[The witness Juettner resumed the stand.]

HERR BOEHM: Witness, yesterday we left off in your examination with the manner in which the Jewish question was handled by the SA. Now I should like to ask you how the participation of members of the SA in actions against the Jews in November 1938 can be explained?

JUETTNER: The participation of SA members in this action consisted of irresponsible actions by individuals which were in gross contradiction to the directive of Staff Chief Lutze's executives. Staff Chief Lutze was in Munich in the old city hall. There, in connection with the speech made by Dr. Goebbels, he immediately assigned the chief of the administrative office, Obergruppenfuehrer Matthes, to go to the Hotel Rheinhof, where a part of the SA leaders present had already retired, in order to give these SA leaders strict orders not to participate in any action against the Jews. About an hour later, when he received the news that the synagogue in Munich had been set on fire, Lutze, in my presence, repeated this order to the SA leaders who were still present in the Munich city hall and, said that it was to be passed on to all units immediately. This was actually done, which is confirmed by the fact that in many places no actions were carried out at all, and numerous SA men state under oath that they received this order.

HERR BOEHM: Then how did it come about that, in spite of that, members- of the SA participated in the destruction of Jewish establishments?

JUETTNER: As was ascertained afterwards, certain individuals let themselves be misled by agencies which were undoubtedly under the influence of Dr. Goebbels. As an actual fact, compared with the SA, relatively few real members of the SA participated in this action, although public opinion later blamed the SA for this entire action. And here again it so happened that'everyone in a brown shirt was considered an SA man. That the SA was in no way the sponsor of this action may also be seen from the fact that, as I have read in the press in the last few months, in certain trials, for example, in Bamberg, Stuttgart, and, I believe, in Hof, people were convicted who had destroyed synagogues and yet did not belong to the SA. The fact also that in many places SA men upon instructions from the leadership offered to afford protection to Jewish installations against plundering by shady elements, et cetera, created a popular impression that the SA had committed these misdeeds. In any event, Staff Chief Lutze one or two days later gave voice to his indignation to Dr. Goebbels about the action itself and the unjustified accusation against the SA, and strongly condemned the irresponsible way in which the SA men had been incited to commit these misdeeds. Soon after he issued an order that in the future SA men were not to place themselves at the disposal of other agencies for any tasks or actions unless he himself had given express approval. Staff Chief Lutze punished the guilty ones whom he discovered, and if the case warranted it, they were turned over to the regular courts for judgment.

HERR BOEHM: Had things been different up to that time when Lutze took this particular line? Was the Political Leadership in a position to use SA members for its own purposes?

JUETTNER: The Political Leadership only had authority to use the SA for certain tasks, which included the following: participation in Gau and Kreis rallies; demands for the use of the SA in cases of disaster, and also for propaganda purposes; for collection drives for the Winter Relief, for collecting clothing and the like. These were the usual demands which the Political Leadership made on the SA in the course of the year. So far as I know, at no time did the Political Leadership make any other demands of an illegal nature of the SA. But Lutze issued this order to prevent those offices which were under Dr. Goebbels' influence from leading SA men astray in the future.

HERR BOEHM: Very well. Now, the Prosecution has submitted a document in this Trial, under Number 1721-PS. This is a report from Brigade 50 to Group Kurpfalz. I should first like to show this document to you, and then I should like to ask you whether you made any official inquiries about this matter.

[A document was handed to the witness.]

JUETTNER: We made official inquiries after the action. No. actions and misdeeds such, as are indicated in the report were communicated to us from the area of Group Kurpfalz. Moreover, I consider it quite out of the question that these matters which are reproduced here are in accord with the facts.

HERR BOEHM: Now I must put a number of questions to you which would have been superfluous if the witnesses Lucke and rust could have been interrogated in this Court. Lucke is the person who made this report, and Fust is the one to whom it is supposed to have been sent.

Is it customary in the SA, when making reports of action completed, to repeat in the report the order which is being reported as executed?

JUETTNER: In my entire activity as chief of the main office of the Higher SA Leadership and as permanent deputy of the Chief of Staff of the SA, I have never observed that in reports on action taken the original orders were repeated verbatim, as has been done in this alleged report. Moreover, I should like to say that the leader of this group, who was Obergruppenfuehrer Fust, at the time he allegedly gave this order, which is repeated here, was in Munich in the old city hall, and then in the Hotel Rheinhof. He received this prohibition from Staff Chief Lutze and transmitted it to his group by telephone in the presense of Obergruppenfuehrer Matthew. Fust is an uncommonly decent and disciplined man. When he returned to Mannheim he convinced himself, as I know, of the fact that this order had been transmitted and that in accordance with his instructions SA men had been furnished to guard Jewish installations.

Moreover, the head of the leadership division of this Group Kurpfalz, a certain SA leader by the name of Zimmermann, confirms that the Gruppenfuehrer gave the order to do exactly the opposite of that which is contained in this document as a group order, and that he, too, saw SA men acting as guards for Jewish establishments; and SA men at present in internment camps, who headed units in this group, testify that they never received an order like the one which is here alleged to have been given by the group.

HERR BOEHM: Was it customary in SA phraseology to say "Jewish synagogues"?

JUETTNER: No, there was no expression like that. If one spoke of Jewish churches one said "synagogues." The concept "Jewish" was included, just as when you speak of a mosque the concept "Mohammedan!' is inseparable from it. In the same way in our terminology, if you speak of synagogues, you do not say "Jewish synagogues" but just "synagogues."

HERR BOEHM: And in the order there is mention of an "Aryan population." Was that possible or was it customary in this connection?

JUETTNER: This, too, is completely pointless. If this order had been given, one would not have said "adjoining houses which are inhabited by Aryan people," but one would undoubtedly have said "those houses which are inhabited by Germans or persons of German blood," but "Aryan people" would never have been used in this connection.

HERR BOEHM: Does it sound probable or credible that in the year 1938, at a time when National Socialist power was consolidated 100 percent, an order should be given that riots and plundering were to be prevented?

JUETTNER: This speaks quite clearly against the authenticity of the report submitted here. To assume an occasion for plundering and riots in such a connection would have been quite inexplicable, and moreover there was no reason at all for mentioning that here.

HERR BOEHM: Would it have been possible that the group, in an order to the brigade, might have ordered that a report of action taken be sent to the brigade leader?

JUETTNER: That would have been quite senseless. The brigade could not send a report of action taken to itself.

HERR BOEHM: But that is expressed in the report or rather in the repetition of the report.

JUETTNER: Yes, -and that speaks against the authenticity of this report which is reproduced here.

HERR BOEHM: And for that reason what would you gather from the way in which the order is set up?

JUETTNER: I conclude from it, to put it briefly, that this order ,vas never given, and that the man who invented it had no idea of the wording used in commands by the SA.

HERR BOEHM: Was it customary and in accord with the transmission of orders in the SA that orders were not transmitted through official channels, but that matters were handled in the way stated here, according to which the Standartenfuehrer would have been alerted, following which they would have been given very exact instructions and a report would have been made when they started to carry out the order?

JUETTNER: Quite apart from the fact that a report on action taken would never have been made in the form presented here, it was customary with us for orders to be transmitted through official channels; then action was taken. It is absolutely pointless to emphasize especially, or to report, that the execution of the order has begun, because every order involves its own execution. A report would have to be given only if certain difficulties were encountered in executing the order.

HERR BOEHM: And what do you conclude from the improbable, and in part impossible, style of this photostat of 11 November 1938, as a whole?

JUETTNER: It is 1721-PS. USA-425.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you not think we have heard enough about it now? We have heard considerable argument that it is not authentic.

HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, the point is that since the two, witnesses who would have been competent in this matter could not be brought here, the matter must be clarified in such a way that there is no doubt about this forgery. For if this report of action taken were true and correct, the SA would be tremendously incriminated by it.

THE PRESIDENT: I know that, but the witness has been telling us that for the last 10 minutes.

HERR BOEHM: In connection with Document Number 1721-PS, an order of the Supreme SA Leadership was submitted as a document under the same number, an order which is signed by you and which says:

"L-1 connection with the actions against the Jews originating among the people, valuable objects had to be safeguarded here -and there by the offices of the Party and its branches for the protection, of German public property. I order that such objects be turned over without delay to the nearest office of the Secret State Police and receipts be given therefore.

"If, in connection with these actions, the offices of the Party and their branches should become aware, or have been aware, of thefts which unfortunately may have occurred, a report is to be submitted without delay to the nearest police station. The same procedure is to be observed upon the appearance of suspicious objects. The offices of the Police ire to be aided to the fullest possible extent in the performance of their duties."

Because of this order, you are charged with having known that the objects which are mentioned herein were to be turned over to a certain place from which they were never to return to their legal owners.

Now, I ask you: What was the origin of this order? Could one or can one gather from the contents of this order, which emphasizes that the offices of the Police are to be aided as much as possible in carrying out their assignment, that it was your intention not to return stolen property to Jews?

JUETTNER: I already became acquainted with this order, which was just read to me, in the preliminary interrogations before the Commission. According to my memory, it dates from 29 November. At that time, on 29 November, I knew exactly that Adolf Hitler, but above all Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, and also Lutze, condemned this action of November 1938 very,severely. The order which bears my signature is not contested by me. It is a copy of a directive of the office of the Fuehrer's Deputy, Rudolf Hess, and therefore is traceable to him. Since I knew that Rudolf Hess himself, as a truly law-abiding person, condemned this action very strongly, I had to assume from his order that its purpose was to restore the stolen property to its original owners, namely, the Jews. Any other assumption was entirely out of the question for me, and it was also obvious to me that this property was to be given up to the police offices immediately as trustees, for the Police represented the guardians of law and order, at least in my eyes, and not offices which were called upon to withhold or steal other people's property from them.

HERR BOEHM: Now I should like to turn to a different subject. The witness Schellenberg has alleged that in 1943 and 1944 the SA leadership tried to take over not only the guarding of concentration camps, but also of work camps -and prisoner-of-war camps. What have you to say to that?

JUETTNER: May I ask in what year that was supposed to have been?

HERR BOEHM: In 1943 and 1944.

JUETTNER: In the year 1943, from May to August, I led the A as deputy of the Chief of Staff. During this period, as before, never tried to put tasks into the hands of the SA which were incumbent on other agencies, such as the Reichsfuehrer SS, and specially not tasks of a police nature. I neither aspired to take over tasks of this sort, nor did I have negotiations carried out for this purpose. Moreover, after I learned of this charge against the SA from the Indictment during my imprisonment, I discussed this matter with Herr Schellenberg. Herr Schellenberg told me that the transcript of his testimony must rest on a misunderstanding. He had meant to say conversations between the SA and the Reichsfuehrung SS about questions of municipal and country guards. Conversations of that nature are not disputed by me. They dealt with the apportionment of time in service, so that there would be no conflict should members of the SA, who were obliged on a legal basis to serve in the municipal and country guard~ have to perform SA service at the same time. This adjustment of schedule was the reason for these conversations. The SA had absolutely nothing to do with taking over the guarding of concentration camps, or later the guarding of prisoner-of-war camps and work camps either, nor did I ever learn that individual SA men were legally conscripted for tasks of that nature.

HERR BOEHM: Please comment on the question of how the SA stood toward the Church.

JUETTNER: On the Church question, the SA left the individual complete freedom of choice. Staff Chief Röhm was a Church member. Moreover, I recall that in 1934 he issued an order to the SA in which he prohibited SA men from taking sides in any Church controversies, for the reason that this might possibly disturb the solidarity of the SA. I personally was always a member of the Protestant Church and still am a member today. As deputy of the Chief of Staff I was a Church member also. The great majority of the SA men were Church members. Many members of the SA-in any case not merely isolated members-were active in Church councils even up to the end, a fact well known to us, which we never tried to prevent. Staff Chief Lutze issued an order everywhere that SA duty was not to be performed when religious services were being held.

HERR BOEHM: Can one say that the SA adopted the principle of positive Christianity as its own?

JUETTNER: I believe I can answer that absolutely in the affirmative.

HERR BOEHM: The beginning of the war in 1939 has been con

nected with the activities of the SA. What reasons can you give to prove that the work of the SA did not serve as a preparation for war?

JUETTNER: I assume that primarily it is the practical activity of the SA which is meant. These things which the SA did in the past can be judged correctly only if we bear in mind the situation that existed at the time. It cannot be judged according to the picture which has been formed now as a result of the war. The situation which prevailed in Germany at the time, if I am correctly informed, Mr. President, has been sufficiently described in this courtroom. But I should like to emphasize that the German male population of that day had been physically very much run-down because of the prevailing distress. They were hardly fit for training, much less for efficient service, even in their professions. The degree of their physical fitness and morale had reached a frightfully low level, and the only aspiration of the SA was to contribute to the development in Germany once more of a physically efficient, brave, and reliable body of men, suitable for service, who would-be ready and willing to serve the Fatherland in all emergencies. In 1933 Germany was threatened with civil war and revolts. Behind us we had the Polish insurrections. Because of her central position Germany, more than other countries, was intent on the protection of her boundaries, and necessarily so; and finally, this country, which is so poor in raw materials, was forced to prevent natural catastrophes by all possible means so that greater damage would be averted. For that purpose a well-trained, healthy body of men was necessary who were physically able and ready for military service. The SA had set itself the task of training these men.

HERR BOEHM: Did the SA, until the outbreak of war, believe in peace, and how could you prove that this belief of the SA in a peaceful development actually did exist?

JUETTNER: The SA truly did not want a war. Hundreds of thousands of former combat soldiers of the first World War were in the SA. These men were familiar with war and its unspeakable sacrifices. They did not want war. For the sake of their country's life, but also for the sake of their own existence, they wanted a peaceful development. In 1939, until the days of August, until the end of August they were ... I myself was busy here in Nuremberg as parade leader for the Reich Party Rally, to prepare the games and the big military review for the Reich Party Rally. They did not think of war, they were not enthusiastic about the war, rather did it strike them with dismay. We always believed in peace, because of many historical events in the past: the naval agreement with England, treaties with Poland, trade agreements with other states, friendly relations with the southeastern states of Europe, and above all, the events of international reconciliation at the Olympic Games in 1936. We believed in peace because of the co-operation between the veterans' organizations of the European countries, which was always strongly supported by the SA; because of the constantly increasing understanding between the youth associations of the various states; because of the regular international labor meetings at Hamburg. We knew of the friendly courtesy visits which the great statesmen of other European nations paid to Adolf Hitler, we were acquainted with the publication of prominent foreigners about the Third Reich, and finally it was the Munich Agreement, which we took up and welcomed with enthusiasm, which seemed to assure peace.

HERR BOEHM: Did the SA leadership have 'any influence on politics?

JUETTNER: After the death of R6hm none at all. The SA was completely unsuited for exerting any influence on politics, both by its organization and its leadership. Even the misuse of the SA for war-mongering purposes was quite out of the question. Militarism such as the glorification of military activities, uniforms, drilling, jingoism, or the creation of a warlike spirit, was never approved by the SA; Röhm's attitude toward neighboring countries and Lutze's attitude toward war in general, in themselves speak for that.

HERR BOEHM: Would the SA have had to follow an order for war propaganda?

JUETTNER: I have already declared in my interrogation before the Commission that the SA did not observe any blind obedience. Demands for war propaganda never reached the SA from any quarter. Consequently the SA never carried on any war propaganda, either in its courses or in the training of its units.

HERR BOEHM: A few days ago the Prosecution placed an affidavit by Prime Minister Dr. Wilhelm Högner, among other things, in my mail box, and since I have no other opportunity to define my attitude as to this affidavit except here and now, I should like to put a few questions to you dealing with these matters.

This affidavit states:

"As early as 1922-1 believe it was the so-called Coburg Convention-the SA dominated the streets with its armed bands and attacked the peaceful population, especially political..."

THE PRESIDENT: [Interposing.]: Is the affidavit in evidence?

HERR BOEHM: This affidavit was put in my mail box 3 days ago. I would have no reason to present this affidavit, Mr. President, but since I received it ...

THE PRESIDENT: I asked you a perfectly simple question. Cannot you give me an answer to it? I asked you if it was in evidence.

HERR BOEHM: This document has not been submitted in evidence, Mr. President, but I shall not have another possibility of commenting on this document from any aspect if I do not take advantage of this opportunity.

THE PRESIDENT: Either you want to put it in evidence or you do not. If the document is not yet in evidence there is no need to go into it.

HERR BOEHM: No, I only wanted to ask a few questions based on this document.

THE PRESIDENT: You cannot do that until you have put the document in evidence. If you want to put it in evidence, then you must put it in evidence. If you do not want to, then-just listen to me.

It is not true to say that you had no opportunity of dealing with the document. You can deal with it in re-examination. If the document is put it in cross-examination you can deal with it then. Otherwise, if you want to put it in evidence now, subject to, its admissibility, you can do it and take the responsibility for it.

HERR BOEHM: Yes, that would be true if this affidavit were submitted in cross-examination, but it is not ...

THE PRESIDENT: If it is not submitted we shall not look at it, we shall not know anything about it.

HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, I gather from that that if this affidavit is not submitted in cross-examination, it cannot be submitted afterwards either. Then the procedure is quite clear and I do not need to have anyone comment on it.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. At any rate, if there was an application by the Prosecution to submit the affidavit in rebuttal you would have an opportunity of answering it after that, in these circumstances.

HERR BOEHM: Then I should like to ask the Tribunal to permit me to call the witness whom I had provided for that and who is now on the witness stand, so that I might interrogate him about the contents of this affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: No, either you put it in evidence yourself now or else you wait for re-examination.

Sir David, I do not know -what all this is about. Dr. Böhm. does not seem to know what the position is.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it may be-I did not quite catch the name of the deponent, but it may be that this is one of the affidavits with regard to which I applied to the Tribunal a day or two ago, and I was going to put them in after the Defense's documents in general rebuttal.

Yes, My Lord, it is an affidavit from the Prime Minister of Bavaria, which is one of those I mentioned to the Tribunal a few days ago.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you can put it in on cross-examination, can you not?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I can quite easily.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that not be the most convenient course; then Dr. Böhm can re-examine upon it. He has had an opportunity, apparently, of looking at it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, I will do that.

HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, the thing I wanted to avoid is the situation which would have arisen if the document had been submitted after the testimony of my last witness so that I would not have had another opportunity to refute this document.

Herr Jöttner, now I should like to put my final question to you.

Did the political aims of the SA have a criminal character?

JUETTNER: The things which the SA did and the aims which its leaders pursued need never fear the light of day. The SA leadership did not pursue any criminal aims and did not even know of any criminal aims of any other agencies. The SA, as an organization, never carried out any actions which could justify its defamation as a criminal organization. The SA, Mr. President, had many followers in the Reich, that is, in the former Reich, and even beyond its boundaries. The SA had opponents as well. Many of these opponents raised their voices, and out of hate or envy created prejudices against the SA. Not the truth-only prejudices of the kind which, as is well known in history, have caused the downfall of many a brave man, could lead to a situation where five or six million men who belonged to the SA in the last two and a half decades would be stamped as criminals.

HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, I have no further questions.

JUETTNER: For these men, for these five or six million men and for the many millions in their families, I can solemnly declare under oath that the SA never had a criminal character.

Mr. President, my entire life has been guided by the rule that one should stand by whatever one has done, whatever the risk may be, and fear nothing, not even death itself, save only dishonor. I consider it to be dishonorable to evade responsibility by putting an end to one's life, or to become untruthful. In this respect, Mr. President, my conscience is clear.

Therefore, with my declaration on the blamelessness of the SA I can stand in front of the Highest Judge.

BERR BOEHM: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution desire to cross-examine?

SIR DAVID MAXVVELL-FYFE: Do you say, Witness, that the SA had nothing to do with atrocities against the people of the occupied territories?

JUETTNER: I do not quite understand the last part of your question. Atrocities?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Against the people of the territories occupied by Germany, foreign territories occupied by Germany?

JUETTNER: The SA leadership ...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is a perfectly simple question. You have made your speeches. Now answer (4yes" or "no" to the question that the SA had anything to do with the atrocities against the people of the occupied territories.

JUETTNER: It is my intention to give a true answer; therefore, I cannot have anybody prescribe what I am to answer ...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Can't you answer "yes" or "no"?

THE PRESIDENT: You can explain afterwards, you know. If you answer "yes" or "no," you can then give your explanation.

JUETTNER: The SA had nothing to do with the treatment of peoples of occupied countries.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Well, now, I want you to look -at your report on the SA during the war, which the High Tribunal will find in Document Book 16-B, at Page 113. .

My Lord, it is Number 4011-PS, and will become Exhibit GB-596.

Now, Witness, just before you look at that, do you remember saying before the Commission: "At the beginning of the war with Poland the SA Group Sudeten carried out transports of prisoners of war into the camps. Other SA groups in the East may have been used for similar purposes later on. The SA leadership and the SA as an organization had nothing to do with this question."

Do you remember saying that? Page 336 of the transcript. One of your groups carried out transports of prisoners of war into camps and other SA groups may have been used for similar purposes. Do you remember saying that to the Commissioner? If you would take your mind from the document and just address it to the point as to whether you said that before the Commission, it would help. Do you remember saying that before the Commission?

JUETTNER: I admitted before the Commission and I will not deny today, that the SA Group "Sudeten," on instructions from the Wehrmacht, transported prisoners of war to the rear in the Polish campaign. But, Mr. Prosecutor, you asked me before about the treatment of the population in the occupied countries.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I got your answer to that. We must take it by stages. You admit you said that before the Commission, that "the 'Sudeten' Group carried out transports of prisoners of war into camps. Other SA groups in the East may have been used for similar purposes." Do you remember saying that. I am only putting in the record what you said. You admit you said it?

JUETTNER: I have already said that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Right. Now, let's look at your report. This is a report made by you on 23 June 1941, and you see that after a general paragraph-My Lord, if you would turn to Page 116, it is Page 4 of the original document; and, Witness, if you would go on to the heading "Section 4 A"-you say:

"The SA men who have remained in the communications zone primarily care for the maintenance of the SA organization. All units, even the smallest ones, are active, and the men willingly sacrifice their spare time for duty in the Party. This includes assistance to the political leaders in the educational and orientation tasks, propaganda and counter-propaganda, preparations for meetings, control of the population in the frontier areas."

Is that correct, what you wrote in 1941?

JUETTNER: It is exactly -true. The communications zone is of course the homeland, not occupied territories.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Turn to Page 117 of the English version, My Lord.

I think it is Page 123, Witness, of your version. Have you got 123? It is Page 5 of the original. It is the next page, Page 5. You see under "C":

"The duty achievements of the SA, which deal with direct support of the Armed Forces and which benefit the power of German arms, have developed in all directions. At the time this report is written or in the previous weeks the following were employed: ... SA men from 21 groups for guarding prisoners."

Where were the 21 groups guarding prisoners?

JUETTNER: In the Reich area during the Polish campaign.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This is 1941, the Polish campaign had been finished for nearly 21 months. You see, you say that that is at the time the report is written, or in the previous few weeks where were they guarding the prisoners then?

JUETTNER: This report is a summary of the activity of the SA during the war from the very beginning, and everything of a positive nature-which the SA had also done earlier is enumerated there again.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you not hear what I put to you, and can you not read your own report? This says: "At the time this report is written, or in the previous few weeks..." that is, ,in June 1941. It says they were guarding prisoners. I am asking you, where were they guarding prisoners?

JUETTNER: That must not be taken to mean that 21 SA groups were used to guard prisoners of war; it only says there that 21 groups have detailed SA men ...

THE PRESIDENT: The question was: Where did you say they were guarding prisoners? There is nothing about the number 21. Where was it that they were guarding prisoners?

JUETTNER: In prisoner-of-war camps in the Reich area, where individual SA men were drafted into the Wehrmacht for a short term, for the purpose of guarding prisoners of war.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by the Reich area? Do -you mean Germany as it was before the war again?

JUETTNER: Yes. It is possible that there were also prisoner-of-war camps in West Prus

sia and the Government General. However, that escapes my knowledge.

THE PRESIDENT: And in the Baltic provinces?

JUETTNER: I know nothing about that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, we can refresh your memory in just a moment. Not to leave this document, if you will look at the next page, on page ...

THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass on to that...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.

THE PRESIDENT: The passage just before. "B," perhaps you ought to put it to him.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am ready for it, Your Lord-ship.

[Turning to the witness.] If you will look just before "B," you will see the words "Numerous SA leaders and sub-leaders were furnished to the German Labor Front for duty in the Todt Organization"; is that right?

JUETTNER: May I ask again what page that is?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is about ten lines before the bit I put to you about the 21 groups guarding the camps. It says: "Numerous SA leaders. and sub-leaders were furnished to the German Labor Front for duty in the Todt Organization."

JUETTNER: We did give men to the Organization Todt for labor, but they resigned from the SA when they went.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Were they looking for forced labor?

JUETTNER: No, we gave them to the Organization Todt, and they were thereby withdrawn from the authority of the SA.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, would you look at Page 6 of the original, and you will see a heading, "The premilitary training." Now, you see what is said there, and this is the second year of the war. This is the second paragraph, after the one dealing with the SA war defense groups:

"This educational work is primarily to assist the fighting spirit, to retain and fortify the willingness to fight, and to harden the National Socialist community idea in German men to become an uncompromising testimonial to their comradeship in arms."

Then you give an account of the training, including "signals and target practice, instruction and practice in handling rifles, as well as shooting on the range and in the field, and furthermore throwing hand-grenades," and ~o on.

Now, Witness, you are very familiar with these complications. I suggest to you that that training which is set out in your third report in the second year of the war is exactly the same training as is set out in your reports in the training directives of 1934, 1938, and 1939. It is the same training as the SA had been giving to its membership for the last 7 years, almost word for word, isn't it? Isn't that exactly the same words contained in all your training directives?

JUETTNER: No, that is not correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: All right.

JUETTNER: Before the war...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will put the training directives in in due course. That is your answer, you say that it is not the same. I suggest that that is a deliberate untruth, and that this report covers the same ground, -using practically the same language as your reports in 1934, '38-your training directives in '34, '38, and '39.

Now, consider that that is all; I want the Tribunal to be able to test your veracity: do you still say that that report is not the same as the SA training directives in '34, '38, and '39? Do you or do you not?

JUETTNER: The important thing is how this service was organized, and the service..-.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not asking you how the service was handled. I am asking you on the contents of the training directives, and I am putting to- you a perfectly clear question. Isn't' the training contained in this report, two years after the beginning of the war, exactly the same as the training laid down in the training directives of the years '34, '38, and '39? Now, do you want to maintain your answer that it isn't?

JUETTNER: Before the war we did not conduct any premilitary or postmilitary training. During the war we did everything to strengthen the armed power of the German people. I cannot answer any differently about this. Consequently, I must arrive at a "no," for what is set down here is something different from what we did in practice before the war.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: All right. That's your answer. In time I shall put the directives before the Tribunal and they shall judge them. Now, turn over to Page 15 of the original.

My Lord, that is Page 127 of the book. Now, do you see the heading, "Work done by SA in regained territories"? You got that, Page 15?

JUETTNER: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE:

"Work done by the SA in regained territories. The two SA groups 'Vistula,' with headquarters at Danzig, and 'Warthe' with headquarters at Posen, were formed in the East. The territory of Upper Silesia was assigned to unit Silesia, the territory of Memel and Suwalki to the Baltic provinces (Ostland) unit." I ask you to notice that "Ostland unit."

"Very soon the SA units formed a network of solid strong points for the National Socialist movement. The Vistula unit comprises 15 Standarten with 507 companies (Stilrme), the Warthe unit 28 Standarten counting 684 companies. In these regions, as in the period of combat"-note these words-"as in the period of combat, the SA was the assault unit for the Party. It assists in collecting German manpower, in strengthening it and bringing it into alignment according to National Socialist principles. In that respect it was often necessary to start by teaching the German language and then explaining the basic ideas of National Socialism. Many young racial Germans were trained as SA assistant leaders in SA schools. In these regions also the SA service, practically speaking, is directed towards strengthening the defensive forces. It was therefore necessary to overcome the inferiority complexes of the racial Germans, the result of Polish suppression, and to bring their external appearance and bearing into keeping with SA standards. Then only was it possible to begin the real military training. The work of the SA in the West is also similar to that in the East. There it was possible in a short time to bring into the SA an important part of the male population through the recruiting of former German soldiers of the World War. The leaders of the 'Standarten' are predominantly Reich German SA -leaders. The 'Sturmbanne' and 'Störme' are practically without exception led by Alsatians who have received special training in a special SA school in the Reich. Reich German SA leaders and men stand at their side to advise and help."

Well, now I am going to ask you quite a lot about the East, but I will just leave the West with this one question. Did you mean by that paragraph that the SA was doing its best to help in the Germanization of Alsace?

JUETTNER: The SA built up its organization there and tried to train the men to acquire the decency and outward bearing and character in keeping with the SA. The question of Germanization, et cetera, played no role in our work.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would like you to look at the, procedure. "The Chief of Staff... that was Lutze in 1941, he was still alive then; in the next paragraph, it states, "The Chief of Staff visited these territories in the East and West, and gained a clear insight into the service, not only in the main cities, but particularly in the small and smallest garrisons of the SA."

Did the Chief of Staff take his deputy with him on any one of these visits, that is, yourself?

JUETTNER: I was with him once in the East, but not in the West.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps you were fortunate that you went into the Eastern territory. Did you ever go to Vilna?

JUETTNER: No.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Let me see if you can help us from your immense knowledge of the SA, which you spoke of this morning. Did you know an SA officer called Hinkst, who was the staff commandant at Vilna?

JUETTNER: What is the name?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Hinkst.

JUETTNER: No, I do not know him.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just think. You say you don't remember him, the town commissioner at Vilna?

JUETTNER: No.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You remember, at Vilna, the old barracks were taken over and were known as the SA Kaserne, the SA Barracks. Did you know that?

JUETTNER: I have never been in Vilna in my life, and I do not know who was working there for the SA or any other office.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you know that one of the. groups formed was a group in Vilna?

JUETTNER: No.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It was a very interesting group, but they did not have to do quite as big a job as the SS; however, they killed 10,000 Jews in the autumn of 1941. You say you never heard of that?

JUETTNER: I did not understand that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What I am putting to you is that in September of 1941, 10,000 Jews were killed in Vilna and the people who rounded them up from the ghetto, the people who took them out to be killed, were the SA Detachment in Vilna.

JUETTNER: I deny that quite emphatically. The SA had nothing to do with these matters and the SA did not take part in it. We had no SA in Vilna.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then we will just have a look at this affidavit. Will you look at this affidavit?

THE PRESIDENT: Did you sign this document that was just put to you-this report?

JUETTNER: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you look at Document Number D-964, which is an affidavit by M. Sz1oma Gol. My Lord, that is GB-597. I am so sorry, My Lord, that is Page 55. I beg Your Lordship's pardon. This gentleman says:

"I am a Jew and lived in Vilna, Lithuania. Durink the German occupation I was in the Vilna ghetto. The administration of the Vilna ghetto was managed by the SA. The Town Commissioner of Vilna (Stadtkommissar) was an SA officer called

Hinkst. The Landkommissar for Vilna was an SA officer called Wolf. The adviser on Jewish questions was an SA officer called Murer."

Do you remember an SA officer called Wolf or an SA officer called Hinkst in Lithuania?

JUETTNER: I have never heard either the name Wolf or the name Hinkst and I emphatically deny that we had any SA group in Vilna.

HERR BOEHM: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. These charges which are being alleged against the SA are all so tremendous, and are so obviously unknown to the witness, that I must request that this witness Gol be brought here and examined, in case it is in-

tended to make use of this affidavit or its contents. If he is here in Nuremberg, he can be, examined before the Court.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Mr. Gol is here and my friend can ask him any questions that he would like. He can produce the actual articles taken from the dead bodies of the Jews who were shot.

THE PRESIDENT: Is this man here in Nuremberg?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, yes, he is in Nuremberg. Of these six affidavits, I have kept four and that covers, I think, the principal allegations. I have kept Gol, Belg, Sigall and Kibart. The other two had to go to their work which has been found for them, and, My Lord, I felt, in view of what they already suffered, it's not quite right to keep them all back. However, I kept four and I submit that the Defense has ample opportunity for any cross-examination.

THE PRESIDENT: Are they all on the same topic?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, no. They deal with Vilna, Kaunas and Schaulen, My Lord, three places.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you propose to use or to read all of these affidavits now, or to use them for cross-examination?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I was proposing to put the main points of them in for cross-examination and show on what the affidavits are based. I did not mean to read them through. From these affidavits I have selected about three points to read.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. B6hm.

HERR BOEHM: Before these affidavits are read, I should first like to ask that these affidavits be checked as to their authenticity. The document you will receive is Number D-964.

THE PRESIDENT: We are considering your application at the moment that the man should be called for cross-examination. Surely that is sufficient.

HERR BOEHM: No, only provided that this document, this affidavit, which was submitted here, is perfectly genuine and has been signed.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David has said that the man is here. You can ask the witness if it is true.

HERR BOEHM: I have no reason to introduce a witness, Mr. President, who has not deposed an affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: No one is suggesting that you should introduce him as your witness. Your application is the application which we are now considering, that is, that he should be brought here for cross' examination, but that does not make him your witness.

HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, I requested that he be examined under the condition that he has actually deposed an affidavit.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The original affidavit is before the witness, and I am told it was sworn to before Major Wurmser. The actual statements which the deponent made before he signed are shown in the original copy.

HERR BOEHM: I am objecting for the reason that my document does not show that it was signed.

THE PRESIDENT: Give us the original. It really would be better, Dr. Böhm, if you would take the trouble to look at the original before you made objections of this sort.

HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, I did not make any accusations. I only asked you to ascertain whether it is signed, for there is no signature on my document.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in the interest of saving time, would it be sufficient if two of these affidavits were used and two of the witnesses were called for cross-examination? I

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I suggested three, since it covers three towns, Vilna, Kaunas, and Schaulen. I shall willingly restrict myself.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will allow these affidavits to be used in cross-examination provided the three deponents are called for cross-examination. It would be most convenient if they should be called directly after this witness has been cross-examined and re-examined.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see I am in a slight difficulty about Schaulen, because both deponents who had to go are to deal with the Schaulen episode. My Lord, I have a witness ... I am so

sorry, it is my fault, I must admit I said Schaulen; it should have been Kaunas. I will do that, My Lord, I will put the facts in the affidavit and I will only use the affidavits in regard to Vilna and Schaulen, and both the deponents are here.

THE PRESIDENT: Then, the Marshal will have those witnesses ready when the evidence of this witness is finished in order that they may be called for cross-examination if Dr. Bbhm wants to question them.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we will do so. They will be here. I want to question the witness here with regard to Vilna.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I see it is now 25 minutes to twelve. Before you do that, we had better recess.

[A recess was taken.]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have selected three of these witnesses to cover each of the towns: Szloma Gol, who will deal with Vilna; and Kagan, Nvho will deal with Kaunas; and Kibart, who will deal with Schaulen.

My Lord, they are out of Court, so that they will not hear the cross-examination, and are available when the time comes.

HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, I can waive the examination of these witnesses. I have no objection if these affidavits are used, because in this connection I can clarify the facts of the case with the witness Kibart in cross-examination. These people had nothing whatever to do with the SA, and the witness JUETTNER will clear up the matter. They were officials in the Ministry for Eastern Affairs, and they were no more regarded as SA men there than one could regard a soldier in the Wehrmacht, for example, as an SA man once he is a soldier in the Wehrmacht, although he had formerly been in the SA. Therefore, I attach no importance to the examination of these witnesses. I shall waive the examination of these witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

Then Sir David, we do not think they need be cal

led if Dr. B6hni, does not want them.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am of course entirely in Dr. B6hm's hands, -and what the Tribunal approves. I want it known that the Prosecution has no objection to calling them, and that they are ready to give evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: You can use the affidavits.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases. Witness, have you a copy in German of D-964?

JUETTNER: D-964; yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is the affidavit of a Mr. Gol. I have read the first and second paragraphs. If you will look at the third paragraph, it says:

"In December 1943, 80 Jews from the ghetto, including four

women and myself and my friend Josef Belie were ordered by an SA Sturmfuehrer, whose name I forgot, to live in a large pit some distance from the town. This pit had originally been dug for an underground petrol tank. It was circular, 60 meters in diameter, and 4 meters deep. When we lived in it the top was partially covered with boarding, and there were two wooden rooms partitioned off, also a kitchen and lavatory. We lived there 6 months altogether before we escaped. The pit was guarded by SA guards about whom I give details below."

You will see in Paragraph 5 that he says that the

"SA men threw chains into the pit, and the Sturmfuehrer

ordered the Jewish foremen (for we were a working party) to fasten the chains on us. The chains were fastened round both ankles and round the waist. They weighed 2 kilos each,

and we could only take small steps when wearing them. We wore them permanently for 6 months. The SA said that if any man removed the chains he would be hanged. The four women, who worked in the kitchen, were not chained."

Then, before we come to the work, I would just like you to look at Paragraph 10, because that describes the guards:

"The work of digging up the graves and building the pyres was supervised and guarded by about 80 guards. Of these, over 50 were SA men, in brown uniforms, armed with pistols and daggers and automatic guns (the guns being always cocked and pointed at us). The other 30 guards consisted partly of Lithuanians and partly of SD and SS. In the course of the work the Lithuanian guards themselves were shot, presumably so that they should not say what had been done. The commander of the whole place was the SA officer Murer (the expert on Jewish questions), but he only inspected the work from time to time. The SA officer Legel actually commanded on the spot. At night our pit was guarded by 10 or 12 of these guards."

Then he says that the guards "hit us and stabbed us" and that he was knocked over a pile of bodies and that they were only allowed to go sick for two days; if they went sick for more than that they were shot. Then he says in Paragraph 12, that "of 76 men in the pit, 11 were shot at work."

Now I would like you to look very shortly at Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9 which describe the work. Paragraph 7 says that:

"the work consisted of digging up mass graves and piling up bodies on to funeral pyres and burning them. I was engaged in digging up the bodies. My friend Belic was engaged in sawing up and arranging the wood."-Paragraph 8 says-"We dug up altogether 80,000 bodies. I know this because two of the Jews in the pit with us were ordered to keep count of the bodies by the Germans; that was their sole job. The bodies were mixed, Jews, Polish priests, Russian prisoners of war. Amongst those that I dug up I found my own brother. I found his identification papers on him. He had been dead for two years when I dug him up, because I know that he was in a batch of 10,000 Jews from Vilna ghetto who were shot in September 1941."

And then he describes the procedure for making a funeral pyre 6f layers of wood and bodies and throwing oil over it and burning it.

Are you telling the Tribunal that you never heard of what had gone on in Vilna or that there were any SA personnel concerned in it?

JUETTNER: I have the following statement to make about this. With the guarding of the ghetto...

SIR DAVID MAXWELIFYFE:- First of all, before you make a statement, will you answer my question: Do you say that you never heard of these happenings in Vilna or that the SA were concerned in them?

JUETTNER: I maintain that most decidedly. I heard about them today for the first time. Moreover, I had nothing to do with these things and we had no SA in Lithuania. We had only tried to build up the SA in the former Government General. That consisted of SA candidates and Germans. We did not organize any SA in Lithuania.

Neither the SA leadership nor the SA organization ever had anything ~o do with guarding ghettos and, such atrocities; if they did take place, they must be branded as such. But I can well imagine that a misuse of SA uniforms and membership was practised here too, namely, by Lithuanians.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Your explanation is that they have mistaken somebody wearing a brown shirt. Is that your explanation? Probably wearing a swastika on his arm to make it more difficult. You are really telling the Tribunal, who have been sitting here for 9 months listening to what has happened in these territories, that your explanation is that somebody has mistaken other people wearing brown shirts. Is that your explanation?

JUETTNER: It is one of the explanations which I gave before.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I only want to put in-I need not occupy time by putting it to the witness in view of what he said-Document Number D-975 as an additional declaration of Mr. Gol. It will therefore become GB-598, and it explains the procedure by which the gold teeth were taken out of corpses. My Lord, I do not think it is necessary to go into detail because Your Lordship has heard of how that procedure was carried out so much and the normal way for doing it. We will just say that the man Murer personally took the boxes with him. Now I am going to come to Kaunas or Kovno. I want you just to tell me: Do you say that you do not know an SA Brigadefuehrer called Kramer, who was Governor of Kaunas?

JUETTNER: We have not previously mentioned SA Brigadefuehrer Kramer, Mr. Prosecutor. I do know an SA Brigadefuehrer ...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We are mentioning him now and I am asking you, do you say or don't you say that you do not know an SA Brigadefuehrer called Kramer, who was Town Governor of Kaunas or Kovno, a very well-known- place?

JUETTNER: Kovno is quite well known to me, I agree with you there. But the name ... I should like to know whether you said Kahmer or Kramer?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Kramer. He was the German Town Governor and an SA Brigadefuehrer... Kramer.

JUETTNER: I know a Brigadefuehrer Kramer. Whether he was the Town Governor of Kovno I do not know.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you know an SA Hauptsturmfuehrer called Jordan?

JUETTNER: No.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And don't you know that the Town Governor's office in Kaunas was exclusively staffed by SA, even the girls in the office belonging to the SA women's section, wearing SA brown shirts with swastika? Do you say that you never heard of that?

JUETTNER: We had no SA in Kaunas. I do not know of any SA offices there, either. If somebody named Kramer, supposed to be an SA leader, was working there, then he was not working as an SA leader. The SA had nothing to do with the whole matter. I should particularly like to emphasize that once more very strongly.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, let me put two more of these names to you. Do you know an SA Brigadefuehrer called Lenzen?

JUETTNER: A Brigadefuehrer Lenzen formerly worked with the Reich Sports Leader. I became acquainted with him there.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you know that Lenzen was Commissioner for the Rural District around Kaunas?

JUETTNER: If Lenzen was Commissioner for Rural Districts he was not used there by the SA, as an SA leader, but came within the organization of the Ministry for Eastern Affairs and so was not under the SA, if he was working there.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Do you say that you hadn't an SA section, I don't know whether it would be a company or a smaller unit, guarding prisoners of war near Kaunas? You have told us, you see, that you had these units who were supporting the Wehrmacht in these territories. Are you answering that there was not an SA unit guarding prisoners of war near Kaunas?

JUETTNER: We did not organize any SA units near Kaunas. I cannot say any more than that. We organized SA in the former Government Gdneral, but apart from that we organized no SA in the East except in West Prussia, and in what was formerly Posen. Consequently no SA could have been there.

THE PRESIDENT: For the sake of accuracy, Sir David, I don't think he said they had SA units supporting the Wehrmacht in these territories near Kaunas.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord, I think "in the East" were the words, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: I thought he said "within the Reich area."

SIR DAVID MAXWELI-FYFE: It was in this report. I will check it. I am so sorry, My Lord, if I have made a mistake. My Lord, what he said was ...

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got it there, Sir David? Referring to the 23rd of June 1941, that is the report, he said, "That is the home country. We had 21 groups guarding prisoners of war in the German Reich area. I mean in what-was Germany before the war. I know nothing of the Baltic Provinces."

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I agree entirely with that. Your Lordship will remember that he goes on to say in the report itself, at the top of Page 127, that there were two groups, one at Danzig and another at Posen. Then he said the territory of Upper Silesia was assigned to unit Silesia and the territory of Memel and Suwalki to the Baltic Provinces (Ostland) unit. That was what I had in mind, that there was a Baltic Province Ostland.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, he said in the report...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, I agree it was not quite the same before he put in the report. My Lord, in view of that I will just briefly indicate the contents of this affidavit to Your Lordship as the witness says that, apart from knowing two of the people, he does not know anything about it. First, the deponent says he lived in the ghetto of Kaunas during the German occupation and that he was on the Jewish Council of the ghetto dealing with statistics and supplies. As representative of the Jews...

THE PRESIDENT: We have not got this document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh, haven't you, My Lord, I am so sorry. It is Number D-968, Exhibit GB-599. I am very sorry, My, Lord, it is my fault.

THE PRESIDENT: It is in the book, is it?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is in the book, it is 61.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, he goes on to say:

"As representative of the Jews for rations, et cetera, I had to deal directly with the Town Governor's office (SA Hauptsturmfuehrer Jordan's section). The Town Governor's office was exclusively staffed by the SA, even the girls in the office wore brown SA uniforms."

Then he says:

"The German Town Governor was called Kramer, and he was an SA Brigadefuehrer. Jordan was the adviser on Jewish affairs to Kramer. I know their ranks and that they were in the SA, because they signed the orders which were posted on the ghetto."

Then in Paragraph 3 he describes the plundering operation. He says:

"It was done exclusively by SA men, Jordan was with them. They all wore brown uniforms."

They took their property and shot 27 people and then on 13 September, that is in the middle of the raid, Jordan and SA Sturmfuehrer Repen, with Brigadefuehrer Lenzen, who was Commissioner for the Rural District of Kaunas, standing by, shot three men in his presence. Then he says:

"On 21 or 22 September 1941 1 was in a labor detachment. I saw about thirty SA men in uniform conducting a group of some 300 Russian prisoners of war. The Russians were quite exhausted, they could barely walk ... Two collapsed and the SA shot them. The SA were beating them all the time. My labor detachment had to bury these Russians."

'Then, My Lord, Paragraph 7 just shows a piece of what one might call silly brutality, but it was conducted, making the men march out and carry weights for a distance. You will notice that there were about 100 SA men guarding the Jews, armed with automatic pistols.

Then, in Paragraph 8:

"'On 28 October 1941 there was a big "action" on, in which 10,500 people from the ghetto were shot. The ghetto population was first divided into two groups, those for execution .and those who were allowed to stay. The sorting was supervised in the morning by a man called Rauka, who was, I -think, in the Gestapo or the SD, and later in the day three prominent SA men, Jordan, Kepen, and Pöschl, came to help him. All these SA men were in uniform. I know the number of those who were shot because my job on the Jewish Council included the rationing, for which we had taken a census of the Jews. A new census was taken after these executions."

And next it says how Jordan told him to go and get 20 bodies of the people he had just shot; and Paragraph 10 says that Jordan asked for 500 intellectuals to work on archives; he was told they were not available. "Thereupon the SA (assisted by others In German uniforms which I cannot identify for certain, but I think it was SD) seized and shot 530 people at random. The SA personnel present included Jordan, P6s~chl, and Lenzen." My Lord, that is Kaunas.

Now, My Lord, the next town, the other one with which I wanted to deal, is Schaulen, which Your Lordship will find in Document Number D-969 at Page 63 in the same document book. It becomes Exhibit GB-600 and is an affidavit by a deponent, Leib Kibart.

Now I just ask you, Witness, did you know an SA Sturmfuehrer called Schroepfer, S-c-h-r-o-e-p-f-e-r?

JUETTNER: I did not know any Sturmfuehrer Schroepfer in the SA.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you know an SA Sturmfuehrer ca1led Bub, B-u-b?

JUETTNER: Nor him, either.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you know a man in the SA whose rank, unfortunately, I haven't got, called Gewecke, G-e-w-e-c-k-e, who became District Commissioner for this area 130 miles south of Riga?

JUETTNER: Likewise unknown to me. The district commissioners, and all commissioners in general, were not appointed by, the SA but by the Ministry for Eastern Affairs, and we had no influence of any kind thereon.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Kibart says he was in the SA and I am just asking you to try and remember if you know him. There is no doubt that he exists. We have got captured documents signed by him. But I want to know, did you know him, Gewecke?

JUETTNER: I understood you thoroughly, but apparently you misunderstood me previously because you are stating that I did not know Kramer and Lenzen; I merely said...

SIR DAVID MAXVTELL-FYFE: I didn't say that, Witness, and don't let's have any misunderstanding. I was just making quite sure by informing you that there was no doubt that Gewecke was there because his name appears in captured documents, and I wanted you to be quite sure you didn't know him before you gave your answer. You didn't know him?

JUETTNER: No, I do not know him.

SIR DAVID MAXV~ELL-FYFE: My Lord, then I will again state it quite shortly: In the first two paragraphs the deponent says that he is a leather worker, and where he was working. In the third he says that he was cursed and beaten by the SA when he was at work. Then in Paragraph 4 he says that Schroepfer was there first, and afterward Bub. And in 5 he said:

"It is hard to judge, but I estimate that there must have been 700 to 800 SA men there at the beginning, but they decreased in numbers later. I knew them as SA because they wore brown uniform with swastika armlets. Later on they used other Germans in the locality as auxiliaries."

Then in 6 he says:

"There were 4,500 Jews in the ghetto, which was very much overcrowded. In August 1941 the SA therefore surrounded the whole ghetto, and numbers of them went into the

houses and took out women, children, and old men, and put them into lorries and drove them away. I saw all this myself. It was done exclusively by SA. I saw them take children by the hair and throw them into the lorries. I did not see what happened to them but a Lithuanian told me afterward that they had been driven 20 kilometers away and shot. He said he had seen the SA make them undress and then shoot them with automatic pistols."

Then Paragraph 7 says they were shot if they took food into the ghetto and describes the shooting of a master baker who had four or five cigarettes and some sausage, and the hanging of this baker. Then Paragraph 8 deals with Gewecke, and My Lord, I ask the Tribunal to note:

"The district commissioner in whose courtyard I worked was called Gewecke. I saw him every day. He was in the SA. The SS took over from the SA in September 1943, and the ghetto then became a working camp."

Now, My Lord, if Your Lordship would be good enough to turn to Page 107, you will see a report by Geweeke, from Schaulen. My Lord, that is Document Number 3661-PS, which will become Exhibit GB-601. It is dated the 8th of September 1941, from Schaulen, where he was District Commissioner, to the Reichskommissar for the Eastland (Ostland). My Lord, I understood-I may be wrong-that Ostland included Lithuania, Esthonia, and Latvia only, but that is the position. This is a complaint about an SS Standartenfuehrer called J5ger coming into Gewecke's activities, and after explaining that he had managed to acquire-or rather, that his agent had been acquiring some Jewish silver and gold articles, he then says-My Lord, this fresh incident merely demonstrates that J5.ger does not consider himself bound by the instructions issued by the Reichskommissar and by the District Commissar regarding the seizure of Jewish property, and that he meddled in matters ...

HERR BOEHM: This document which is now being presented refers to an SS Standartenfuehrer JÖger. I do not think the case of the SS is being discussed, and I request that the document be presented when the SS is dealt with, because it has nothing to do with the SA.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the evidence is that the signatory of this document is a member of the SA. He was acting as commissioner, and my friend can make what argument he likes on that. He was a member of the SA and here he is protesting against the SS coming in and taking Jewish property, exactly the thing which the evidence states the SA have been doing in this area. My Lord, that is why I submit the document, as a useful corroboration.

HERR BOEHM: This man was not a member of the SA in that territory, but was working as a commissioner.

THE PRESIDENT: We have just had evidence that he was, and the witness in the box says he doesn't know, so I don't know on -what authority you say that he was not.

HERR BOEHM: It may be that he was one, but not in his capacity -as a member of the SA, but rather as a member of the Ministry for Eastern Affairs. The SA had nothing to do with it.

THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter which the Tribunal has got to consider. We will consider the evidence of this witness, who says there was no SA in this particular place at the time. We will also consider the evidence of the deponent in the affidavit, who says that this man Gewecke was there in SA uniform with a lot of other SA men. That doesn't make this document inadmissible, which is, a captured document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-PYFE: My Lord, the next paragraph is the only matter which I want to trouble the Tribunal with: "If the SS continues to overreach itself in this fashion, I, as District Commissioner, must refuse to accept responsibility for the orderly confiscation (Erfassung) of Jewish property."

THE PRESIDENT: Now I suppose that Dr. Böhm's argument upon that would be that this witness, Gewecke, was acting as District Commissioner and not as a member of the SA.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is a perfectly proper argument for Dr. B6hm to advance. Of course it is important, when Your Lordship has these affidavits in which this man is dealt with, that one should be able to tie it in with a captured document. That is really what I wanted to do.

[Turning to the witness.] Well, now I come to a point that you have mentioned several times, for a moment. You said that the only SA organization in this area was a unit formed by the Defendant Frank in the Government General, I think in April 1942; that the SA unit of the Government General was formed under the orders of Lutze and the command was taken over by the Defendant Frank. That is right, isn't it? And you said that he had a special staff for the actual carrying on of the unit which, I think, was in the hands of two men called Selz and Friedemund, if I caught your evidence right. Is that so?

JUETTNER: No, that is not right. In the first place, the names were not Friedemund...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If those are not the names, please blame me. I took them down as I understood them. You tell us the right names. It is my fault entirely if I got them wrong. What were the names?

JUETTNER: The correct names were Pelz and Kiihnemund, and this operation staff was not under the former Governor General Frank, but directly under the Chief of Staff, who managed affairs, Frank being merely appointed leader of the SA there, as I have already described. As to the other affidavits, I trust I shall have an opportunity to state my views later.

SIR DAVID AL1kXV%TELL-FYFE: My Lord, Your Lordship will find-it is in evidence, in Document Number 3216-PS, USA Exhibit 434, the extract from Das Archiv, giving that foundation of -the unit in the Government General.

What I want you to tell the Tribunal, Witness, is: What was the -purpose of forming a unit in the Government General?

JUETTNER: There were two purposes; but first of all, may I put a question with reference to the affidavits of Kovno, Schaulen, and Riga; I have an explanation to make which is necessary in order to establish the truth. I wanted -to ask whether I may do so now, or* should I do so after dealing with the question which has just been asked?

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that it will be better for -your counsel to put questions to you in re-examination upon that evidence.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I want you to tell me, as ,shortly as you can, what was the purpose of forming a unit of the SA in the Government General in 1942?

JUETTNER: There were two purposes. First of all, to keep the Reich Germans who were working in the Government General united in a comradely way, as far as they were members of the SA, and secondly, to bring people of German origin, who appeared inclined and well-adapted later to join the SA, into the community, by making them familiar with the German language, German customs, and so forth, and with the comradeship which we practiced in the SA.

SIR DAVID MAXWELI-FYFE: I want to get that clear. You said it was an entirely peaceful purpose in the Government General. Do you adhere to what you have told the Tribunal that there were no other SA formations operating in the eastern territories, and particularly, I ask you about the territory Ostland, that is, as I understand it, including the old countries of Lithuania, Esthonia, and Latvia ... I have already put certain evidence to you, but I want to get this clear. Are you prepared for your proof to be judged on the fact-on your answer to this question: Do you say that there were no SA units operating in Ostland?

JUETTNER: I am prepared to answer that question very clearly. The Supreme SA Leadership did not set up an SA organization in this territory of Ostland, which, if I understood you correctly, you just described as Lithuania and Latvia. A German SA was not formed there. If any SA were supposed to have been formed there, then it was a wild organization which had nothing to do with the SA leadership in the slightest. I know nothing about an SA having been organized there.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That's your answer. My Lord, I wonder if the Tribunal would look for a moment just at a part of the Document Number 1475-PS, which is also R-135, and it is in Document Book 16-B, Page 81, Exhibit USA 289-My Lord, it comes just after Page 81 in the book. It's 81-A-it should be, My Lord. Would you give the witness a copy? My Lord, that is the protest of the Reichskommissar for Ostland to the Defendant Rosenberg, and the Tribunal is probably familiar with that a bit. The first page is a protest against killing off so many Jews in the "Cottbus" project because they would have been useful for slave labor, and, in any case, the locking of men, women, and children into barns and setting fire to them doesn't appear to be a suitable method for combating bands. That is the effect of that. Now, My Lord, there is a catch to that. On the next page, the report of the 5th of June 1943, from the General Commissar of White Ruthenia to the Defendant Rosenberg, through th6 Reich Commissioner for Eastland, and, My Lord, it may be that the territory is slightly out of that mentioned, but at any rate, I'll make it perfectly clear. My Lord, it begins by saying: "The result of the operation, 4,500 enemy dead and 5,000 dead, suspected of belonging to bands," who apparently were the people who had been locked up and burned in barns. Then, My Lord, below it gives the booty, and then the next paragraph:

"The operation affects the territory of the General District of White Ruthenia in the area of Borissov. It concerns in particular the two counties of Begomie and Pleshtchamizy. At present the police troops, together with the army, have advanced to Lake Palik and have reached the whole front of the Beresina. The battles are continuing in the rear zone of the army."

Then there is another note to the effect that only 492 rifles were taken from 4,500 enemy dead. That is an obvious conclusion. Now, My Lord, it is the next sentence: "By order of the Chief of Band Combating, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Von dem Bach"7-My Lord, that is the officer who gave evidence before the Tribunal some months ago-"units of the.. ."-Witness, I ask you to note this-"units of the Wehrmannschaften have also participated in the operation. SA Standartenfuehrer Kunze was in command of the Wehrmannschaften." Now, Witness, are you going to tell the Tribunal that the SA Wehrmannschaften were not a section of the SA and that the Standartenfuehrer Kunze was not operating as a member of the SA?

JUETTNER: Yes, I shall be very willing and glad to give a clear answer to that. First of all, it does not say "SA Wehrmannschaften." It says "Wehrmannschaften." Secondly ...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just a moment. Are you suggesting that Wehrmannschaften doesn't mean SA Wehrmannschaften? That it is not a unit of the SA-is that your answer?

JUETTNER: In this case, it was not a unit of the SA, I maintain that very definitely. If such Wehrmannschaften existed at all, they were not Wehrmannschaften which had been formed or organized by the SA.

Secondly, if SA Standartenfuehrer Kunze commanded these Wehrmannschaften which had presumably been formed there, then in no case did he command them in his capacity as SA leader, but rather in connection with the Eastern Administration.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But -he was in' command of the Wehrmannschaften. Are you saying that when you have a well-known SA formation, the Wehrmannschaften, commanded by an SA Standartenfuehrer, you are telling the Tribunal that they weren't operating as SA at all, is that your evidence? You really ask the Tribunal to believe that? All right, I am putting another document to you. My Lord, if you will turn to Page 64-A, you will find ...

JUETTNER: In this connection I must add that it is not merely that I want to make the Court believe this, but it was actually so. SA Wehrmannschaften is a clearly defined term. There were Wehrmannschaften elsewhere, too, which had nothing to do with the SA, and apparently these here were of such a kind.

We did not have any Wehrmannschaften there. Standartenfuehrer Kunze was not acting as an SA leader. The SA leadership and organization had nothing to do with these things, or with the events described in Schaulen, Riga, and Kovno.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, Witness, just do be careful before you answer this: Do you say that there were no SA Einsatzkommandos securing forced labor inside the Government General? That is a simple question. Do you say that there were no SA Einsatzkommandos collecting forced labor inside the Government General?

JUETTNER: The SA had no Einsatzkommandos.

SIR DAVID MAXWELTFYFE: Now, I suggest to you that is absolutely untrue.

JUETTNER: The SA leadership, that is...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will ask you to look at Document Number D-970, My Lord; that will become Exhibit GB-602, and Your Lordship will find it at Page 64-A. My Lord, this is a report to the Defendant Frank, as Governor General, dated the 25th of September 1944. The subject is: The Prior of the Carmelite Monastery of Czerna, who was shot at by one of the SA Einsatzkommandos mentioned. Let me quote:

"The incident under consideration took place in connection with the operation to obtain people for carrying out special building plans in the district of Ilkenau. It came to the knowledge of the Commander of the Security Police and SD in Cracow via the branch office of Kressendorf and the sub-agency of Wolbron. As the place where the deed was committed lies within the area of the Einsatzstabi of Ilkenau, the investigations were carried out by the Regional State Police Headquarters at Kattowitz-branch post Ilkenau. The results of the investigations provided the following facts:

"The possibility of carrying out the planned building operations in the area in question within the period laid down, was made doubtful by the fact that the various communities did not provide the number of workers imposed on them.

"As a result, the construction staff at Kattowitz ordered a special detachment composed of 12 SA men to bring in workers from the various villages. The execution of this task by this SA Einsatzkommando was in every case carried out by them in such a way that they first approached the village mayor and presented the demand."

Then it goes on to describe how, when it was refused, they searched the houses. Some of the inhabitants offered resistance when the houses were searched which had to be broken by the use of arms.

"In view of the fact that partisans had several times appeared in this area during recent times, the SA men reckoned that partisans were living in the villages during the day disguised as civilians. Besides that, when workers were obtained, the local conditions were taken into account."

That's the first one, collecting forced labor from this village. Now, we have another SA Kommando:

"The Prior of Czerna Monastery was seized by members of the SA Einsatzkommando in Novojewa Gora. He was told to remain with the men of the SA Einsatzkommando for the time being. While the members of the detachment were in a house in order to search it for workers, the Prior-according to what the Kattowitz Regional State Police Headquarters established-used this opportunity, which seemed suitable to, him, to escape. As he did not stop when challenged several times and after some warning shots had been fired, but on the contrary ran even faster and tried to escape, arms were used-

"The Prior had been arrested because he was alleged to have made negative statements to other workers about the Ostwall-Eastern Defensive Line-and the building undertaking, which tended to influence the laborers' already weak will to work in a still more unfavorable manner. It was intended to take the priest first to the construction staff at Nielepice and from there to the office of the Security Police..."

Now, note the last paragraph, and this is:

"According to the report of the Regional State Police at Kattowitz: Steps are to be taken to insure that in future such operations are carried out not by SA men but by police officials."

Now, Witness, why did y

ou tell the Tribunal ten minutes ago that there weren't any SA Einsatzkommandos and that they never searched for forced labor in the Government General? Why did you say that; you knew it was untrue, why did you say it?

JUETTNER: That is not untrue. On the contrary, I shall repeat this statement once more and adhere to it, namely, that the SA did not have Einsatzkommandos. These SA men here were probably called in by the office furnishing this report and conscripted for emergency service-I have no other explanation-as auxiliary police, and the reporting office simply designated these conscripted auxiliary police detachments in its own terminology as SA Einsatzkommandos. The term did not originate with us. We had no such units, nor did we form any, and the responsibility for the actions which were carried out here did not lie with the SA, but with the office which employed the men.

In addition, I can say that we repeatedly stated our objections to the police department of the Government General with regard to the too frequent use of SA members in the Government General for police purposes. We did not want that, we did not want to have any police duties performed by the SA. However, they were called in as auxiliary police officials from time to time by virtue of a legal provision. If it says at the end: "In the future SA men are no longer to be used, but police officials," then this undoubtedly means, not auxiliary police officials, but regular police officials.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But the Police have made objections to the SA doing this work, and have also objected to the brutal methods with which they carried it out.

Do I gather, from that long answer of yours, that you do know that SA men were being used as auxiliary police in the Government General? Is that what you are telling the Tribunal?

JUETTNER: We repeatedly received reports from SA Leader, Kiihnemund, who was working there, that SA men had been conscripted for police service by virtue of legal provisions.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: At any rate, that is something.

Now I want you to tell me this. You said, in your report on the war, that the SA had been used for guarding prisoners of war. Did not the SA also guard forced labor camps?

JUETTNER: I never knew that we are supposed to have guarded labor camps.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, let me give you the names of some of the camps which I suggest you guarded:

Sakrau, a forced labor camp at which the inmates were all Jews; Mechtal; Markstadt; Faulbrueck; Reichenberg; and Annaberg.

JOTTNER: This is the first time that I have heard these names in connection with labor camps.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will find, at Page 131 of Book 16-B, an affidavit by Rudolf Sch6nberg. That will be Exhibit GB-601, My Lord. He speaks of the SA guarding these camps, and of the conditions. He finishes by saying: "All I wish t8 say here is that the SA in no way lagged behind the SS in their murderous and criminal methods at that time already," which was in 1940.

Let me put another point to you. Do you remember the SA guarding a labor camp at Frauenberg, near Admont? That was a labor camp for shirkers and drunkards, of about 300 prisoners. Do you remember the SA guarding that?

JUETTNER: That is completely unknown to me. I have never heard about it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I put in the document-there is no doubt that it is a personal report to Himmler. Now just have a look at it.

My Lord, it has a certain melancholy interest in that it deals with the selection of Auschwitz as a concentration camp.

My Lord, the point that I am dealing with, and it is only on this one point-I beg your pardon, My Lord, the affidavit should have been Number GB-603, and this is Exhibit GB-604.

[Turning to the witness.] Now, will you look at that?

THE PRESIDENT: What page is it on?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord, Page 132, the next page. That is a report from an SS Oberfuehrer called Gluecks, whose name I think we are not unfamiliar with. It is a report to Himmler of 21 February 1940, in which the man Gluecks deals with five possible concentration camps which Himmler might consider using, or rather, six possible concentration camps. The third of these is a place called Frauenberg, and he says:

"Frauenberg is a labor camp set up by the Provincial Welfare Union of Styria for shirkers and drunkards. It consists of five wooden huts and can take 300 prisoners.

"The labor prisoners are exclusively Styrians who are paid for their work by the Provincial Welfare Union of Styria during their time in the camp 27 to 57 pfennig an hour, less food.

"The SA-about 20 men-do the guarding. The labor prisoners are employed in two quarries and on building roads."

Then it says:

"The whole place is now State property; formerly it belonged to the Admont Foundation."

Now, Witness, how would it come about that these SA men were employed in guarding a labor camp, and you, the Deputy Chief of

Staff, would know nothing about the fact that SA men were employed in labor camps? How could you be ignorant of these facts? Just explain to the Tribunal; how could you be ignorant?

JUETTNER: If these men were employed, then they acted as conscripted auxiliary policemen. Just as National Socialist Motor Corps (NSKK) men or any other citizens could be legally conscripted as auxiliary policemen, SA men, too, were conscripted as auxiliary police by virtue of legal provisions. Those were state measures which had nothing to do with the SA, which could not be influenced

by the SA, and about which the SA did not even know. It was impossible for the SA leadership to know about the fate of every individual man, as it is being expressed in your question. That was quite out of the question. They were not SA men, but men who had been conscripted into the Police.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggest it to you, and I put in evidence of the way the SA were occupied during the war years.

I now want to ask you a little about the training which brought them into the condition where they could do these pieces of work.

Do you deny that the SA was the bearer of the military thought of Germany?

JUETTNER: Such questions were already asked of me during the preliminary interrogations. You are always confusing defensive thinking with military thinking. The SA represented and stood for defensive thinking. That has nothing to do with military service or military training.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you 'say that had nothing to do with the cultivation of the offensive spirit, do you?

JUETTNER: In no way, not in the least.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Why did your friend Lutze, of whom you have told us so much, in his lecture in 1939 put the two things together so strongly?

. My Lard, it is only a short reference from a document that is already in: 3215-PS, which is Exhibit USA-426, and, My Lord, it is in the original SA Document Book.

This is an article by Lutze, as head of the SA, on SA military training, dated 11 March 1939, and he says:

"The men never forgot the mission of the Fuehrer to promote the military training of the German men and to revive the military spirit of the German people."

And he quotes the very well-known passage from Mein Kampf which, I am sure, Witness, you know by heart:

"The sports detachments of the SA shall be the bearers of the military thought of a free people."

And he gives Hitler's words:

"Give the German nation six million bodies perfectly trained in sport,, all fanatically inspired with love for the Fatherland, and trained to the highest offensive spirit."

In a sentence, aren't these words of your chief Lutze the spirit and aim under which you worked to train the SA from 1934 to 1939?

JUETTNER: I really am surprised that the prosecutor, after these many months of the Trial, has not yet discovered the difference between defensive thinking and military training. That was discussed in detail during the preliminary proceedings before the Commission. Lutze did not write about military training; he wrote about defensive education. That is something quite different from military training.

We did what every country expects from its patriots, we educated, we trained people physically and morally, nothing more, but we did not make any preparation for war, such as you are trying to foist upon me now.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If that was as you say, why was it that as early as 25 July 1933 the SA Command was ordering no publicity about technical, signal, and motorized companies or separate air wings, "because they might be taken as an infringement of Versailles"?

My Lord, that is Document Number D-44, Exhibit USA-428; that is the first document in the book, My Lord.

Why was your leadership such that what the SA was doing in the way of these technical units would be construed as an infringement of Versailles, and any publicity was to endanger the person publicizing it with prosecution for high treason, if you weren't doing military training?

JUETTNER: About that, too,, I have already testified before the Commission. That order was connected with R6hm's endeavors to create a militia, and the details must become apparent from the record. If the Tribunal wishes me to do so, I shall repeat what I stated for the record.

THE PRESIDENT: Just answer the question.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Why were you afraid that the SA training and formation of technical units would be considered an infringement of the Treaty of Versailles if they were not military?

JUETTNER: Roehm's negotiations with foreign countries had not been concluded, consequently some unfounded suspicion might have arisen.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, then why was Von Reichenau now suggesting in May 1933 that the Supreme SA Command should combine representation with the Party on the Reich Defense Council? Why were you to be represented on the Reich. Defense Council if you were not conducting military training?

My Lord, that is, I think, a new document. It is Number 2822-PS, and it becomes Exhibit GB-605. That document was never put in, but Your Lordship will find it in the old SA Document Book. I am afraid that is not paged, but it has the Number 2822-PS. It is "Strictly Confidential," dated the 26th of May 1933. From the Chief

of the Ministerial Office in the War Department to the Supreme SA Command. Your Lordship, it is very short. It is from Von Reichenau. I don't know what his rank was then. I think he was a General or a Field Marshal later.

"In addition to my letter of 22 May 1933, may I bring to your attention that the desire has been transmitted to me from the Bureau for Defense Policy of the NSDAP also to be represented in the Reich Defense Council.

"I want to submit for consideration that this representation be combined in personal union with the representation of the Supreme SA Command, so that possibly one suitable person be charged with both representations."

Why was the SA Supreme Command making representations to be represented on the Reich Defense Council if it was not doing military training?

JUETTNER: The representation on the Reich Defense Council has nothing whatever to do with military training. At that time, as I have already testified before the Commission,, provision had been made that in the event that we should not be able to pay the reparation costs and would have to expect an invasion from the West, all Germans capable of military service would be evacuated from the left bank of the Rhine. The task of carrying out this evacuation was given to the SA, through the Party. To that extent the SA and the Party were both interested in what was discussed in the so-called Reich Defense Council.

'HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, may I disturb -you for a moment?

This document contains a confirmation of the fact that this was turned down by R6hm. It might be well to put that to the witness, too, that it was turned down by Röhm. It says here: "To Krueger: No; talked to Reichenau about it. Rhm." Therefore he turned it down.

THE PRESIDENT: We had better adjourn now, I think.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 15 August at 1000 hours.]