrences the general nature of which has not been denied. The creation of a dictatorial state and the prohibition of other parties is a measure of home policy which every state may take according to its judgment. To allege that these methods were created for a war of aggression and that they are therefore criminal is an unnatural construction of the facts. Proof for any such assumption is lacking.
The organization of the State along dictatorial lines may be necessary for the establishment of Socialism as well as for a war of aggression. Thus, the direction of the economy can serve good as well as evil.
The British Prosecutor has shown us another point of view. He has stated that intervention is possible in order to protect citizens against their own government; from this he concludes that
22 Aug. 46
even war can be waged out of humanitarian reasons. The Charter does not confer such a right of intervention, as has already been stated in the beginning. But even international law has hitherto never recognized any right of intervention upon moral grounds. Crusades are not permitted. If the so-called methods of the Party are commented upon here, it is because its abuses are connected with the crimes in the Charter.
Four documents have been submitted which are connected with Political Leaders and concern the influencing of elections. The most important one is Document D-43 from the year 1936. It concerns an inquiry by the Reich Minister of the Interior as to which civil servants did not fulfil their obligations to vote. The Ortsgruppenleiter are asked to comment upon this. This is a letter from the Kreisleiter's office in Bremen. Another Kreisleiter, the witness KUM, declared before the Commission that he did not receive any such inquiry. The general character of this inquiry is thus put in doubt.
One document, R-142, dating from the year 1938, is of purely local importance. It originates from the Coblenz SD Sector and mentions the statement of the Kreis Manager (Kreisgeschuftsfuehrer) about the reasons for the bad election results because of personal quarrels. Both documents deal with the results of the election after the vote.
Two further documents-D-897 and D-902-dating from the year 1938, are letters exchanged between the lowest offices of the SD in Erfurt about supervision of the election. Concerning this, the closest possible co-operation with the Ortsgruppenleiter is ordered.
As far as the proceedings against the Political Leaders are concerned it is shown that the order-issuing apparatus of the Party in no way intervened here. These are merely independent and isolated measures by other offices. No general practice or knowledge, therefore, can be deduced from that.
Another charge is that of police spying. The pretext for this is in a passage of the Organizations Book, Page 101 of the 1940 edition, according to which Blockleiters are to report persons spreading dangerous rumors. In connection with this the keeping of household card index files is mentioned, as practiced in the Cologne Gau and including detailed supervisory questions.
The question now is whether this was generally handled by the Political Leaders in this way, and whether-it was done in conformity with Party directives. The Party directives to the Political Leaders specify the exact opposite. See Decree Number 127 of 5 October 1936 in the orders of the Fuehrer's Deputy (Document Number PL-34).
22 Aug. 46
The witnesses examined in connection with this question have testified that these instructions were followed and that the card indexes known to them contained nothing resembling police spying. This confirms the fact that there existed no general order resembling the system in the Cologne Gau which was binding on all Gaue.
In this connection we refer particularly to the testimony of the witness Dr. Kuhn who, as Counsellor of the District Court of Appeal was the qualified adviser for the Subversive Activities Law (Heimtilekegesetz) in the Ministry of Justice.
The witness declared in his interrogation on 10 July 1946 that the proceedings instituted could mostly be traced back to statements by hostile neighbors or other informers and only very rarely originated with Political Leaders. The only concrete testimony about cases of police spying which the Prosecution has submitted is Document L-901, in which a Block Leader and janitor of a Parish Hall reports a secret meeting of the members of the Confessional Church in his building.
The charge of police spying is also coupled with that of causing persons to be placed in protective custody and sent to concentration camps. That political adversaries in a State should be declared enemies of the State and arrested seems to be a prescriptive right which politicians arrogate to themselves. It is based upon reciprocity and represents in this case a retaliation for the losses in the political struggle.
A connection with a war of aggression is not established. The charges of the Prosecution will, therefore, be directed against misuse of office through excesses and atrocities. It was not the 'Party which was competent in this sphere, but the State agencies. In accordance with orders by the Chief of the Security Police and SD of 10 March 1940, Document Number PL-100, arrests were solely the function of the Gestapo. Any interference on the part of Political Leaders was strictly forbidden (Number PL-29). In this manner secrecy was assured from the very beginning.
The real conditions in the concentration camps were concealed from the Political Leaders through the fact that orders were issued and carried out that even after their release political prisoners and their families should remain under thorough supervision. This is Document Number PL-100, which creates such astonishment when read today. When the witness Count von Roedern was interrogated before the Commission concerning knowledge about conditions in the concentration camps he said that in the beginning of 1943 the Landesgruppenleiter of the Auslandsorganisation of the Party had visited the concentration camp at Sachsenhausen, and had gained the impression on that occasion that the rumors about
22 Aug. 46
concentration camps which were circulated abroad at that time were without foundation.
The witness Sieckmeier states in Affidavit PL-57 that in the spring of 1939 he visited the concentration camp at Buchenwald with 150 American guests, and the witness Wunsche states in Affidavit PL-57b that in June 1938 he visited the concentration camp at Sachsenhausen with a class of the Berlin Zollschule (School for Customs Officials). Both state that the quarters and the food of the prisoners were in conformity with the regulations. Thirty-five more statements by Political Leaders who had visited such camps are contained in the collective affidavits. They are all to the same effect.
14,000 statements summarized in Affidavit PL-57 show that these Political Leaders knew nothing about the conditions in the concentration camps, that in seven cases they received no answer to their inquiries, but that satisfactory answers were received in 102 cases.
Then incriminating documents about euthanasia were submitted. It has been shown that the Political Leaders had no part in carrying out these measures, and that they had no general knowledge of them.
Document 630-PS, a letter of Hitler's of I September 1939, shows that this was a so-called "special secret order," which was given directly to Reichsleiter without portfolio Bouhler and Dr. Brandt. Neither the Reichsleiter nor Gauleiter were informed about any such special secret order (Proof: Document 59a, Hederich Affidavit).
According to Document D-906, Numbers 3 and 6, the medical commission concerned seems to have established contact with the Gauleiter or Kreisleiter in individual cases. It is 'noteworthy, however, that precisely this last document mentions that the Hoheitstrager are not included, since the regulations do not contemplate this.
Confirmation of these facts is given by the collective affidavits PL-59 of Karl Richard Adam, who states that 7,642 Political Leaders executed affidavits to the effect- that they had not received any orders, and had not been involved in carrying out such measures.
All other measures were also taken to preserve secrecy about this matter, which had already become known here and there and had given rise to many rumors. This is shown by the special notes recommending secrecy in the incriminating documents. The witness Meyer-Wendeborn stated before the Tribunal that upon his inquiry he was told that these were only rumors; and a physician, Dr. Engel (PL-59b), and Kreisleiter Dr. Dietrich (PL-59c) confirm this official denial of the, mercy killing.
22 Aug. 46
Were these measures in any way connected with the conduct -of the war? It is certain that euthanasia was already being discussed in 1934, as shown by Document M-152. Carefully worded articles were published in the press, which encouraged this idea from the viewpoint of eugenics (Zuchtwahl), and which referred to the custom in ancient Greece of exposing and abandoning the unfit. Any connection with warlike intentions, however, is difficult to establish, even though the member of a Gau staff defines mercy killing in case of war as a war measure in Document D-906.
I now come to the events which became public knowledge: smashing 6f the labor unions, conflict with the Churches, and persecution of the Jews.
The "smashing" of the free trade unions was well known. It was a revolutionary act. It was either permissible or not permissible, as in any revolution. It was an event which happened only once and for which the responsibility is clear. The Political Leaders did not have a direct part in its execution, but they knew of the event and approved it. The question must be examined whether it was a measure anticipating war, or whether other reasons were decisive.
The 150 large and small labor unions, which included 30 percent of the workers, were already at the end of their tether before they were dissolved. Economically, the majority of them were facing collapse; the many years of unemployment had depleted their treasuries, while increasing the demands upon them. The political parties which dominated the unions had been helpless in the face of the economic crisis; they had been powerless against Hitler, and so they resigned. Mass withdrawals, which began at the end of 1932 and the beginning of 1933, had thus made the unions mere shadows. On the other hand, the-workers transferred to the NSBO, and thereby aligned themselves with the idea of peace within the ranks of labor, which was clearly preparing the way for the solution of the economic crisis. In the same way the employers' organizations were compelled to maintain peace within labor, and were dissolved.
The purpose of the elimination of all organizations was to effect a settlement between labor and capital; the class struggle was replaced by the duty to care for the workers on the one hand, and the duty of loyalty on the other as a key to the elimination of economic distress. That the proceeding was so understood and approved -by the workers is shown by their willing cooperation; thus the economic-political proceeding was justified after the event.
Then the Church question is also an incriminating point. It is well known that the Churches lived in constant strife with National Socialism. It is not known that the cause of this strife lay in the opposition of the Churches to an int6nded war of aggression.
22 Aug. 46
After initial differences about power politics, it was only later that reasons of Christian morality impelled the Church in an ever increasing degree to fight against National Socialism. In general, the Churches were indifferent to the foreign policy of nations, in accordance with the principle, "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".
Conflict with the Church was contrary to the Party Program, and' Hitler himself never preached it; he would probably have preferred to win over the Churches. He tried to do so through the Concordat, and had some success through the proclamation of the Fulda Conference of Bishops and the proclamation of the Austrian Bishops after the Anschluss.
Propaganda against the Church was kept at a minimum, and was directed against members of the clergy who interfered in politics. There was no real, organized fight against the Church. The separation of Church and State was demanded to overcome the division of the people through various denominations.
Thus, Hitler told the witness Count Wolff-Metternich, immediately after the seizure of power in 1933, that a campaign against the Christian Church would be inexcusable (Affidavit PL-62c), and the witness Fabricius, a Professor of Divinity, confirms this attitude (Affidavit PL-62a).
For the Political Leaders this conviction manifested itself in the fact that even before 1933 many theological students, professors of divinity and churchmen had joined the Party. After 1933 a strong movement started for rejoining the Church among those who had left the Church under the influence of Marxism. Retroactive marriage and christening ceremonies took place in large numbers, as is shown by affidavits PL-62a and 62b-Professor Fabricius and theologian Buth.
The witness Schohn confirms in Affidavit PL-62 that out of 500 Political Leaders whose testimony he examined 42 percent simultaneously held Church offices. The witnesses Wegscheider and Kaufmann, who were examined before the Tribunal, also testified that numerous Political Leaders held a Church office. The Bishops Dr. Gr6ber and Dr. Borning were appointed to the State Council (Staatsrat), as shown by the affidavit of Count Wolff-Metternich, PL-62c.
The actual picture is shown by the collective affidavit of the witness Schohn who, after examining about 21,000 affidavits, noted that in the former Ortsgruppen (local Party districts) Church life remained undisturbed and that the Party occasionally participated
in Church life officially, in some cases in uniform. Accordingly, in the individual local districts there were good relations with the clergy, and this found public expression at celebrations. On the other hand, there was a campaign led by a small anti-Church
22 Aug 46
group whose activities and statements are in contradiction to the genera ' I Party line. The leader of the group was Bormann.
Of 23 documents which were submitted by the Prosecution against the Political Leaders on the Church question, no less than nine documents are statements of opinion by Bormann. Seven documents concern the SS, as well as the SD and the Gestapo. Four documents deal with three local occurrences, and one document consists of the personal opinion of Gauleiter Florian. There follows a quotation from the Myth, and a document with directives for the Reich Labor Service. None of these documents shows that the Political Leaders participated as a unit in the elimination of the Church.
I shall comment on the individual documents: The most incriminating document is the secret decree of Bormann to the Gauleiter on "National Socialism and Christianity" (Document D-75). On this subject there is an affidavit by the witness Hederich, of the Party Chancellery (PL-620). According to this, Bormann issued this decree on his own authority and Hitler instructed him to recall and destroy this circular. The witness Gauleiter Kaufmann confirmed before the Tribunal here that this decree actually was recalled. The same thing is shown by the testimony of the witness Hoffmann before the Commission on 3 July 1946. In Affidavit PL-62b the witness Buth, a theologian, states that the Defendant Rosenberg likewise rejected the decree and raised objections.
Document 098-PS is a letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, and it deals with a so-called National Socialist Catechism. It is a personal opinion of Bormann. There is no answer of Rosenberg at hand. In this letter a meeting of the Reichsleiter is suggested. The affidavit of the witness Hederich states that such a meeting never took place.
There' follow a number of documents which show Bormann's constant personal efforts in the direction of the separation of Church and State. Document 070-PS regarding school devotions lies in this direction; as also Document 840-PS, admission of theologians into the Party; and 107-PS, instructions for the participation of the Reich Labor Service in Church ceremonies.
The following documents, 100-PS and 101-PS, are letters from Bormann to Rosenberg expressing the wish for their own literature for soldiers; Rosenberg is here attacked because of the attitude Which he took in favor of a book in a religious vein by Reich Bishop Muller. This proves Bormann's purely personal activity.
In the same field is Document 064-PS, again a letter from Bormann to Rosenberg. It requests his opinion on an enclosed letter from Gauleiter Florian of 23 September 1940, who had objected to a religious writing by General Rabenau. It is a personal opinion which is not typical of the general attitude of the Political Leaders.
22 Aug. 46
I A further action of Bormann is shown by Document 116-PS, a letter to Rosenberg of 24 January 1939 about the restrictions imposed on the theological faculties. Here Rosenberg is not instructed to carry this out, as the Prosecution erroneously assumes; another letter is merely sent to him for his information, in which a restriction of the faculties was welcomed.
The continuation of his efforts to win Rosenberg over to his views is shown by a letter of Bormann of 17 May 1939 to Rosenberg. Here Bormann forwards a plan by the Reich Education Minister on the restriction of the theological faculties, likewise only with a request for his opinion, and not, as the Prosecution assumes, for the immediate execution of the measure under consideration.
Then the Political Leaders are charged here with Gestapo activities, on the basis of the files of a conference of Gestapo Church specialists (Document Number 1815-PS). This cannot be taken as evidence of proof of the anti-Church attitude of the Political Leaders themselves. Nor did the Political Leaders have any direct connection with the confiscation of Church property.
Document R-101-correspondence of the RSHA-shows confiscations by the Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter and by the Eastern German Agricultural Company (Ostdeutsche Landwirtschaftsgesellschaft GnibH.) in the Warthegau. Both acted in their capacity as state offices, so that this is not a general measure making use of the Party machinery, with the knowledge of all Political Leaders.
Document 072-PS, a letter of Bormann to Rosenberg of 19 April 1941, expressly emphasizes that it is not the business of Political Leaders to confiscate Church property.
There follow the public campaigns against the Church, which the Prosecution has brought forward. Document 848-PS and 849-PS deal with excesses against Bishop Sproll in Rottenburg. It is evident that this action was carried out by forces foreign to the local Party.
Document 1507-PS deals with incidents on the occasion of a sermon by Cardinal Faulhaber at Freising. The records show that the Political Leaders were given explicit instructions not to interfere with the religious services held there, even if the Cardinal should deliver a sermon against National Socialism. As a matter, of fact, there -was no interference with the service by Political Leaders. It is noteworthy that, according to the records, Cardinal Faulhaber declared himself willing to officiate a few months later in the same church, and this was "through the mediation of Mayor Lederer of Freising, who was at the same time Kreisleiter and local leader of the SA."
22 Aug. 46
It thus appears that the measures seem more extensive than they were in reality and that the Political Leaders could not have had any real idea of what happened.
Nor could the Myth give them any information on the Church question. This book was hard to understand and never received the official Party stamp of approval (Document PL-62e). The witness, Count Wolff-Metternich, has stated that Hitler expressly characterized the book as a private work of Rosenberg, which did not please him. That is Affidavit PL-62c.
The persecution of the Jews was the most obvious event. It can be explained quite apart from any war of aggression. The events are well known: economic repression of the Jews, defamation by the Star of David, and elimination from social life, the issuance of the Nurnberg Laws, evacuation toward the East, and finally, extermination. Here it can only be a question of investigating the extent of the active participation of the Political Leaders and their knowledge of the nature and extent of the measures.
The legal measures were taken without consulting the Political Leaders. Insofar as they were directed toward restricting the influence of the Jews, they were welcomed by them and were in keeping with the Party Program.
Nor was there any objection to the Nurnberg Laws, but the Star of David was considered shameful. Opposition, however, commenced with the confiscation of property and the evacuations.
This history of 9 November 1938 is known to the Tribunal through the examination of witnesses. It was a surprise maneuver prepared by Goebbels when the Gauleiters were absent from their Gaus. The Party machinery was avoided, because opposition could be expected here. As far as the Political Leaders had any opportunity to interfere, many Gauleiters refused to obey or issued counter-orders as soon as they learned of the operation. The witness Gauleiter Kaufmann has confirmed this for Hamburg; the witness Wahl has testified the same before the Commission about the Swabian Gau; and the attitude of the Gauleiter for Coblenz-Treves is corroborated in Affidavit PL-54f.
On the level of the Kreis and Ortsgruppenleiter,' no planned use of the Political Leaders has been established either. Here the testimony of all witnesses confirms that the event was received with surprise, opposition, and disunity. (Affidavit Dr. Volkmann, PL-54a)
Hitler repudiated it, Goering repudiated it, and even Heydrich declared before the Gauleiter and Gau judges on 20 November 1938 that the severest measures would be taken against all who participated in it (Affidavit PL-54d and e). The report of the Supreme Party Judge, Buch (Document 3035-PS, USA-322), submitted by the Prosecution, according to which the punishment was permitted to
22 Aug. 48
become a mere farce, remained unknown. The slight penalties imposed by the court were explained by saying that one could not condemn the little man as long as Goebbels, the instigator, went free. (Affidavit Buch, PL-54c)
The rejection of any solution by violence in connection with these events led to a belief in the sincerity of the resettlement plans, which in reality were the preliminary steps for extermination. When the decision for extermination was made is unknown. An affidavit signed by the witness Albert, PL-54h, says that even in 1942 Himmler pretended in a memorandum that he was striving for a legal and humane solution of the Jewish problem at a cost of 25,000 to 30,000 million marks.
The obvious reason for all these measures was not the desire to wage war, but exclusively the solution of the racial question. The real happenings in the East came through only as distant rumors and because of their monstrous nature were not believed, but were regarded as enemy propaganda. In this connection, the "explanation" issued by the Party Chancellery on 9 October 1942 is significant. This is Document PL-49. Here the Political Leaders were given an official denial of the atrocities.
Document D-908, containing the periodical Die Lage of 23 August 1944, contains a reference to the Jewish problem in Hungary, but does not mention any actual events. Because of its small circulation and the fact that this article appeared only toward the end of the war, it was not of a sort to affect the fundamental judgment of the public.
The attitude, of the majority of the Political Leaders on the Jewish question, irrespective of their rank and district, is clearly shown by Affidavit PL-54, which contains a summary of 26,000 sworn declarations.
The next question to be examined is the Indictment of the Political Leaders for war crimes. Primarily, this is a Jewish question again, inasmuch as foreign Jews were affected. The majority of the Political Leaders cannot be assumed to have known of events which took place outside the territory of the Reich. It was announced in the press that the governments of other countries, such as Hungary, France, and Italy, adopted measures similar to those of the Germans. What really happened remained, unknown in Germany. Document PL-49, confidential information of 9 October 1942, issued by the Party Chancellery concerning "Rumors about the Situation of the Jews in the East," served to cover up and deny the facts.
Three documents were submitted to the witness Hirt before the Tribunal concerning the Germanization of SIAV territory. Document USSR-143 concerns the removal of Slovenian street names and use of the German language for officials. Closer. examination, however,
22 Aug. 46
shows that this was a measure of the Styrian Home League (Heimatbund) which issued circulars to its local districts. The Styrian Heimatbund was not a Party organization (Affidavit by Roedern, Number PL-67). These events concerned a little town called Pettau, which was inhabited by Germans before the 1918 peace treaty.
Document USSR-449 also deals with the recovery of territory in Carinthia and Carniola, which formerly was inhabited by German settlers, and Document USSR-191 shows that these were measures taken by the SD in the border regions of Styria. All documents lack the basis for any general knowledge of these orders, the carrying out of which remained unknown to the Political Leaders.
Much space is occupied by charges against the Political Leaders concerning the administration in the East. Whether these charges are generally justified cannot yet be judged on the basis of the proceedings to date. However, the question can be examined as to what knowledge the Political Leaders could have of these events and to what extent they are responsible for them.
Document 1058-PS contains Rosenberg's speech before the beginning of the Eastern campaign, and his defense counsel has commented u on it in detail. This speech was secret and known only
, p to a small circle. Document L-221 of 16 July 1941 concerns the Crimea. These are secret marginal notes by Bormann concerning a discussion in the Fuehrer's headquarters. A memorandum concerning a conversation between Rosenberg and Hitler on the Crimea likewise remained unknown to the public (Document 1517-PS).
Frank's Diary (Document 2233-PS) is the basis of the charges against the Political Leaders on the food situation in the Government General. General knowledge of the fact that 40 percent of the population suffered from malnutrition during the year 1941 cannot be assumed without further question. As far as food difficulties had become known in the border region, they can be -attributed to other causes, especially after a lost war.
Document R-36 shows Bormann's horrible views on the treatment of the population in the Eastern Territories. It is a comment by Dr. Markull of the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, dated 19 August 1942, and addressed to Rosenberg. The frank and vigorous language, as well as his indignant refusal, specifically prove that Bormann's views were not accepted and that other measures were taken. The very fact of this open appeal to Rosenberg proves that there was no doubt that the latter would agree with the refusal.
Other incidents became known to a fairly large number of people. Document 1130-PS contains the off-quoted speech by Reichskommissar Koch of I April 1943 in Kiev on the "Master Race." That Koch himself knew that his opinions were not shared is revealed by documents according to which he said that his chiefs of sections fell into two groups, one working openly against him, the other secretly.
22 Aug. 46
Document R-112 contains decrees by Himmler in his capacity as Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of Germanism, dating from February and June 1942. They refer to the re-Germanization of former German nationals in the Eastern Territories, which in itself was not prohibited. One of those decrees is addressed, among others, to the Gauleiter for their information. It contains no references whatsoever to any criminal measures.
The Prosecution concludes from Document Number 327-PS that the Gauleiter took part in the liquidation of "enormous fortunes" in the East. A closer examination shows that this was a matter of the liquidation of German firms which had been set up as state enterprises at the cost of considerable subsidies. In a letter of 17 October 1944 the Gauleiter are merely requested not to interfere with the liquidation which was meanwhile taking place on German territory. All this goes to show that the Political Leaders as a ' body could not have had any specific knowledge of criminal occurrences.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal will adjourn tomorrow, Friday, at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 23 August 1946 at 1000 hours.]