[The witness Juettner resumed the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. BOEHM.

HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, yesterday, in answer to the question of how long the redirect examination would take, I indicated too long a time. After looking through the material, I believe I can say that much of it has nothing to do with the SA; and that I can abbreviate the examination considerably.

[Turning to the witness.] In connection with Document 4011-PS, Witness, I wanted to ask you again, in connection with the report that 21 groups were engaged in the transport of prisoners, how did the report originate and at whose orders did these people transport. the prisoners; that is, were these people ordered by the SA to transport prisoners, or was this activity carried out by these men in their capacity as soldiers?

JUETTNER: The report originated from the activity reports which the groups made every month and later every three months. The men were under the Wehrmacht for the purpose of guarding the prisoners; the Wehrmacht drafted and assigned them.

HERR BOEHM: Do you know the number of SA men who were active as Wehrmacht members in connection with the transport of prisoners?

JUETTNER: I do not know the number. They were quite small units.

HERR BOEHM: The prosecutor said yesterday that the so-called military training was the same before and after the beginning of the second World War. I should like to ask you, Herr Jöttner: was shooting on combat scale taught before I September 1939, or only small-bore shooting?

JUETTNER: Only small-bore shooting, such as was practiced previously. I already said yesterday that soon after the beginning of the war we laid more stress on defense sport exercise, while ordinary physical exercise took second place.

HERR BOEHM: Do you agree with the numerous affidavits which say in this connection that it was forbidden in the SA to conduct maneuvers on assumed military situations?

JUETTNER: That was forbidden, and besides we were not able to do so because most of the SA leaders had no previous military training and could not base exercises on military situations.

HERR BOEHM: Now a little historical question. In view of the assertions of the Prosecution in connection with the statements on Page 14 of Document 4011-PS, do you know, Herr Jöttner, when Memelland became part of the Third Reich? Do you know, perhaps, that it was in March 1939?

JUETTNER: I cannot say that exactly, but it is probably correct.

HERR BOEHM: Did the region of Memelland belong to Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, or was it part of the province of East Prussia? I believe I can say that the Prosecution is confusing the SA Group Ostland with the so-called Reichskommissariat.

JUETTNER: I should like to say: In East Prussia, that is SA Group Ostland, we had an SA unit, and we organized and directed it. In the rest of Ostland, in Lithuania, Latvia, et cetera, no German SA was ever organized or directed by us. This question is probably connected with the documents from which excerpts were read by the Prosecution yesterday.

Perhaps I may explain to Your Lordship that since the beginning of the cross-examination I have been in solitary confinement and am not in contact with counsel for the SA. For that reason, I believe I may make the following three brief statements in regard to the documents presented yesterday, which contain monstrous and false accusations against the SA leaders and the SA as an organization.

(1) To such serious documents one cannot reply exhaustively unless one has been able to look them over and check them at leisure. I have not been able to do that.

(2) There were numerous documents, excerpts of which were read, about which no questions were asked-for example, the Blomberg letter.

(3) When the various documents were submitted to me, only questions were asked which had scarcely any connection with the facts contained in them-for example, the report of Brigade 50 regarding the destruction of the synagogues.

I still do not consider this report authentic, because what is actually contained in the report is impossible, and also because what was done according to the report could not be carried out in that short time. But I believe that the questions of the defense will clear up any doubt.

HERR BOEHM: From Document 4011-PS the Prosecution concludes that the SA Leadership concerned themselves with foreign peoples. In this connection I should like to ask you whether you did do that, and whether that was ever your intention?

JUETTNER: In the SA we did not concern ourselves with foreign peoples, nor was it ever our intention.

HERR BOEHM: Witness, you surely know the order of the Reich Government that in the Reichskommisariat Ostland the establishment of Party branches was prohibited. Could an SA Group or SA Brigade "Vilna", therefore have existed in Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania?

JUETTNER: No, it could not exist, and we did not organize or establish any. The men of the SA who were employed there were not under the SA Leadership. For example, the SA leaders Kunze and Kramer, who were mentioned yesterday, were Fuehrer for special purposes. They were not under the SA Leadership when they were employed there. These men also wore a different uniform from that of the SA. Perhaps the confusion is due to this.

HERR BOEHM: Would you have violated such an order of the Reich Government?

JUETTNER: No, under no circumstances.

HERR BOEHM: Would it have been possible therefore for the SA to have been entrusted with the administration of the ghetto in Vilna?

JUETTNER: The SA did not set up or administer ghettos and the SA as an organization, or the leadership, was at no time entrusted with such tasks.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. BOEHM, when you speak of an order of the 'Reich Government, are you referring to a document?

HERR BOEHM: No, but to an order of the Reich Government which is generally known.

[Turning to the witness.] An affidavit of Herr Szloma Gold was submitted yesterday. In that connection I should like to ask you briefly whether the town commissioner of Vilna came under your jurisdiction in any way. Could you give him orders, and did he carry out any tasks on your instructions?

JUTTNER: None of the Kommissare in the Ostland were under the SA Leadership, and they did not receive orders from the SA Leadership. If I remember rightly women SA members were also mentioned yesterday in connection with the Kommissare. There were never any women members.

HERR BOEHM: Was the provincial commissioner of Vilna ever under you?

JUETTNER: I have already said that the Kommissare were not subordinate to the SA Leadership.

HERR BOEHM: This affidavit does not indicate whether the man concerned is a Kommissar. It merely says that the expert on Jewish questions was an SA leader called Murer. Was he under you in any way with respect to this activity in Vilna?

JUETTNER: The personnel working with the Kommissare was not under the SA Leadership, either, nor this man who is mentioned here. If he was employed there, he was released from the SA for the duration of his assignment there and he. carried out his tasks and duties there without the SA Leadership being able to influence him in any way.

HERR BOEHM: In connection with the indictment against another organization the Prosecution submitted a document, Exhibit US-276. I shall quote from Page 2 of this document, the last paragraph:

"In the first hours after the entry, in spite of considerable difficulties, native anti-Semitic forces were incited to pogroms against the Jews. Acting on orders, the Security Police was determined to use every means to solve the Jewish question."

In the case against the SD the Prosecution says that it was the Security Police who carried out the pogroms in Vilna, Schaulen, and Kovno. In the case against the SA, on the other hand, the Prosecution says that it was the SA. As defense counsel I should like to know which organization is actually responsible for the Jewish pogroms in these cities, and I ask you, did the Supreme SA Leadership, through orders or instructions, take any part in excesses against or murders of Jews in this district?

JUETTNER: At no time and under no circumstances.

HERR BOEHM: And then an affidavit of a Mr. Chaim Kagan was submitted yesterday. The witness asserts that he saw girls in SA uniforms. Were there ever female SA members?

TGTTNER: I have already answered that we never had any female SA members.

HERR BOEHM: Is not the absurdity of this accusation in the affidavit made obvious by the fact that it asserts that they were or must have been SA men because they wore a brown uniform? This assertion is made repeatedly in this affidavit.

JUETTNER: In my testimony yesterday and the day before yesterday, I pointed out several times that in the course of the years anyone who wore a brown shirt was always taken for an SA man. That seems to be the case here too, although those concerned had nothing to do with the SA.

HERR BOEHM: The same is true of the affidavit of Mr. Leib Kibart who also terms some of the people whom he mentions SA men and identifies them as such because they wore brown uniforms with a swastika armband. Were not the swastika armband and the brown uniform worn by all the other people, and primarily by those who worked in the Eastern Ministry and were engaged on duties connected with it? There was an East uniform, was there not? Was this uniform worn by the SA, and could it be confused with the-uniform of the SA?

JUETTNER: The East uniform was worn by those who were employed in this task, and they were employed not by the SA but by the Eastern Ministry. It was brown, and I believe that it had the swastika armband and, without doubt, like any other brown uniform, it could be confused with the SA uniform.

HERR BOEHM: Document R-135 was submitted yesterday. It is a letter from the Reichskommissar for the Ostland, written on 18 June 1943. What I wanted to ask you was: was the Reichskommissar for the Ostland ever subordinate to you or to the SA Föhrung at any time?

JUETTNER: No. No Reichskommissare in Ostland were under the SA Leadership. They were under the Eastern Administration. The SA Leadership had no influence on them,'nor was that its function.

HERR BOEHM: Now I should like to show you the paragraph which yesterday formed the subject of statements by the prosecutor, which, however, in my opinion was torn from the context. It reads:

"On orders of the chief..."

THE PRESIDENT: What is the reference?

HERR BOEHM: That is Number R-135, Mr. President. It is the second paragraph from the end in this document.

"On orders of the chief of anti-partisan activity, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Von dem Bach, units of the Wehrmannschaften took part in the undertaking. SA Standartenfuehrer Kunze led the Wehrmannschaften, which included 90 members of my group and of the District Kommissariat of Minsk. Our men returned yesterday from the undertaking without losses.

"I refuse to assign to such missions officials and Reich employees of the Generalkommissariat in the rear area. The men employed by me have not been deferred in order to combat partisans in the place of the Wehrmacht and the Police. One railroad Wehrmannschafter was wounded (shot through the lung)."

Does this not show clearly that these were railroad men and officials formed into fighting commandos to combat partisans, created as a result of the Soviet Russian order? Could this have been an SA commando?

JUETTNER: No, under no circumstances. They were called Wehrmannschaften under an SA Fuehrer named Kunzo, who had for some time been out of the active Leadership Corps of the SA. He was a leader for a special purpose. He was in the East. I know him, but I have only now learned that he was employed in the East. He was employed within the Eastern Administration, but not as an SA Fuehrer. If he trained Wehrmannschaften, they were not SA Wehrmannschaften. There were none there, and they were not organized, trained, or influenced by us in any way. .

HERR BOEHM: Then it is probably correct if I assume that Kunze was an official of the District Kommissariat of the city of Minsk and that he had nothing to do with the Supreme SA Leadership?

JGTTNER: That is correct.

HERR BOEHM: Through an affidavit of...

THE PRESIDENT: Will you ask the witness, Dr. BOEHM, what "Wehrmannschaften" means literally?

HERR BOEHM: The witness already commented on that yesterday by distinguishing between "SA Wehrmannschaften" and "Wehrmannschaften" of the type mentioned here. Herr JUETTNER, would you please...

THE PRESIDENT: I asked what the word meant literally.

HERR BOEHM: Witness, please explain-to the President what you understand by the term "Wehrmannschaften."

JUETTNER: Your Lordship, I should like to distinguish between "SA Wehrmannschaften" and "Wehrmannschaften" of the type mentioned here. The "SA Wehrmannschaften," according to the decree of Adolf Hitler of January, 1939, were to be set up by the SA in the Reich consisting of released soldiers so that they could be kept ready for defense physically and mentally. The "Wehrmannschaften" mentioned here were given this designation without our having anything to do with it and I imagine that these "Wehrmanschaften" were men who formed themselves into groups to combat partisans in occupied territory.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness still has not told me what the word means. It is a German word. All we want is the translation. Is it possible to translate it?

HERR BOEHM: If I may explain it, I would say that it is a group of persons determined to ward off an attack from any side.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you agree with what your counsel has said, or what the Organization counsel has said, as to the meaning of the word?

JUETTNER: I could give it another definition. It is a unit under a leader, set up in this case for dealing with enemy action in occupied territory that is behind the front, a defense organization.

HERR BOEHM: I believe that it is necessary, Mr. President, for me to demonstrate to you with the aid of Document 4011-PS the difference between "Wehrmannschaften" and "SA Wehrmannschaften." In Document 4011-PS, on Page 9, the Deputy Generalkommando IV. A.K. says in the 3d paragraph, last line but one ...

THE PRESIDENT: Page 9 of what?

HERR BOEHM: I thought I said 4011-PS, Mr. President. It is the third paragraph. The Deputy Generalkommando IV. A.K. speaks of "SA Wehrmannschaften" and the same term is used on the same page in the same document in Paragraph 5. It is the view taken by the Deputy Generalkommando IV. A.K. There it also states: "While I was on duty with the 'SA Wehrmannschaften' on 2 June 1940." Whenever he refers to the Wehrmannschaften of the SA, then they are SA Wehrmannschaften and were explicitly designated as SA Wehrmannschaften.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. BOEHM, the translation we have got said: "On the occasion of my presence at the training of the SA Wehrmannschaften on the 2d of June, 1940, 1 established that the primary military physical training of the SA Mannschaften, especially under difficult conditions brought about by the present time, was practiced by all concerned with great zeal."

HERR BOEHM: Yes, of course, Mr. President; I want to make a distinction, between the term "SA Wehrmannschaften" if any such were concerned, and the term "Wehrinannschaften" if no SA was involved.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think it is any good arguing the point. I was only asking what the meaning of the word was. The witness has now explained to me that according to the Hitler decree of January 1939, certain men called "Wehrmannschaften" were to be set up in the Reich, as he says, ready for defense. If you can confirm that, it would be useful perhaps.

HERR BOEHM: If the explanation of this term is sufficient, I can continue.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.

HERR BOEHM: An affidavit of Rudolf Schönberger is suppo

sed to show that according to orders the Supreme SA Leadership was in charge of the guarding of forced labor camps. This is the first affidavit given in this connection. I should like to ask you under whom the forced labor camps operated. Can you clarify this point, Herr Jöttner? Did you ever detail men as SA Mannschaften or as SA units to the Auxiliary Police or to any other authority to be employed or used in these labor camps?

JUETTNER: At no time did the duties of the SA include police tasks. The guarding and supervision of forced laborers is always a police task. If SA men were used for this, they were enrolled for this on a legal basis and were no longer under the authority of the SA as regards orders. They fulfilled their police tasks there, the same as anyone else fulfilled his task in some other profession. He remained an SA man, but during the time he was occupied in police tasks, he was on leave from the SA and was no longer under the authority of the SA Leadership.

HERR BOEHM: Not for orders either?

JUETTNER: Not for orders either.

HERR BOEHM: Another document which I should like to show you is Number 3661-PS. The Prosecution wishes to use this document, which is signed by a certain Gewecke, to show the part of the Supreme SA Leadership or the organization in attacks on Jews in Ostland. Therefore I should like to ask you, does not the letter heading of the District Kommissar in Schaulen show that this was the affair of the Reichskommissariat -Ostland? This letter was written on 8 September 1941, and the letter heading reads "The District Kommissar in Schaulen." Was the District Kommissar in Schaulen ever in any way subordinate to you?

JUETTNER: I have repeatedly said that the Kommissare in the Occupied Eastern Territories as well as the forces allocated and employed in the occupied territories were in no way under the SA Leadership, and as a result did not receive and could not receive any instructions from the SA Leadership. This District Kommissar was not under the authority of the SA either.

HERR BOEHM: That makes the matter clear. The letter was signed by a certain Gewecke. He was actually an SA man, but it is interesting to point out in this connection that the contents of this document show that this Gewecke complains about attacks on Jews committed by the SS Leadership.

The next document was submitted under Number D-970 and refers to the commander of the Security Police and the SD in the Government General. In connection with this Prosecution document I should first like to state that Kattowitz, or the outpost, Ilkenau, is not in the Government General, but in Upper Silesia.

Now I should like to ask you, if you will pay attention to the following sentence which I will quote:

"Therefore, the construction staff at Kattowitz detailed a special detachment of 12 SA men to round up workers in the villages."

Does this not show that the office giving the order was not an SA office but an official agency, namely, the construction staff Kattowitz, which by coincidence chose SA members amongst others? Did you understand, me, Witness?

JUETTNER: Yes. Which question should I answer first?

HERR BOEHM: Was a construction staff at Kattowitz ever under your jurisdiction?

JUETTNER: No, construction staffs-presumably by these is meant construction staffs of the Organization Todt-were never under the SA Leadership. If a construction staff employed SA men for such

tasks, it no doubt took from its own personnel those that were SA members. If they employed SA men who were not directly under their orders, that was outside the powers of the SA Leadership. If such men have been guilty of illegal actions in this connection they deserve proper punishment. In any case, the SA Leadership, as the document shows, had no power over such employment. They were employed by the construction staff which was not subordinate to the SA Leadership.

HERR BOEHM: Might it have escaped you that in Kattowitz; there were SA Einsatzkommandos of which you knew nothing? Would that have been possible?

JUETTNER: I said emphatically yesterday, and I repeat today, that the term "Einsatzkommando" was completely foreign to the SA, as we never formed Einsatzkommandos for such purposes. If Einsatzkommandos existed and there were SA members in their ranks, then that was not due to any instructions of the SA and did not mean that it was approved by the SA.

HERR BOEHM: The Prosecution submitted a letter yesterday from the Reichsfuehrer SS, Inspector of Concentration Camps, to the Reichsfflhrer SS and Chief of the German Police in Berlin, dated 21 February 1940. Unfortunately I do not remember the exhibit number given yesterday, but there can be no doubt about this letter because I have a photostatic copy of it here.

I should like to ask you, Herr Jöttner, whether the Supreme SA Leadership had a labor camp for drunkards and s1iirkers, as was asserted yesterday by the Prosecution and as this document might be interpreted to indicate.

Regarding the camp Frauenberg near Admont, it says:

"About 20 men of the SA guarded the camp."

What do you have to say about the document submitted by the Prosecution about the labor camp Frauenberg in Styria, concerning the labor camp in which 20 SA men are said to have been used as guards? Would you like to see the document? Have you seen the document?

JUETTNER: No.

[The witness was handed a document.]

HERR BOEHM: You will find this statement on the second page of the document, in the last third.

JUETTNER: I must say, Your Lordship, that after the Reichsfuehrer SS took over the concentration camps, which as far as I know was at the end of 1933, the SA as an organization had nothing to do with concentration camps and the guarding of concentration camps. If SA men were in fact used as guards, then, they were drafted by the authorities as Auxiliary Police or something similar in order to carry out this task. But in that case they were completely removed from the responsibility and the authority of the SA.

HERR BOEHM: Another document which was submitted is Number 4013-PS, which says:

"This morning I had an inquiry from very reliable English

quarters whether it would be possible for Austrians in Germany behind the backs of Hitler and Habicht to break into Austria. My informant added that so far the Austrian attacks had been ignored, but this information had come from such a reliable source that they simply had to contact us. I am afraid of a possible provocation by hired elements which, if announced to the world just at that time, could produce conflicts."

I should only like to ask you, is this one of the usual cock-and-bull stories which in the past have been very frequent? Do you know the document?

JUETTNER: No. I do not know the document.

[The witness was handed a document.]

I may say that until yesterday I knew nothing about this affair. I could not have helped hearing about it. The collecting-point for refugee or expelled Austrians, the so-called Austrian Legion, which was later Aid Campaign Camp North West, was purposely located a long way from the Austrian border, several hundred kilometers, on the Rhine. This alone should indicate that any border incidents or whatever the author of this report anticipated was quite out of the question. In any case, I knew nothing about the affair until now.

HERR BOEHM: Then the Prosecution submitted another document yesterday, Number D-951. On the second page of the document it says:

"According to the report of the Military District Headquarters VI, the SA Brigadefuehrer are also said to be considering forming such a staff guard and to be engaging SA men for one or one and a half year's service for this purpose ...

Numerically this would amount to 6 or 8,000 SA men permanently armed with rifles and machine guns in the area of the Military District VI alone."

The letter is dated 6'March 1934, or 2 March 1934.

The second letter says:

"The training is to be carried out with rifle Model 98."

Have you seen this document?

JUETTNER: No, but I heard of it yesterday.

[The witness was handed a document.]

HERR BOEHM: Do not these documents refer to the people's militia which Röhmintended to set up and in which he failed? Please describe R6hm's plans for the people's militia in its political connection, and please be brief.

JUETTNER: First, as to the staff guard: there were staff guards, in part armed, to protect the offices and to post, quite publicly, guards of honor and other guards.' That 6,000 men should have formed the staff guard in H6chst on the Main is quite out of the question. Herr Von Blomberg repeatedly made mistakes and apparently he did so in this case too. These mistakes are especially clear from an exchange of correspondence after the death of R6hm, in which he attacked me personally because of an order of 8 May 1934, and where he presented the facts quite wrongly. When the Chief of Staff, Lutze, and I objected, he excused himself with the explanation that in such turbulent times such mistakes could occur.

If the Tribunal wishes I can go into more detail.

Chief of Staff R6hm, as he repeatedly said at Fuehrer discussions, wanted to create, in addition to the Reichswehr, a militia from the ranks of the SA amounting to 300,000 men. He repeatedly emphasized that the State leadership had to keep the pledge they had given to the old gentleman, meaning Hindenburg, that is, that the Reichswehr should not be touched.

He spoke quite openly with the Military Attaches of the Western Powers about his militia plans. I myself was twice a witness, and gained the unequivocal impression that particularly the French Military Attach6 in no way objected to these plans.

THE PRESIDENT: I don't believe that we need to prolong this discussion. The witness says, as I understand it, that this document refers to a militia which Röhmwanted to set up. Is that right?

HERR BOEHM: Yes, those were the plans of Röhm.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's all we need there.

HERR BOEHM: Then I should like to add a short question: with the death of Röhm were not these plans completely shelved, that is, did they not fall through?

JUETTNER: To my knowledge these plans were not followed up in any way. On the contrary, the comparatively few arms which the staff guards possessed were collected and delivered after the 30th of June, 1934.

HERR BOEHM: Now I come to the next document, Number 3050-PS, the first page, A. This document was submitted in cross-examination yesterday and contains a collection of articles from the SA Mann. This was commented on widely in the Commission and it was made sufficiently clear just what the SA Mann meant to the individual members of the SA and what the influence of the Supreme SA Leadership was upon this paper. However, since these things have been brought up again, it is necessary to comment on them again, even if only briefly. It is fundamentally wrong, if one quotes articles, to quote only excerpts.

THE PRESIDENT: You don't seem to have understood that you are not here to comment; you are here to ask questions of the witness. If you want to ask, questions of the witness, ask them.

HERR BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. I should like to quote an article which has not yet been read, Document Number 3050-A. This article must be quoted by me, Mr. President, because I should like to ask a question about it, since-and I ask that this be officially recognized-the article from the SA Mann as submitted by the Prosecution does not read as it appears here. The article reads:

"Since marching is in the last analysis a form of sport, the same principles are true of it as of any other sport. Health and hardening of the body are conditions for successful march training. This includes foot care which is especially important for those marching."

The article then goes on to describe foot care. I will not take up your time with that. Then it points out that marching is not only important for the soldier in the Army, but also for the political soldiers, the SA men. A completely unmilitary matter in my opinion. In Document 3050-C, I see there is an article, also from the SA Mann of 94 March 1934, with the heading "cross-country." This is the third article submitted to the Court in Document 3050-PS, and it is supposed to prove that the SA had a military attitude. Therefore the article should be submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: I've already told you that what you are doing is making an argument on the Document 3050-PS; and what you ought to do is to ask the witness a question as to the document.

HERR BOEHM: Herr JUETTNER, the document which I read to you, now that I have pointed out the mistakes, should, according to the Prosecution, prove the military character of the SA, because it speaks of foot care and because this article appeared in the SA Mann. Did you order this article?

JUETTNER: The Supreme SA Leadership did not order the articles in the SA Mann. The editors were responsible for them. The SA was not military in character and never attempted to be. If, as was said yesterday, the paper SA Mann was to be used to help in the education and training of the SA, that was because ...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. BOEHM, we don't want that argument over and over again. We know perfectly well that you say these documents about training were simply for sports; and the witness has said it at least twenty times in the course of the examination.

HERR BOEHM: Very well, Mr. President. Since these documents' were submitted yesterday, the witness must in some way comment on this matter; and I must ask him about it and inform him of the contents of these documents if he is to comment on them in giving evidence. There is no other opportunity.

THE PRESIDENT: He had ample opportunity to get familiar with the documents. The documents were put to him yesterday.

HERR BOEHM: They were not put to him, Mr. President. No questions were asked.

THE PRESIDENT: He stated yesterday that that was a lecture by Lutze.

HERR BOEHM: No, not this document, Mr. President, the whole series of documents ...

THE PRESIDENT: If you'll ask the witness questions instead of arguing, we shall get on better; and if you won't ask questions, you'll have to stop the examination.

HERR BOEHM: Very well, Mr. President.

[Turning to the witness.] In another article in Document 3050 of 24 March 1934, with the heading "cross-country," it says:

"The most effective means in the hands of the clever leader is to implant in the hearts of the youth now growing up a love of nature, and to steel them physically and mentally."

Do you conclude from this article, which was not written by you or on your instructions any more than the others, that it denotes a military attitude or military training?

JUETTNER: No.

HERR BOEHM: In Document 3050-E it states in the third line: "For the SA man there is no tiring, no slothful resting, whether in the political struggle or in the maintaining and saving of valuable goods for German political economy. The SA is always ready."

Do you take that to imply a military attitude? I do not know who wrote this article; it was not ordered by you in any case; but can one take the attitude expressed here to mean a military training or a militaristic attitude?

JUETTNER: No one would take it to mean a militaristic attitude or an attempt to adopt one.

HERR BOEHM: Document 3050-F is called militaristic because it contains a service plan according to which 6 hours of drill, 3 hours of shooting practice and 3 hours of field exercises per month are demanded of the SA members. I should like to ask you in the first place, what did the drill consist of?

JUETTNER: As the name implies, it consisted of exercises for the public appearance of the SA at demonstrations, parades, and so forth. That was a matter of course and a necessity. For example, if, as was my responsibility, one had to move 120,000 men in big parades at the Party Rally,

they had to be prepared for this by drill if the spectacle was to be at all presentable. It is for these things that the men were drilled, to teach the men proper bearing, as is the case in other countries too.

HERR BOEHM: And what was the shooting practice?

JUETTNER: We had only small-bore rifles, the sports model. We could, therefore, practice only with small-bore. That was sport shooting.

HERR BOEHM: What did the field exercise consist of?

JUETTNER: An attempt was made to train the men mentally and to awaken in them a love of nature. By the various exercises the men were to be forced to think; it was to train their courage and to give them initiative, the same as in the motor exercises in the NSKK, where motorcyclists were trained in -cross-country riding and had to overcome difficult terrain.

HERR BOEHM: Then another article is contained in this document, which reads:

"The difference between shooting and aiming is the difference between the training of the SA and that of the soldiers of the nation, the Wehrmacht"; and then it goes on to say: "military field observation was only a fraction of what is understood by SA field observation."

Now I should like to ask you to what extent the SA field observation has anything to do with the military field observation, particularly whether it is important that SA field observation did not go far beyond the military points? Is it correct that perhaps the SA man by no means considered field observation merely from the point of view of shooting in the technical sense? Is it true that above all through this field observation he got to know his own country, and that with this end in view he was trained in marching and in field observation?

JUETTNER: None of these questions you have put were leading questions. It was clear to every SA man that our field observation in the SA could in no way be compared with the military field observation, which was along purely military lines. We in the SA combined field observation and field exercises with the ideological training of the man, namely, we wanted to awaken and deepen in him the love of his own country. Above all, this field service was intended to teach him to know the natural beauties of his country, the historical significance of the sector in which these exercises were carried out.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm afraid you don't understand what I say. I thought I had said to you that we quite understood your argument that the training which was given to the SA was not for military purposes but was for other peaceful purposes. Your argument isn't proved by repetition; and the Tribunal does not desire to hear any more of this.

HERR BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. Then I can skip the next articles. They are all more or less the same in content. I will not put any further questions.

Then Document 4009 was submitted yesterday. It was to prove that the article in the SA Mann was a semi-official article of the Supreme 'SA Leadership. This is also a subject which has been repeatedly discussed. But if these things are submitted ten times, Mr. President, then I ask permission to comment on them ten times. These things were dealt with before the Commission down to the smallest detail, and every point, even the smallest, was elucidated before the Commission. Yesterday this document was submitted again; and therefore I am forced to comment on it once more, much as I dislike doing SO.

THE PRESIDENT: Ask the witness questions about the document. I suppose there is a difference in your language between making a comment and asking a question. Will you ask the witness a question?

HERR BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President.

Witness, a document was submitted here written by the press consultant of the paper Der SA Mann to a Herr K6rbel, who was at that time Reichsleiter. He was induced to write an article. Did that have anything to do with the Supreme SA Leadership?

JUETTNER: I did not quite understand. Körbel was not a Reichsleiter. The letter was sent to whom?

HERR BOEHM: The letter was sent to Reichsleiter Rosenberg.

JUETTNER: A letter from Körbel to Rosenberg?

HERR BOEHM: Yes.

JUETTNER: He wrote it in his capacity as editor of the SA Mann. If he wanted to have an article for the SA Mann, that was entirely his affair. If he also gives himself the title of press consultant of the Supreme SA Leadership, then in this capacity his task consisted merely in transmitting to the rest of the Germans press news which we wanted to have published, and in taking care of its publication.

HERR BOEHM: 750,000 subscribers are mentioned in this letter. It might be deduced, although it was not expressed here, that these 750,000 readers were members of the SA. Can you comment on that?

JUETTNER: I do not know exactly how these 750,000 subscribers were made up. I only know that the paper, about which we had very mixed feelings, did not meet with a very good reception, and consequently was little read in SA circles, comparatively speaking.

HERR BOEHM: But you know that this paper was then banned?

J'UTTNER: It was banned in 1939.

HERR BOEHM: Another document was submitted yesterday, Number 366-1. That is a report of Mr. Köchling as a special delegate of the OKW with the Reich Youth Leader in connection with the Sudeten German Free Corps.

I should like to ask you to explain the connection between the SA and the Sudeten German Free Corps.

JUETTNER: Your Lordship, as far as I remember, I have already commented on this before the Commission. I was assigned by the SA as Liaison Fuehrer to Konrad Henlein.

HERR BOEHM: Herr JUETTNER, perhaps I may shorten this by asking: Is it true that the SA associated or co-operated with this Sudeten German Free Corps only to the extent that these people, during the time they were in Germany as refugees, when they were not organized into a Free Corps, were given economic support by the SA; for instance, perhaps one or the other was given a blanket or something to eat out of, so that they should have what was necessary merely to exist.

JUETTNER: Individual groups of the Free Corps were helped by individual SA men without orders from us to do so, in the way which counsel has just stated. They helped to establish the refugees and supplied the Free Corps members with the necessary blankets, cooking utensils, and so forth. And then these SA men helped the men of the Free Corps in forming their groups. The Free Corps itself had no military value. If I may speak quite plainly, it was a loosely organized band, a group of people who had taken upon themselves the task of receiving the refugees who were coming in, some of them in great distress, bringing them to refugee camps, and preventing incidents and attacks at the border, which actually did occur. In other words, protecting their fellow citizens. This Free Corps did not have any military value.

HERR BOEHM: Then Document 3993-PS was submitted yesterday. It is a letter from the Chief of Staff, Lutze, to Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg, in which he thanks him for congratulations which he received because the premilitary and postmilitary training of the SA was entrusted to him. This has already been replied to several times. Is it true that this premilitary and postmilitary training had reached the stage it was intended to reach?

JUETTNER: I said yesterday that through the decree of Hitler of January 1939 ...

HERR BOEHM: May I ask you to be very brief, Herr Jöttner?

JUETTNER: ... this task was given to the SA ...

THE PRESIDENT [Interposing]: The Tribunal has asked about it in cross-examination. What is the point of putting it to him again? He has given his account of it in cross-examination.

HERR BOEHM: Mr. President ' I asked him to be brief. I only did it to complete the evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the good of doing it if he has done it already? It doesn't matter whether you do it briefly or not; he is going to say the same thing.

HERR BOEHM: Document D-923 was also submitted yesterday. Are the cases....

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal wants you to understand that the function of re-examination is not to repeat what has been said in cross-examination, but simply to explain and to alter, or to explain and clarify-if you like the word-what has been said in cross-examination.

HERR BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President.

[Turning to the witness.] Document D-923 was submitted to you yesterday. It concerned the legal handling of the Pflaumer and Schl6gl cases. Did you have any part in the measures which were taken as a result of this case? Did you use any influence on any of the judges who acted in this case, or did you take the view that, basically, in all cases of amnesty, that amnesty or the amnesty decree was an affair of the State, and you naturally wanted to apply it to your SA members in cases in which this was possible?

JUETTNER: As I said yesterday, I had no part in these two cases. I did not know about them. The SA Leadership tried and punished offenders; that was its principle and it acted accordingly. In cases of amnesty, they applied to the SA as well.

It might' be important to mention here that the punishment of the concentration camp guards at Hobenstein, the juridical punishment, was set on foot and carried out not at the suggestion of Reichsstatthalter Mutschmann, but at the suggestion of SA Obergruppenfuehrer Von Killinger. The SA Leadership asked for the punishment of the Hohenstein men and had the court carry it out.

HERR BOEHM: Then Document 784-PS was submitted yesterday, which was said to be a typical case of forcefully suppressing political opponents, and I have discovered in my study of the files that particularly old fighters of the NSDAP were ill-treated. For example, there was a certain Stahl who joined the SS in 1933, and a certain Seifert, an old fighter from the year 1924. There was the case of Kreisobmann Kröger of the German Labor Front, and a member of the NSDAP since 1931 by the name of Ginsk.

In this connection, Mr. President, I should like to ask the members of the Prosecution to give me the letters which are missing here, especially the letter of the Chief of Staff, Lutze, and the letter of Hess, which my colleague Seidl asked for yesterday.

Now, I should like to ask you, Witness....

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I had a search made, and we haven't got the documents, the answers from Defendant Hess or from Chief of Staff Lutze.

HERR BOEHM: That letter would have been very essential, Mr. President, to show the attitude of Chief of Staff Lutze in this case.

Now I must go back to Document 1721-PS, Mr. President. It is a report to the Group Kurpfalz-Mannheim on action taken by Brigade 50, and concerns the order of the Supreme SA Leadership in connection with the objects which were possibly stolen or otherwise lost in the year 1938.

Witness, the situation was dealt with here yesterday in crossexamination as if there were a number of indications which fitted together and vouched for the authenticity of the report of Brigade 50.

Please note the report and at the top, at the right, look at the three letters which are contained in this document, "Z. d. A." The same letters appear on your order signed "Jöttner" at the left near the bottom, next to the reception stamp. You are not a handwriting expert, but even a layman can see whether these letters were written by the same hand.

Please comment on this.

JUETTNER: As far as I can recall, I was asked yesterday whether I saw these letters. I said yes. As I compare them, I must say that on the one document they are written in a different handwriting from that on the other document. That is shown by the flourish and the peculiar "A" and "d.11 The "Z" also is different.

HERR BOEHM: It is not difficult for a layman to see that. Now, please look at the reception stamp on the left at the bottom on your order, in the first square...

J-UTTN'ER: Yes, I see.

HERR BOEHM: These are two letters. Is it probable that these two letters which may mean the same thing were written by the same hand?

JUETTNER: On closer observation of the writing on the stamp, one must come to the conclusion that the stamp which follows the report of Brigade 50 is forged. The differences are so obvious. The "F," for instance, the "H," and the crooked "G," or whatever it is supposed to be, indicate that it is copied.

HERR BOEHM: Did you see anything else on the document...

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.

[A recess was taken.]

HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, I have but four more questions which deal with the affidavit, which was submitted yesterday, deposed by Minister President Dr. H6gner, and these are the final questions.

Witness, in the affidavit deposed by Minister President Dr. Högner which was read yesterday, it says: "Already in the year 1922"-1 believe it was at the so-called German Day at Coburg the SA with its armed bands dominated the streets, made attacks on the peaceful population and particularly on people who held different political opinions, and traveled in lorries to all demonstrations of the National Socialist movement."

Now I should like to ask you, what were the conditions in Coburg like and what were the occurrences which took place there? Who attacked whom? Please be brief.

JUETTNER: I did not participate in the first appearance of the SA outside of Munich, on the German Day in Coburg, but I was informed exactly by a number of colleagues who were participants. For quite some time beforehand the opposition press tried to prevent this SA rally and incited the people against it. Already when the transports left Munich conflicts occurred and the Police searched the departing SA members for weapons; the same thing happened when the transports arrived at Coburg. In Coburg there was a majority of the political opponents, the SPD and similar organizations. The SA was by far in the minority and the fact that the conflicts were not more serious is due entirely to the disciplined behavior of the SA. Coburg may be taken as a classic example of that. These attacks were started and carried out not only by the Coburg political opponents, but by people who had come in from the outside and who were overwhelmingly stronger, than the SA.

HERR BOEHM: Dr. Högner declares further in his affidavit:

"The appearance of the SA was all the more dangerous because it had been trained by the Reichswehr as a sort of auxiliary unit and some had their own secret depots of arms while others had access to the secret depots of arms of the Reichswehr."

Is that true?

JUETTNER: This statement is quite incomprehensible to me. The Reichswehr at that time, with the approval of the Government, carried on a training program for the purpose of protecting the border, especially after the incidents along the Polish border, which made it necessary to protect our home borders. The men who were brought in for this training were taken from such units as "Stahlhelm," "Jung-Deutscher Orden," and "Reichsbanner." Only one organization was not admitted to this training and that was the SA, which was mainly due to the instigation of the civil authorities, who, I remember, were very close to Dr. H6gner's party at that time. Secondly, the Reichswehr had arms depots for the purpose of protecting the frontiers, and these arms depots were kept very secret, and quite rightly so, for there were uprisings and riots all over Germany-I am thinking of Brunswick, Hamburg, et cetera. It was important that these weapons should not fall into the hands of unauthorized persons. On the occasion of the Polish uprising, in which I myself took part as a member of a Free Corps, one of these depots was used with the agreement of the Inter-Allied Military Commission. A British officer who belonged to the Commission, and whom I knew very well from the previous war, supported us in the most chivalrous manner. It is remarkable that Dr. Högner should try to lay these arms depots at the door of the SA, for he really

must have known that Minister Noske, who was a close friend of his, had given the Reichswehr permission to set up these depots. Thirdly, I should like to say that between the SA and the Reichswehr an extraordinary state of tension existed. I know that from Generaloberst Heye. He was Generaloberst Von Seeckt's successor, and I knew him well from the previous world war. He also told me that General Von Lossow, in November 1923, was responsible for the failure of the action in Munich in which the SA also participated. It shows also that Generaloberst Von Seeckt was strongly opposed to the NSDAP.

Dr. Högner must have known that too, for in connection with this question he afterwards ...

THE PRESIDENT: That is just argument.

HERR BOEHM: That will do. My question was only whether you had access to these depots, if they really existed as secret Reichswehr depots.

JUETTNER: No. That was completely out of the question. May I continue?

HERR BOEHM: That is quite sufficient. Dr. H6gner further asserts in his affidavit that on 9 November 1923 Ludendorff was chosen to be the man to unleash the national war. What do you know about that?

JUETTNER: I beg your pardon, but only a half-wit could assert such a thing. General Ludendorff after the first World War wanted a peaceful solution ...

THE PRESIDENT: It is quite sufficient if he says no to your question.

HERR BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President.

[Turning to the witness.] Do you remember that weapons were found in 1933 in the Trade Union House in Munich?

JUETTNER: Yes.

HERR BOEHM: And now one last question. What were relations like between the SA and Himmler?

JUETTNER: The relations between Chief of Staff Lutze and Himmler were the worst conceivable. The relations between the SA and the former Reichsfuehrer SS personally were definitely bad. In conclusion, may I give a very brief explanation to the questions which were put, Your Lordship?

HERR BOEHM: To which questions did you want to make a few remarks?

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bohm, you can make, of course, in your speech what arguments you like, but unless it is in answer to some question from you, I don't think this witness ought to say anything on his own, unless there is something he wants to clear up in his evidence.

HERR BOEHM: The witness wanted to clarify some questions which I had put to him, Your Honor, as far as I understood him.

THE PRESIDENT: What question do you want to clarify?

JUETTNER: The question of whether the SA committed war crimes or crimes against humanity.

HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, I would like to ask that the explanation be permitted.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, if he does it briefly.

JUETTNER: I shall be very brief, Your Lordship. To conclude the questions put to me I should like to assure you upon my oath that we of the SA did not do anything bad. We did not want a war and we did not prepare for a war. We of the SA, the leadership and the organization itself, did only those things which in other countries are expected of the men of the nation as their moral duty, which Mr. Truman or Marshal Stalin or the statesmen of England and France expect of their men, namely, to do everything to protect the home country and to maintain peace. We of the SA did not commit any crimes against humanity, either. The leadership did not decree them, nor did they tolerate them, nor allow the organization to become guilty of any of them. When individuals committed misdeeds they should be punished and it is our win, too, that they should be brought to just punishment.

We therefore do not ask for mercy or sympathy by portraying our domestic distress. We ask only for justice; for nothing else, for our conscience is clear. We acted as patriots. If patriots are to be labelled as criminals, then we were criminals.

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

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.

DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER (Counsel for Defendant Frick): Mr. President, one document for Frick is still outstanding, a document which was granted to me before the end of the evidence, but which has not been handed in. I ask to be allowed to present it now. It is an answer to a questionnaire by Dr. Konrad in Berlin, which deals with the attitude of the Ministry of the Interior in the Church question. It is Frick Exhibit Number 15. I believe I may refer to this document without reading it in full.

THE'PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, then, counsel for the Defendant Funk wanted to recall the defendant, did he not? Yes, well, will you do that now?

DR. OTTO STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Göring): Mr. President, on 14 August I submitted a written application to present evidence which has not been decided upon, and which probably cannot be decided upon yet. It is not possible for me to tell whether this application for evidence will be considered unless I refer to it at the present stage of the proceedings. It deals with incidents which were discussed in the session of 9 August during the cross-examination of the witness Sievers by the British Prosecution. On that occasion it was said that the Defendant Göring was connected with medical experiments which were made with concentration camp inmates. It was in connection with the experiments to make sea water potable, to find a cure for typhus, and finally, with freezing experiments. These experiments allegedly were carried out on concentration camp inmates, and it was asserted that all of this took place at the direction of, or rather with the approval of, Göring. Now I should like to prove that Göring did not decree these experiments, and therefore they 'were not carried out on his instructions, and that he did not even have knowledge of such practices.

In this connection I named as witnesses, first of all, Dr. Schroeder, the senior medical officer of the Luftwaffe, who apparently is a prisoner in British or American hands. I also named the Defendant Göring himself as a witness, for it is uncertain whether it will be possible to bring the witness Schroeder here in time. Therefore I should like to ask the High Tribunal's permission to have Göring recalled to the witness stand so that I can question him in regard to these questions which I have just mentioned and outlined.

THE PRESIDENT: Would you give, please, the Tribunal a reference to the transcript where the Defendant Göring testified upon the question of experiments.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I tried to do that, and I am anxious to prove that. I have not received the transcript, as yet. These documents were submitted in the afternoon session of 9 August. I could not get the individual numbers; I will submit them later today.

THE PRESIDENT: You are misunderstanding me. What I asked you for was a reference to the transcript where the Defendant Göring himself was questioned, as I imagine he was questioned, about experiments generally.

DR. STAHMER: Yes, he has been examined generally on this matter, and the witness Milch also testified in general. General Milch was heard on this matter on 8 March 1946. (Volume IX, Pages 51, 52).

But I should like to point out that Field Marshal Milch testified generally to only a part of these questions. However, specific accusations have now been raised, which were unknown to me at the time and in regard to which I could examine neither the Defendant G6ring nor the witness Milch.

THE PRESIDENT: What I wanted to know in addition to General Milch was at what page in the transcript the Defendant Göring himself dealt with the matter, either in the examinationin-chief or in cross-examination or re-examination.

DR. STAHMER: I cannot tell you yet, but I will submit it immediately.

THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the matter. Have the Prosecution any observations they wish to make with reference to the application on behalf of the Defendant Göring?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, this is the first time that I had heard of the application, so I am speaking from memory.

My Lord, my recollection is that the Prosecution put in certain correspondence about the experiments. That was put in cross-examination by Mr. Justice Jackson to Marshal Milch so that when the Defendant Göring went into the witness box the question of his connection with the experiments was a matter that was known to him and with which he could deal.

My Lord, I would like to do the same as I understand the Tribunal wants-to check as to how far he did deal with it, and if there is any further point arising on that, perhaps I could mention it to the Tribunal later on.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you do that when we rise, or just before we rise today?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, My Lord. I will have it looked into at once.

THE PRESIDENT: And perhaps Dr. Stahmer could let us have a reference to the passages in the transcript at 1 o'clock, or even 2 o'clock. One o'clock would be preferable.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would help a lot.

DR. SAUTER: With the permission of the Tribunal, I will call the Defendant Funk to the witness box.

[The Defendant Funk took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you understand you are still under oath?

FUNK: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DR.SAUTER: Dr. Funk, can you understand me?

FUNK: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Dr. Funk, today I must examine you about this affidavit submitted by the Prosecution last week, deposed by the former SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, and dealing With concentration camps. You yourself have been heard on this group of questions on 7 May here in this courtroom. In this examination of 7 May, in response to a question, you stated that at that time you had seen this Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl once, and I quote from the transcript of 7 May, "I saw him once at the bank, when he was having lunch with Mr. Puhl, the vice president of the bank, or some of the other gentlemen of the directorate. I passed through the room and I saw him sitting there. I myself," you said, "never discussed these matters with Herr Pohl (Gruppenfuehrer of the SS). It is completely new to me that these things took place." That is a literal quotation from your testimony of 7 May. Now Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, in his affidavit Number 4045-PS, which was submitted to the Court on 5 May, stated that he had talked to you twice. Do you remember the other conversation you had with him, a conversation which you did not mention at that time? Yes or no?

FUNK: No.

DR. SAUTER: What can you say about this other conversation, regarding the statement of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl? I mean the conversation in regard to which Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl stated that he had talked with you on Himmler's instructions to the effect that you, as Reich Minister of Economics, would give preferential treatment to the SS when textiles were being allotted, apparently for uniforms? What can you say on this subject?

FUNK: It is my conviction that this conversation did not take place. At any rate, try as I may, I cannot remember such a conversation with Pohl, and many things show that it could not have taken place. First of all, I did not concern myself with such specific things as the allocation of textiles to a branch of the services. Secondly, I always held conversations like that in the presence of my state secretary or in the presence of the competent chief of the department or specialist, particularly if the conversation was with a person whom I did not know. I never concerned myself with the supplying of textiles from concentration camps. These 'things came within the province of the Reichskommissar for the utilization of old materials. That was an office outside the Ministry. This office co-operated of course with the textile department of the Ministry. It is my conviction that it was done in this way: the old material, that is, the old used textiles, from the collecting depots went directly to the factories which processed material of this sort. Therefore, I firmly believe that the officials of the Ministry of Economics knew nothing about the deliveries of this material from concentration camps, because these materials had previously been collected by the economic department of the SS under the leadership of Pohl. Before this Trial I did not even know that the concentration camps were under Pohl's jurisdiction. I had no idea of the connection between the economic department of the SS and the concentration camps. Also the scope of these deliveries of old materials was not so large, in proportion to the entire production, that I would have had to be bothered with them. But let us suppose that Mr. Pohl did visit me. My memory is not quite what it used to be, especially after the many years of illness that I have gone through, so that a visit of that kind, which Pohl stated lasted only

a few minutes, might have slipped my memory. If Pohl had ex-pressed to me such a wish on the part of Himmler, then I most certainly would have turned this matter over to my state secretary for him to handle. But Pohl's assertion that he said something to me about dead Jews from whom these deliveries were supposed to have come, these goods turned in by the SS as old material, is monstrous. That was supposed to have been in 1941, perhaps 1942. That Pohl should tell me, whom he was seeing for the first time, a secret which was closely guarded up to the end, is in itself incredible. But he had no reason to mention dead Jews to me when he told me that big deliveries would be arriving from the SS. It .seemed perfectly plausible to me that in the large domain, of the SS, where hundreds of thousands of men were housed in barracks, and were clothed by the State, there must constantly have been much old material such as textiles, blankets, uniforms, underlinen, et cetera ...

THE PRESIDENT: That is going into arguments rather than giving testimony of facts.

FUNK: In any case, I deny most emphatically that Pohl made such a statement to me. I call it a lie, a libel. Up to the day of this Trial no one told me anything, not a soul told me that Jews -were being murdered in concentration camps.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, that is the one point on which I wanted to question you.

FUNK: I would not have allowed a report like that to rest. I -would have applied immediately to my superior, the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, and would have told him about it.

DR. SAUTER: That is the one point, Witness. I believe it has been cleared up sufficiently with your testimony. Now I would like to turn to the second point. And I ask you again to be brief -so that we will be finished by 1 o'clock if possible.

Already in your testimony in May, I believe on 6 May, you testified that you met SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl once at lunch at the Reichsbank, in the mess of the bank, and the witness Pohl in his affidavit Number 4045-PS refers to this conversation and says-I will omit everything else-that he spoke with Puhl, your vice president. You know nothing about that and it would only be a waste of time to ask you that. I will read to you what he says about you. In the transcript of 5 August he says:

"After we"-that is Gruppenfuehrer Pohl and Vice President Puhl and several others-"had inspected the various valuables in the Reichsbank vaults, we went to a room to have lunch with the Reichsbank President, Funk. It had been arranged to serve lunch after the inspection. In addition to Funk and

Puhl,"-that is your vice president-"several other gentle-men of my staff"-the staff of Pohl-"were there. About 10 or 12 people were present.

"I sat next to Funk"-please note this particularly, Witness-, "and we discussed, among other things, the valuables which I had seen in his vaults"-he means the vaults of the Reichs-bank.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, we have all heard this evidence the other day. Can't you put the circumstances of it to him and ask him whether it is true? I mean, it is not necessary to read it all-

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I am only reading the two sentences which apply to the defendant. There Eire only two sentences and I am omitting everything else, but naturally I have to read these two, sentenc

es to him so that he might know exactly what Pohl said. What I have read up to now is the first sentence, Mr. President. And now, the second sentence follows, which is very brief. It reads as follows:

"On this occasion it was clearly stated that a part of the valu-ables which we had inspected had come from concentration camps."

That is the end of the quotation, and the end of the second sentence.

Witness, you have heard what Pohl, the Gruppenfuehrer, asserts in his affidavit. Is it correct or is it not correct? You can answer the question with "yes" or "no," and if it is "no," then you may give a brief explanation.

FUNK: That he talked with me at this lunch, that I do recall. That he discussed with me the valuables deposited by the SS, that I do not recall. But I know with certainty that he did not talk to, me about these valuables about which I knew nothing, that is, about that part of the things which had been brought in by the SS which were to be converted not by the Reichsbank but by the Reich Finance Ministry, that is, gold, jewelry, and what other things there may have been. I never knew about these things, I never saw these things, and Pohl did not talk to me about these things, because if he had, I would have known about them and would have inquired about them. It is, therefore, quite out of the question that Pohl would have stated in the presence of 12 other persons, among whom there were perhaps three or four or five directors of the Reichsbank, and in the presence of the servants that things like that had come from concentration camps and from Jews who had been murdered. The fact that the SS deposited gold, foreign ex-change, notes, and bonds, and that such things also came from the concentration camps, that I did know, and I discussed these matters with Pohl. That was how this terrible thing started-by Himmler asking me to put vault space at his disposal in the Reichsbank for these confiscated objects, and I asked Himmler myself to be allowed to prepare this for the legal Reichsbank business, but I did not know anything about the other things; I did not know anything about the nature and size of them and nothing at all about their origin.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, I should like to put one final question to you so that everything will be entirely clear. When did you learn, for instance, that rims of glasses, gold teeth, and such like-in addi-tion to gold coins and foreign exchange which had to be given up -that such gruesome things had come to your Reichsbank? When did you learn that for the first time? Tell me under oath.

FUNK: Here, during this Trial.

DR. SAUTER: Yes. Can you swear that with a clear conscience?

FUNK: I can swear to that. Dr. Sauter, I must add...

THE PRESIDENT: He has already given this evidence.

DR. SAUTER: It was just a very brief question.

FUNK: Of course, what was in the SS deposits, that I did not know. I never saw that. That other things, like foreign exchange, gold, and securities, could have been in them, that was clear to me ...

DR. SAUTER: You have already explained that. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I have no further questions.

MR. DODD: You now tell us that you did know about the gold deposits and the jewelry coming in from the concentration camps, is that so?

FUNK: I did not know anything about it.

MR. DODD: You did not know anything about it? I must have misunderstood you. I thought you just told the Tribunal that you did know that this gold and these semi-precious stones and jewel-ries and other things were turned over to you through Himmler?

FUNK: No, I did not know anything about that. I only spoke of what was contained in the deposits made by the SS; that the SS did have such deposits in the Reichsbank I did know, but what was contained in them I did not know, for I never saw them and no one ever told me about the nature and the'origin and the quantity of these things.

MR. DODD: Well, you recall, when you testified here before the Tribunal on 7 May, that I asked you if you knew anything about the gold deposits from the concentration camps, and this testimony is present in the record (Volume VIII, Page 166). You said * at that time that Mr. Puhl told you that the SS had delivered a gold deposit and "he also told me, and he said this somewhat ironically, 'it would be best if we didn't try to ascertain what this deposit is."' This was your own testimony, in this very courtroom, in the same chair that you are sitting in now, before the same Tribunal, just a month or two- ago. Now, you had some knowledge certainly that there was something sinister about these deposits-didn't you?-when Director Puhl told you it would be best if you didn't ascertain or learn too much about the nature of the deposit. What do you say to that this morning? What is the fact of the matter?

FUNK: This testimony was already corrected by me insofar as when the first discussion between Himniler and myself took place, Himmler told me that the SS had confiscated considerable valuables in the East and that among them there were assets of interest to the Reichsbank such as gold, foreign coins, foreign bank notes, bonds, and other foreign exchange.

Thereupon I asked him-and I testified to this as well-to appoint someone to discuss this matter with Vice President Puhl. Himmler then sent Pohl to see Puhl, after I had told Puhl about my conver-sation with Himmler. When these things arrived, when the first deposits arrived and were put in the vaults, Puhl said to me: "The SS deliveries are now being deposited," and on that occasion he perhaps made a sarcastic remark, "who knows what is contained in them?" and that is approximately what I have testified to here.

MR. DODD: You also told us, on that same day, and in the next answer to the very next question you made this statement before the Tribunal, "And I personally assumed, since they were always speaking about a gold deposit, that this gold consisted of coins or other foreign currency or possibly small bars of gold or something similar which had been brought in from the inmates of the concen-tration camps." Well then, you had some knowledge of the source and the origin of these deposits, didn't you? You knew where they were coming from, and that is all we want to establish here, and you had a pretty good idea, to put it mildly.

FUNK: That didn't necessarily come from the concentration camps only. But that the inmates of the concentration camps ...

MR. DODD: Now, just a moment. There is no sense in arguing about it at all. All I am trying to clear up here is the fact that you told the Tribunal yourself that you assumed it came from the in-mates of the concentration camps. Now, this is your own testimony of 7 May.

FUNK: Not only the gold, but also the foreign exchange, the bank notes, and everything which would come under the heading of legal transactions of the Reichsbank. That these things could come from the concentration camps as well was quite clear to me, for these things had to be collected from the inmates of the con-centration camps just as from every other person. That was clear to me. It was about the other things that I did not know anything; I did not know about the agreements between the Finance Ministry and the SS.

MR. DODD: Let's see whether you did know or not. You were in the courtroom when Mr. Elwyn Jones of the British Prosecution Staff offered the Document 4024-PS, which told about the action "Reinhard." You heard that document discussed here, didn't you?

FUNK: Yes.

MR.DODD: That document is before the Tribunal, and in that one action-and we don't even know if that is all of it-Reichsmark to the total value of 100,047,000 were deposited either in the Reichs-bank or in the Ministry of Economics just from this action alone. Are you telling the Tribunal that you as head of the Reichsbank would not know that in one year, or at least in one year, 100 million Reichsmark were deposited in your bank, or credits to that amount were placed in the deposit of your bank? You would have to know that, wouldn't you?

FUNK: Will you please repeat the sum. It doesn't appear to have been translated correctly.

MR. DODD: We don't need to get it down to the pfennig, it was over a hundred million Reichsmark.

FUNK: One million?

MR. DODD: No, no, a hundred million.

FUNK: A hundred million marks in foreign exchange? That is- quite impossible. It is absurd.

MR. DODD: But the document here shows it.

FUNK: Where would these 100 million marks come from? That's absurd.

MR. DODD: I am glad you are enjoying this, but let's get on with a little more. This document of the SS men further says that it was a sum of 500,000 American dollars. Wouldn't you have to know about that money being deposited in your bank or at your disposal? That's quite a lot of money too, in dollars, in Germany in 1943, I assume.

FUNK: Certainly, but I do not recall that I was ever informed of these 500,000 dollars. That is a sum which could have been dis-cussed with me, I admit, but it was not discussed with me.

MR. DODD: You know this document goes on, "and there is currency from practically every country in the world in very great amounts." You know that, don't you? You know this money was being turned over to your bank by the SS in very large Sums - 500,000 American dollars, thousands of British pounds, francs, all kinds of money. Now, you certainly had to know that it was coming into your bank in 1943, and in such an amount that you must have known whence it came. What do you say about that?

FUNK: That the SS, on the strength of the action mentioned here, deposited securities, foreign exchange, bank notes, and gold coins, and whatever else there might have been in the Reichsbank, that I knew. The scope of these deliveries was not reported to me. At any rate, I do not remember it and I do not know the total sum. And I am quite surprised that the amount is so high.

MR. DODD: Yes, so are we. The important thing is that as the head of that bank, Mr. Witness, don't you agree that it is impossible that you would not know about these sums of money?. You were something more than an ornament there, surely. And just this is a reason for this Tribunal and anybody else to believe that you would know about deposits in these great amounts, particularly in foreign currency. And I don't think that you have given any kind of satisfactory answer yet. Is your answer that you do not remem-ber or is your answer that you absolutely did not know? Or is it both?

FUNK: The amount mentioned first, of a hundred million marks, that I consider absolutely absurd. The second sum of 500,000 dol-lars, that I consider possible. It is quite within the realm of pos-sibility that such sums were taken away from people in these actions-for instance, from people who were taken into concen-tration camps, and also in other actions ...

MR. DODD: But I'm not asking you if it is possible they were taken away-we know they were taken away.

FUNK: I knew that would have to be collected in the normal way, but the amount was not mentioned to me. I did not know the amount. I did not know about it.

MR. DODD: I am not going to go through these documents, but you have probably read of all the items listed, thousands of alarm clocks, and fountain pens. You knew about them, as a Minister of Economics, didn't you?

FUNK: I knew nothing about that.

AM. DODD: Would you know about the 1,000,000 carloads o textiles that these SS men said had been shipped or warehoused which were composed of the clothing of the dead Jews and other people in concentration camps who had been exterminated? You had to know something about this as Minister of Economics?

FUNK: No, I did not know anything about these things. I ex-plained this before this Court when I said that these things went to the Reichskommissar for the utilization of old material, and they were sent directly from the collection camps to the various factories. Not a single person told me anything about confiscated textiles from concentration camps.

MR. DODD: Well....

FUNK: May I say one more word in connection with something which refers to the Reichsbank matter. I myself am confronted here -with, I would almost say, an incomprehensible matter, a puzzle. The fact that I was not informed of these deliveries of valuables, pearls, and so forth, is probably due to the fact that these things were not deposited for the use of the Reichsbank; the Reichsbank was only a clearing house and for that reason no one told me any of the details. But I, as president, bear the responsibility for everything that happened in the Reichsbank, together with the directors. If, however, officials were suspicious that things were happening which were the result of criminal acts, then it was their duty to tell me quite clearly and frankly and not do as I now remember Herr Wilhelm once did in a conversation when he said that it was a serious responsibility for the officials, a heavy burden-he used some such expression-on the officials. How could I, who at that time knew nothing about these matters, have inferred from this that it was a moral burden.

MR. DODD: I do not know how long you are going on with this, but as far as I am concerned, you've given me all the information I want about the matter. Really, Mr. President, I do not think this is being very helpful to the Tribunal. This last sort of statement is not in response to any questions I put to him. I just want to ask one or two more questions before lunch. Did you ever have any trouble with Oswald Pohl, the Finance Minister, the man Who says that he talked this matter over with you, even to the point of the disgusting fact that the clothing came from dead Jews? Or did you have any trouble with him in your life-any personal difficulty?

FUNK: As far as I remember, I only talked with Pohl once and perhaps he visited me twice.

MR. DODD: The answer is no, is that right?

FUNK: No.

MR.DODD: Now, of course you have seen this affidavit. There he goes into very great detail about when he saw you, where he saw you, who else was present, even the number of people who were at your little lunch in the dining room there. Do you know of any reason why he should fabricate testimony like this against you? Should it help the Tribunal or should it help yourself? Why should he lie about you in this terrible way? Can you give a suggestion, any motive, any cause?

FUNK: In my opinion the motive is purely psychological, because people who are in the terrible situation that Pohl is in, who are indicted for the murder of millions, usually attempt to incriminate others. We know that.

MR. DODD: May I interrupt you ... You mean in the same posi-tion that you find yourself in?

FUNK: No, I do not regard myself as a murderer of millions.

MR. DODD: Well, I don't care to argue about that with you, I merely want to give you an opportunity to state to the Tribunal any reason that you might have-and I think you have. And then only one other thing. I want to ask you this-and there is no doubt in our minds. Although there were millions, there must have been millions, of valuables taken from the people who were killed in the concentration camps and looted through your Economic Ministry, assisted by your Reichsbank-do you want us to understand you knew nothing about that? Can you answer it briefly, yes or no? Am I right in so stating it-you knew nothing about it?

FUNK: I have never asserted that I knew nothing about it. I have always said that I knew that confiscated valuables were depos-ited in the Reichsbank by the SS and that foreign exchange, gold, and other foreign securities and bank notes were converted by the Reichsbank. But that I knew nothing ...

MR. DODD: Wait a minute, please. I don't think you misunder-stood my question. I was asking you about the textiles only at the beginning, and I think that you have told this Tribunal what you did know about the textiles. You did not know about the textile transaction at all, did you?

FUNK: No, I did not know that textiles from the concentration camps were used to this extent...

MR. DODD: That's all I want you to say, that's your answer.

Now, thousands of other articles of a personal nature, from wrist watches and fountain pens to ladies' bags, all kinds of jewelry and stones-an enormous part of these apparently, according to the testi-mony, was flowing through your Economic Ministry with the assist-ance of the Reichsbank, and you want the Tribunal to understand that you had very little knowledge if any, of all those transactions?

FUNK: I knew nothing about those things, nothing at all.

MR. DODD: And gold teeth, or gold dentures, were in the vaults of your bank, but you didn't know anything about that strange deposit; you knew nothing about that either? So you didn't know anything about all these great sums of foreign currency actually going through your Reichsbank and deposited there, did you?

FUNK: I knew nothing about the huge amounts which are being- mentioned here. I knew only that foreign currency was being deposited.

MR.DODD: Are you sure you were in the Reichsbank in those days?

FUNK: Yes.

MR.DODD: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[A recess was taken until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

[The Defendant Funk resumed the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, have you any questions you want to put?

DR. SAUTER: No.

MR. FRANCIS BIDDLE (Member of the Tribunal for the United States): Defendant, I am not quite clear about your conversation with Himmler. Was this the first time that a deposit of this sort had been opened by the SS?

FUNK: Yes.

MR. BIDDLE: You have never discussed this with any SS personalities before?

FUNK: No, with no one.

MR. BIDDLE: And of course it was not Himmler's business to see that gold and notes were brought into the bank under the German law, was it?,

FUNK: Himinler told me that large quantities of valuables had been confiscated by the SS and that they included valuables which interested the Reichsbank, such as gold, foreign currency, et cetera ...

MR. BIDDLE: I did not ask you that. Will you listen now? Was it any of Himmler's business or duties to see that gold and notes were turned into the bank? That did not come under his jurisdiction, did it?

FUNK: Yes, if these things, for example, had been taken from the innmates of concentration camps, he would have had to ...

MR. BIDDLE: That is exactly what I meant. So that you knew or suspected, since Himmler was dealing with you, that the gold and the notes had come from concentration camps which were under Himmler. Was that not the reason that you supposed that this material had come from camps? It was obvious, was it not?

FUNK: Not only from concentration camps. Himmler was also in charge of the customs police, and the SS also acted as police in the occupied territories. It did not necessarily follow that the material came from concentration camps alone, but ...

MR. BIDDLE: Not alone; but you suspected it did come from the concentration camps when Himmler talked to you, did you not?

FUNK: Yes.

MR. BIDDLE: Did you ask him where it came from?

FUNK: No, I did not ask him.

MR. BIDDLE: He said the gold and notes were part of other property; there was other property, too?

FUNK: No, he said they were confiscated valuables. The interview was very brief and took place in Lammers' field headquarters, as I recall it, when I met him there. It was a very short conver-sation. He told me: "We have confiscated a large amount of valu-ables, especially in the East, and we would like to deposit them in the Reichsbank." May I add something? Then when these things came to the bank, Puhl and, as I recall, Wilhelm were present at a discussion, and they said that I should ask Himmler whether these things which had been sent in by the SS as their deposit-strictly speaking we were not allowed to touch their deposit-whether they could be used by the Reichsbank. I did ask him and he said yes.

MR. BIDDLE: Well, now, let us see. By the "East" he meant the Government General, did he not?

FUNK: At that time vast Eastern territories were occupied.

MR. BIDDLE: But he did not mean Germany; he meant occupied territories, did he not?

FUNK: He spoke of "the East." Well, I had to suppose he did.

MR. BIDDLE: You had no idea what he meant when he said "the East," I suppose?

FUNK No. I thought the occupied territories in the East. That is what I understood. The Occupied Eastern Territories.

MR. BIDDLE: This was not one of your regular deposits; I think it would be appropriate to say that-it was not one of your regular deposits, was it? It was unusual?

FUNK: Certainly.

MR. BIDDLE: You did not ask him any questions about it at all?

FUNK: No, I did not speak with him any more than what I have said here. Last night I racked my brains to reconstruct everything, but I cannot remember anything beyond what I have said.

MR. BIDDLE: You were not curious about this deposit at all? You were not curious about it? It did not interest you?

FUNK: No, once or twice I talked to Puhl-once Wilhelm was there too-quite briefly.

MR. BIDDLE: Thank you; that is all.

THE PRESIDENT: The defendant may return to the dock.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, this morning you asked for information as to whether the questions for which I named the witness were dealt with previously. I have ascertained that in the session of 8 March 1946 the witness Milch was asked by me about one or two letters which Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff sent to him. The answer is by Milch. The letter is of May 1942. This is in the transcript (Volume IX, Pages 51/52).

Then in cross-examination this question was brought up again by Mr. Justice Jackson (Volume IX, Page 88). Then General Rudenko, in cross-examination of the same witness Milch, produced another letter from Himmler-to Milch, I believe-of November 1942 (Volume IX, Pages 128/129),

Up to now I have not been able to find anything more about it hi the short time which was available. I do not recall having asked Göring about it. I do not think I did so, for this is quite a small point. I considered it cleared tip sufficiently by the testimony of Milch. Milch was examined before Göring. In my opinion, this deals with other events. The question of making sea-water potable and the means to combat typhus were not discussed at all. Nor do I think that freezing experiments were mentioned, so that I think these are other subjects than the ones discussed by Milch.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that the Defendant Göring did not discuss the subject of experiments on inmates of concentration camps at all? What you refer to is General Milch.

DR. STAHMER: Yes. As far as I recall the matter now-I was not able to investigate it as to Göring-as far as I recall, I asked only Milch about the subject. Then in the examination of Göring, which took place later, I did not come back to it because I assumed that this question had been cleared up by Milch. But I should like to examine the transcript carefully. At lunch-time I was not able to do so owing to the limited time.

In this connection I should like to point out one more thing. Mr. President, in my written application I made an application in case the witness Schreiber, whose statement was referred to by the Russian Prosecution a few days ago, is brought here as a witness. If the witness Schreiber is really to be produced, I ask to be per-mitted to examine Göring after the examination of the witness Schreiber so that it will not be necessary to recall him to the witness stand a -third time.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that, too. General Rudenko, can you inform the Tribunal whether Dr. Schreiber is going to be brought here, whether you are going to make use of the affidavit and have him brought here, or not?

GENERAL R. A. RUDENK0 (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): We have taken all necessary measures in order to bring the witness Schreiber here to this courtroom, but we as yet have no information as to whether the witness will be brought before the case of the Organizations is closed. He is in a prisoner-of-war camp near Moscow. I presume that in the course of today or tomorrow we will be in a position to inform the Tribunal more exactly.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Sir David, have you been able to find out whether the Defendant Göring did give any evidence upon this topic?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My staff are on that matter at the moment. They have not quite completed checking the transcript. I hope to be able to inform Your Lordship very shortly.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will deal with the -question of documents on behalf of the Organizations, and I think that Dr. Servatius is going to deal with it first.

DR. ROBERT SERVATEUS (Counsel for the Corps of Political Leaders): Mr. President, first I shall present the contents of the document book, then I shall comment on the affidavits. I have already introduced the documents as such, following the taking of evidence; and the exhibit numbers were agreed on with the General Secretary.

On Page 1 is Document Number 10. It deals with statistics of the Party. It is an excerpt from an issue of Der Hoheitsträger. Its .significance is that it indicates how many people are affected by the present proceedings. If you will look at Page 1 for the year 1935 the number of officials for Block, Zelle, Ortsgruppen, Kreise, and Gaue is given as approximately 600,000.

If you will look at Page 2, in the lower half of the page, the above figure is increased by the leadership of the organizations for the year 1935. In order to give the figures, there are the Frauen-schaft and Frauenwerk (Women's Organizations), about 50,000; the Student's Associations, 1,600; the DAF (Labor Front) and so forth, 800,000; the Office of Public Welfare and NSV (Nazi Welfare), 300,000 -I am giving round figures-and the Reich Food Estate, about 100,000; the Welfare Office for War Victims, 84,000. Those special offices amount altogether to 1,475,000. If the 600,000 previously mentioned are added, one reaches a figure of over 2,000,000.

THE PRESIDENT: Do these figures refer to persons who were Political Leaders within the definition?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, either the Gauleiter or the Kreis-leiter ...

DR. SERVATIUS: May I explain it briefly? One must make the basic distinction between the real Political Leaders who directed the political machinery, from the Gauleiter down to the Blockleiter, and besides them, the large number of people who worked in the Labor Front, NSV, and such other organizations, who were also

called "Political Leaders." This was clearly shown when the witness Hupfauer was examined here; he said that in his organization, which had 20,000,000 members, the leadership was carried out by "Political Leaders."

Later, in my closing speech, I will explain exactly what this means, but to begin with they are all included under the term: "Corps of Political Leaders." It is evident that the Indictment really meant only those who actually directed political offices, from the Gau to the Block; but they are all included in the word. That is why I have given these figures to clear up the matter.

THE PRESIDENT: What have we got to do with anybody except those from Gauleiter to Blockleiter? The rest of them are rank and file so far as the Tribunal is concerned.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, they are, to begin with, included in the term "Corps of Political Leaders," which the Indictment did not limit; it should have done so at the time. It is of significance because from these organizations into the technical staffs of these political offices...

THE PRESIDENT: You mean that the Indictment does not specify "Gauleiter down to Blockleiter," it says simply the "Corps of Political Leaders"?

DR. SERVATIUS: That is defined later, but at first in the intro-duction the whole "Corps of Political Leaders" is mentioned. If the Prosecution would clarify that, the number would be considerably reduced. I now only wanted to point out this statistical material...

THE PRESIDENT: Well, where was it that the Indictment was confined to "Gauleiter to Blockleiter"?

DR. SERVATIUS: in the Trial Brief. The offices are listed in detail, but it is never said that the others are omitted.

THE PRESIDENT: As I understand what you say, the Indictment charges the Political Leaders-the "Corps of Political Leaders"?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: In that corps there are persons who were "Political Leaders" who are not included in the "Gauleiter down to the Blockleiter"?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Then at a later stage in the Trial Brief, the Prosecution limited, or purported at any rate to limit, their appli-cation for criminal declaration to the "Gauleiter down to the Blockleiter," the original scope of the Indictment.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I understood this to mean that the staffs of the Ortsgruppenleiter and the Block and Zelle assistants were omitted. Then the bulk would still remain, so that the problem was approached from the negative angle.

THE PRESIDENT: The Block- and Zellenleiter were not omitted, you say?

DR. SERVATIUS: No, only the assistants of the Block- and Zellenleiter, that is, their so-called staffs, and the staffs of the Orts-gruppenleiter, and I believe that ...

THE PRESIDENT: That is what I said, that the original Indictment included the whole "Corps of Political Leaders," and these were limited to include only from the "Gauleiter down to the Block-leiter.11

DR. SERVATIUS: I believe certain groups were omitted, though no one has said that the remainder was to be charged. It may be a misunderstanding. Perhaps the Prosecution could clear it up.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Griffith-Jones, could you tell us?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Perhaps I can be of assistance. The Indictment included all Political Leiter. When the case was presented, the Prosecution excluded from that total figure the staff officers on the staff of the Ortsgruppenleiter. Your Lordship will remember that the Corps of Political Leaders had its Hoheitsträger, the bearers of sovereignty; the Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, Ortsgruppen-leiter, Zellenleiter, and Blockleiter. The Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, and Ortsgruppenleiter also had staffs, people working in their offices who are also Political Leaders but not Hoheitsträger; and the Pros-ecution excluded the staff officers and the Orts9ruppen staffs, leaving in all Hoheitsträger, from the Gauleiter down to the Blockleiter, and the staff of Political Leiter, or the Gau staff officers. That is, I think, how it stands at the moment.

THE PRESIDENT: You are agreed about that, Dr. Servatius? Are you?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, but then a formal statement must be made by the Prosecution. The Prosecution, as is well known, in-dicted the whole "Corps of Political Leaders." If they reserve the right to omit groups, and now wish to omit from the Indictment the Political Leaders in these organizations just mentioned, the NSV, Women's Organizations, and Labor Front, then they should make a formal application,

THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, Colonel Griffith-Jones, Dr. Servatius is submitting that you ought to make a formal declaration on behalf of the Prosecution that that is so.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, as I understand the position, all these Political Leiter to which Dr. Servatius is referring, the ones set out here, the Women's Organizations and so on, they are all under the staff, they do work for the Political Leaders on the staffs of the various Hoheitstr5ger. I think it may be there is a possible exception in respect to the DAF, the German Labor Front. It had been suggested by the witnesses for the defense that there were other Political Leaders in the DAF who were not directly on the staffs of one of the ordinary Hoheitstr5ger; My Lord, if that is -so, they of course are included in the Indictment.

THE PRESIDENT: This document does not appear to show whether or not these are staff officers. It simply gives us numbers.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It does not, but in fact that is the position that that was what made up the staffs of the various Hoheitsträger. The representatives of these various other organizations, the staff of each Hoheitstrager, the Gauleiter, Kreis-, and Ortsgruppenleiter, has very much the same form. It had its staff officer, its training officer, and so on; and it also had the representa-tives of these other organizations, such as the German Labor Front, the Welfare, the Women's Associations, the Student Associations, Teachers, and so on. It was the staff officers who made up the total ,staff. Perhaps I might just say that also this figure of 2,000,000 that -has been given-of course that includes all the staff officers and the Ortsgruppen staffs, the ones which the Prosecution excluded, and it is the staff officers and the Ortsgruppen staff which makes up the majority of that total. I can give the Tribunal the exact figures, or as near as we have been able to estimate them. I am afraid I have mot got them with me in Court at the moment. But the Tribunal will ,see that I think I might say there were about 600 Ortsgruppen and on each Ortsgruppe about 15 staff officers, so that the total is very considerable.

THE PRESIDENT: Those numbers would have to be deducted from the numbers that are here?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Those numbers would have to be deducted. The Prosecution have not included the number that Dr. Servatius has given the Tribunal now. From that you have to deduct the complete staff of all the Ortsgruppen, which forms a very 'large part of that total given you. Speaking from memory, the total, -if you exclude that, was in the region of 600,000.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could give us the figures in writing, or perhaps you can state them now, because if there are 2,000,000 here, how many staff officers of the Ortsgruppenleiter are there, according to you?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I will be able to tell the Tribunal within a quarter of an hour, if I might just send for the figures. I am afraid that I cannot carry them in memory. I win get them, and I will let the Tribunal know.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I comment on that question? It is true that the staffs of the Ortsgruppenleiter were omitted. According to my calculations, they amount to about 1,000,000, but the number is increased by the fact that one and a half times, on an average, in the course of these years a turnover took place, so that one gets one and a half times the figures, and it is still a number amounting to millions. Another thing is that these Ortsgruppenleiter and these offices are not given according to the number of persons, but as offices, so that the deputies and successors are not included. Only a statistician can deal with this question in detail, but I do not believe that it is necessary to figure it out in detail to get a general impression that there are actually millions involved.

Now I will go on to Page 4. This is also an excerpt from Der Hoheitsträger. Unfortunately, it cannot be seen from the document that this is another issue of the Hoheitsträger of the year 1937, Second Series. Here one can see the percentages of Blockleiter, Kreisleiter, and Gauleiter. The majority-over 50 percent-are Blockleiter and Zenenleiter. These are not excluded from the Indict-ment. Their assistants are excluded. The core of the Political Leaders is formed by the Kreis- and Gauleiter, who amount to :3 percent.

The figures under (5) and (6) are also significant. The depart-mental offices amounted to 27.8 percent and the internal Party offices, the administration, to 16 percent.

These departmental offices are important because they include the Political Leaders of the Organizations, of the professional unions, the DAF, the NSV. But by no means were all Political Leaders of these formations at the same time on the staffs of the Gau, Kreis, and Ortsgruppe. Only a very few of them in each Gau, perhaps one or two, in the Kreis a few; perhaps a few also with the Ortsgruppen, so that there is only a fairly small number. The majority of these 4experts are in their own formations, of course.

Then I go on to Page 5. That is Document Number 12. It is signif-icant in regard to the term "Corps of Political Leaders." Whether such a corps exists or can now be formed is doubtful. Here it says that a political organization is forbidden and the term prohibited. It is an order by Hess issued in the year 1935, with the legal justi-fication that there can be no such special organization.

Then I come to Document Number 13. This is important for the following reason: One does not become a Political Leader by being appointed to an office, but by special nomination. It is stated here that since this nomination as Hoheit*str5ger must be made by a special act of sovereignty, whoever is not nominated is not a Hoheitsträger and does not belong to the Corps of Political Leaders.

It appears that quite a number are not nominated, especially during the war none of those who, as substitutes, held lower offices in an honorary capacity.

Document Number 14 concerns the same question.

Document Number 15 also emphasizes in a similar way that such nomination is for public service and that it is therefore not merely a private appointment to an office.

In Document Number 16 on Page 9, we find the order that the Leiter in the DAF (Labor Front) are also Political Leaders of the Party. Thus, according to the concept of the indictment, they belong to the Corps of Political Leaders unless excluded.

The next document, No. 17, gives the higher Fuehrer Corps, Hoheitsträger down to Kreisleiter, and shows that the Ortsgruppen-leiter and those below him are treated differently in regard to nomination. Hitler himself iiominated the Gauleiter and their adjutants, the Gauamtsleiter, and Kreisleiter. That is of significance when judging these persons.

The next document, Number 18 on Page 11, shows the exaggera-tion of the concept of "Hoheitstr4ger" as opposed to the concept of the "Political Leader." It mentions the awarding of this title to motor ' vehicle drivers, telephone operators, caretakers of buildings, and orderlies, and it says that they should be made Political Leaders in the organizations rather than in the actual political department between Gau and Ortsgruppenleiter.

Document Number 19, on Page 12, says that nominations as "Political Leader" are suspended until further notice. It dates from the year 1944. The inference would be that those who received an office after August 1944 were in no case made "Political Leaders." In practice, this was already so before this time.

The word "Hoheitsträger" is of great importance. The Prose-cution has placed great weight on it, and the small functionaries, -the Zellenleiter and the Blockleiter-were not omitted from the proceedings because they were Hoheitsträger.

In Document Number 20, Page 13, Hess orders, on 14 April 1934, that Hoheitstr4ger will comprise only Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, and Ortsgruppenleiter. This is not expressly stated, but it can be con-cluded from the text.

The next document Number 2 on Page 14, is important because it also closes the circle of Hoheitsträger with the Ortsgruppenleiter, excluding therefore the small officials as far as this term is concerned.

The next document is Number 21, on Page 15. It equally restricts the term to Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, and Ortsgruppenleiter. I

In Document Number 1, on Page 16, the "Hoheitsgebiete" (areas of authority) are clearly determined. It is a book entitled: The Administration of the National Socialist German Labor Party, 1940, published by a Dr. Lingg. It says:

"For the execution of its task the Party is divided into four areas of authority: (1) Reich, (2) Gau, (3) Kreis, and (4) Ortsgruppe-

"At the head of each of these areas of authority is placed the respective Hoheitstriiger: (1) the Fillirer, (2) the Gauleiter, (3) the Kreisleiter, (4) the Ortsgruppenleiter."

Document Number 22, on Page 77, of the year 1940, is an official order to the same effect which defines the term "Hoheitsträger."

Document Number 4, Page 18, is also to the same effect. It is an order of Hitler about the circle of persons allowed to determine the extent of damage after air raids. It says: "The competent Hoheits-räger, that is, Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, and Ortsgruppenleiter, are permitted to enter the areas affected."

In other words, when something has happened in the very area of the Blockleiter or Zellenleiter, he is not given access because he is not a Hoheitstr4ger.

I refer to Document Number 23, on Page 19, which is to the same effect.

Document Number 24, on Page 20, again confirms my submission.

Document Number 25, on Page 21, is an excerpt from Der Hoheitsträger. It deals with confidential information and tens how far this information may be passed on. Such confidential informa-tion may be passed on as far down as the Ortsgruppenleiter; Block-and Zellenleiter are not informed.

There follows Document Number 9, on Page 23; it is a decree of the Reich Finance Minister concerning the granting of marriage loans and various other subsidies. The document is of importance because it states which applicants must submit proof of their political reliability before being able to expect a grant. It shows that the Blockleiter and Zellenleiter must first prove their political reliability and cannot therefore be Hoheitstr5ger in the true sense of the word.

Now I come to another subject.

Document Number 26, Page 26. The question is to what extent SA and SS are subordinate to Political Leaders. It says there exists no such relation either for the SA, SS, Hitler Youth, or NSKK.

Document Number 27 is to the same effect. It confirms that the leaders of the SA groups or brigades were not under the orders of the Gauleiter. The next document, Number 28, deals with recruitment groups and the question of -how propaganda should be spread; assistance should be given by word and deed, and above all, people have to, be won over and convinced. It also deals with spies and informers, a subject which comes up later.

The next document is Number 29. This refers to the relations between Party and State, and interference of the Party in State rights.

It is an instruction which says: "Keep away from measures to enforce that which is the State's responsibility. In calling upon State organs, it is to be carefully considered whether interference is justified."

Document Number 30 is on Page- 31. It is a decree of Hess as to the attitude of a National Socialist, saying that he should endeavor to induce confidence and willingness to co-operate.

The next document, Number 31, also warns against attempts to misuse an official Party position in dealings with other offices for personal ends.

Document Number 32 deals with legal proceedings. It indicates that the Party has nothing to do with this and that it is to abstain -from such proceedings. It says:

"The decision whether a punishable act shall be prosecuted or. not rests alone with the Public Prosecutor and/or the Roch Minister of Justice."

The next document is Number 33. It is another order by Hess, of the year 1935. It refers to political appraisal reports and states that they may be issued only from the Kreisleiter upward. I should like to call special attention to this, because I consider it an essential indication concerning the higher Party leaders and a salient point conducive to proper estimation.

Document Number 34 concerns the problem of investigation, known as "spying" or "informing." It was issued by Hess in October 1936, and I quote:

"Never, even when dealing with the most unimportant fellow- Germans and their families, should Zellenleiter and Block-leiter become importunate, and they should never stoop to snoop and spy on them, for this would not breed confidence but distrust."

The next document, Number 35, is an order of 1937. It states that investigations and inquiries are in no way the task of the Party. These are up to the State agencies formed to disclose and eliminate such dangers.

In Document Number 36, on Page 37, this is stressed once more. It is a document concerning collaboration between Party offices and the Gestapo. It says: -

"I prohibit all Party offices from conducting inquiries and interrogations in cases which are being investigated by the Gestapo."

The next document, Number 37, shows that the Political Leader's duty to report any incidents was no more compelling than that of any civil servant. The German Civir Service Law is quoted here. Paragraph 3 specifies:

"All circumstances which may endanger the interests of the Reich or of the NSDAP, even if not discovered in the course of his official duties, should be brought by him to the attention of his superior in office."

Document Number 38 is on Page 39. It concerns the expert agencies in the political staffs. It is a circular from the official book Verfuegungen, Anordnungen und Bekanntgaben (Orders, Regulations, and Notices), Volume 1. This deals with reports to be made by experts on their activities. The political situation report is to be rendered only by the Hoheitsträger. A difference is made between the two kinds. I am submitting it in defense of the experts on the political staffs.

The following documents concern the common plan against peace.

Document Number 39, on Page 41, is an excerpt from the com-mentary on the Party Program by Gottfried Feder, which is an authoritative publication of the year 1934. It says:

"We declare, however, that we do not contemplate enforcing by violence the Anschluss of Germans living outside Germany under Danish, Polish, Czech, Italian or French sovereignty. "-I shall skip a sentence.-"Thus the postulate under discussion is devoid of any imperialistic aims."

Document Number 40 is on Page 42. It is an excerpt from the Journal of Instructions of the Reich Leadership ?f the NSDAP, and is an announcement made by Hess in 1933.

"In some foreign countries anti-German propaganda has recently made use of the untrue assertion that the NSDAP is contemplating to annex parts of Switzerland, Holland, Bel-gium, Denmark, et cetera.

"Though that supposition is utterly ludicrous, nevertheless it is believed in some quarters. The Reich Leadership, therefore, desires to state that no serious-minded person in Germany contemplates even touching the independence of other states."

Document Number 41 is on Page 43. This is another order of Hess, issued one year later, in October 1934. It says that the Ger-mans and their Fuehrer want to live together in peace and mutual respect with the other peoples and nations, and that they do not want any disagreement with anybody.

In August 1935, a year later, another order was issued by Hess to the Party; that is Document Number 42. It refers to Hitler's principal speeches, in which he repeatedly stresses his wish for a peaceful settlement of all unsettled questions. Statements made in foreign countries are declared to be malicious fabrications.

The next document, Number 43, is again by Hess, in January 1937. It refers to armaments, the purpose of which was to protect Germany against arbitrary actions coming from abroad.

I will come to another subject, that of the question of secrecy regulations, which disproves the existence of a common plan. First of all, the well-known secrecy order issued to the Wehrmacht also applies to the Party, that no office and no officer may have more knowledge of any matter than is absolutely necessary.

In Document Number 45 this order is extended to every agency, every official, every clerk, and every worker.

Document Number 46 deals with the question of the press. It concerns secrecy regulations to the extent that it says that impor-tant articles must be discussed with the Reich Press Agency before publication.

Document Number 47 is on Page 49. This is an-order that dis-cussions on the military situation are prohibited, and a case is quoted of a Blockleiter disclosing his most important instructions.

Document Number 48 is on Page 50. This document deals with the law concerning the interrogation of members of the NSDAP and its formations.

Secrecy is again assured here by the Official Secrets order; also, interrogations are to be made only when specially authorized and carried out only by Unterfuehrer of the Party. Document Number 48 on Page 51 is a regulation for the application of this law. It determines who is considered an Unterfuehrer in the eyes of the Party, and' again I would point out that the last link in the chain of command is the Ortsgruppenleiter; Block- and Zellenleiter are again omitted, not even receiving the designation of "Unterleiter."

Document 49 is on Page 53. This is confidential information of the Party, dated 9 October 1942. "Preparatory Measures for the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe. Rumors Concern-ing Conditions of the Jews in the East." It reads as follows:

"In order to be able to oppose the formation of rumors con-cerning the Jews, which are often of a wilfully tendentious nature, the following statements on the present state of affairs are made:"

On the next page a statement is made of what is intended. First, to force the Jews out of the various fields of activity of the German people. Secondly, to endeavor to expel the enemy from the Reich territory.

The next document is Number 50. It deals with the idea of the conspiracy. Here the well-known Fuehrer principle is shown.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I hesitate to interrupt, but before Dr. Servatius leaves that last document, Number 49 on Page 53: it is a document to which the Prosecution attach considerable impor-tance now they have found it in the Defense document book. And at Page 54 it will be seen, halfway down in Paragraph 2, that the elimination of the Jews is no longer possible by emigration. I partic-ularly draw the attention of the Tribunal to the last sentence on the following page, which is: t

"It is in the nature of the matter that these partly very difficult problems will, in the interest of the final protection of our people, only be solved with ruthless severity."

My Lord, on the first page of that document it will be seen under the "Remarks" column, "Open only for G. and K." Dr. Servatius will correct me if I am wrong, but I presume that means for Gau and Kreis.

DR. SERVATTUS: I assume that the note "Open only for G. and K." means what the prosecutor has said, Gau and Kreis, but now I should like to read the whole document, since only then can the complete meaning be shown. Obviously, the writer's intention is to conceal the actual situation, and if it is said that ' there is no longer any possibility for emigration, the document shows that a settlement area in the East is to be created but not, as one might conclude, that extermination is the aim.

When it speaks of ruthless measures to be taken, or of ruthless severity, that was simply the customary expression found in Party writings, indicating that this measure of removal was to be carried out with ruthless severity, for I believe that it was sufficiently ruthless to remove these people regardless of the fact that they are now known to have been exterminated. I do not believe that I need read the whole document now, but I think that is the correct inter-pretation of the meaning.

Document Number 50 on Page 56 shows that in foreign policy, in particular, the Fuehrer was entirely in charge; that even measures which struck every German as peculiar, as for instance the renun-ciation of the South Tyrol, were condoned following intimation from higher quarters.

Document Number 51 on Page 57 is to the same effect. It is a circular to the Party issued by the Party Chancellery in November 1942. It states that there can be "only one binding Party opinion" and refers to an earlier decree.

Document Number 52 on Page 58 must be understood in the same sense. It states that the Hoheitstr5ger are to act only in accordance -with the directives received from the Fuehrer.

Document Number 53 on Page 60 deals with the position of Bor-mann. It is stated here, and I quote:

"For years the Fuehrer has been in the habit of entrusting Reichsleiter Martin Bormann with special missions of various kinds which 'do not come into the usual field of Reichsleiter Martin Bormann's activities in his capacity as Chief of the Party Chancellery, but which concern affairs where, outside the Party scope, instructions and opinions of the Fuehrer have to be transmitted in his name to leading personalities of State and Government agencies."

This is of significance because Bormann decided very essential things in his capacity as Secretary of the Fuehrer, for example, the subject of euthanasia.

Document Number 54 on Page 62 gives general points of view on political leadership, such as avoidance of differences of opinion among the leading Party members. A formation of cliques is thus practically made impossible.

The next document, Number 55, on Page 64, deals with the Foreign Organizations and explains the following document, Num-ber 56, wherein the Hoheitsträger are classified, although in a somewhat different way. Since they do not have any territory of their own they are only given the rank of Gauleiter or deputy Gau-leiter. It is the same with the Kreisleiter, Ortsgruppenleiter and Statzpunktleiter.

Document Number 57 on Page 68 emphasizes in this connection the principle: "National Socialism is no export commodity." It says that it is not proposed to win over other places abroad for National Socialism.

Document Number 58 on Page 69, is a circular on relations with foreign political groups, of the year 1942. It says the following:

"Any association of members of offices of the Movement at home or abroad with political or allegedly non-political groups in other states is determined exclusively by the relation of those groups to their own government with whom the German Reich entertains diplomatic relations. Any relations with such groups must without exception be discontinued, if they do not support their official government or if they cause it difficulties. This holds good even if these groups describe themselves as National Socialist or Fascist."

Document Number 59 on Page 70 is from the Reichsverfuegungs-blatt (Gazette of Decrees). It is a decree of 4 November 1942 by Hitler. It says the following: "The living together of peoples calls for mutual and tactful consideration of their natural characteristics. The NSDAP and its organizations, therefore, have no European or world-wide missionary task to fulfill."

That concludes Document Book Number 1.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps that would be a good time to, break off.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal appreciates the way in which you are dealing with these documents; but, at the- same time, are you not going over some ground which you will have to cover in your final speech?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President; but in my final speech I shall touch upon these questions only briefly. First of all, they have to be submitted, and it has proved to be very useful in the question ...

TEE PRESIDENT: So far as the formal submission or offering of- evidence'is concerned, that can be done more shortly. If you are going to deal with the substance of the documents in your final speech, it is not necessary to take up time and give us the substance of the documents when you offer them in evidence. If you are going to deal adequately with it subsequently for your own purposes in -your final speech, it means that you will do it twice over.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President. The same questions will -reappear once more with the affidavits that I am going to present. I cannot avoid at least mentioning the matters in court, for in my -final speech I shall be very brief and refer to them only in a few -words. I did not intend to ...

THE PRESIDENT: I expect you to offer the documents now in evidence without dealing with the substance of them and then to -deal with the substance in your final speech.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, in my final speech, which has been completed already, I deal with these matters very briefly, as, I assumed that I would be able to deal with the substance now. Originally I should have arranged matters differently if we had then been told that the documents were to be submitted and explained, and that we might refer to them in the final speech. In that case my final speech would have been constructed in a different way from the way in which I have developed it now.

THE PRESIDENT: You will try to help the Tribunal, I am sure, by being as short as you can.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, indeed.

Document Book Number II begins with Document Number 60 and deals, first of all, with the question of coercion in accepting an office. First of all, there is a fundamental directive, according to which every member of the Party is compelled to collaborate and can be called upon to do so.

The next document deals with the same problem, and Document Number 62 again confirms the fact that, besides his professional activity, everyone is obliged to undertake Party tasks and it is significant that Party members who, without giving sufficient reasons, refuse to assume Party office, will be deemed to be acting contrary to the interests of the Party and are liable to be punished by the Party courts.

I The next document shows that under the State Law for the con-solidation of State and Party this violation of duty is punished by the State. In Paragraph 5 it says:

"In addition to the regular disciplinary penalties, arrest and detention may be decreed."

This is important in that physical coercion is introduced in the form of arrest.

The next document applies the status of public law to the Party statutes. This is Document Number 63. On Page 77 the practical ,conclusion is drawn that whoever acts contrary to the Party's tendencies can be expelled from the Party for lack of interest.

The next document, Number 8 on Page 78, shows a verdict where this actually took place when someone did not wish to accept an office. On Page 82 the official dismissal is confirmed. There was an appeal in this case, and the verdict was reduced from expulsion to release.

Document Number 64 contains a decision of the Supreme Party Court; someone was expelled from the Party for having deliberately -neglected his duties in order to be expelled, or to be dismissed from his post.

Of special significance is Document Number 65. It says: "Ex-pulsion from the Party is the greatest punishment." Reichsleiter Buch has repeatedly emphasized that' under certain circumstances this means the loss of all means of existence and of all personal respect. Everyone knows that a definite punishment, 'no matter how long, will come to an end. But the loss of all means of existence here means that the person expelled and his family will never be able to obtain work or any livelihood.

In Document Number 66 conclusions are drawn as to civil servants who were expelled. Their appointments can be cancelled. Then there are several documents dealing with the coercion exerted on officials and employees by various Government agencies. This is Document Number 67, issued by the Bavarian Government, there-fore not by the Party, saying what will happen if a person refuses an office.

Document Number 68 is a copy of a decree by the Ministry of the Interior; and this follows the same line. The official has t(> prove where he is working and what he does for the Party, otherwise a report is to be made.

Then Document Number 69 deals with teachers; it emanates from the State Minister for Education and Culture, dealing with Upper Franconia and Central Franconia. Teachers who prove in any way objectionable have to be reported by name.

In Document Number 70 the Reich Minister for Finance makes promotion dependent upon collaboration within the Party.

Document Number 71 deals with resignation and exclusion of civil servants; it says that they may not remain civil servants after they have left the Party. The least that the official can expect is that his promotion will be deferred. Bormann asks that he be notified at the same time of the decision concerning his exclusion as a member of the Party.

Then Document Number 72 deals with the experts' offices. Here it is emphasized that the experts' offices attached to the staff of the Hoheitsträger are to be run on non-political lines.

Document Number 73 gives special standing to the staff officials of the Reich Party Treasury who deal with financial control and accounts.

Document Number 74 again shows the separate development of the financial system apart from the regular political system.

Document Number 75 orders the separation of the Party's finan-cial and political administration and the discharge of finance experts from the staff of the Gau leadership.

Document Number 75 also lays down the rule that the treasurers are responsible only to the Gau treasurer and must follow his in-structions.

Document Number 76 deals with proceedings which the finance department can institute against any member, including the political staffs.

Document Number 77 shows the organization of the various offices in the staff. The distinction is made here between political leadership, administration, and Party courts.

Document Number 78 again deals with the separation of the Gau treasurers and cashiers.

Document Number 79 deals with the topic of the organization within the staff in the various spheres of responsibility.

Document Number 80 prohibits the interference of Party offices in Party court proceedings.

Document Number 81 is of significance insofar as the Party courts are put outside the Party organization and are made in-dependent. As a result, Party judges are not Political Leaders.

Document Number 82 defines the position of the Party judge. It says: "He is subordinate only to the Fuehrer," and therefore not a Political Leader.

The next few documents deal with the Church problem. First of all, we find the -commentary given by Feder with reference to the -Party Program. As far as cultural policy is concerned, it is stated that attacks on Christianity are to be avoided because they are clumsy and tactless; and at the end he emphasizes, "The Party is based on Christianity."

Document Number 84 is of significance, for it emphasizes in detail, as a Party commentary, what practical attitude should be taken toward Church matters. Under Points 27 and 29 it mentions full religious freedom and liberty of conscience, protection of the various denominations, repression and elimination of theological dogmas which are contrary to the German sense of morality, and. so forth.

In Document Number 85, on the other hand, the Party turns. against the so-called "Wotan Cult" and rejects it emphatically.

Document Number 86 prohibits interference by the State in Church discussions; it specifically says that any police interference, such as protective custody, confiscation, and the like, is forbidden. This document dates back to the year 1933.

Document Number 87 was issued in conjunction with a declara-tion of Reich Bishop Mueller forbidding spiritual coercion. It is a directive of Hess dating back to the year 1933.

In the year 1935 a directive was issued by Hess which also opposed interference in Church matters. It states that the Party should abstain entirely from intervening in these questions and that individual action against churches is prohibited.

Document Number 89 is a circular letter taken from the Party regulations of the year 1937. It states that all denominations are to, be treated alike' and it decrees that the Party will remain aloof from all denominational groups. It rejects the creeds known as "Deutsche Glaubensbewegung" (German Faith Movement) and "Deutsche Gotterkenntnis" (Haus Ludendorff).

Document Number 90 deals with "National Socialist celebrations," and it condemns the attempt to bring about a substitute for religious services by means of certain celebrations of their own.

The next document, Number. 91, deals with the practical conse-quences which result from the fact that when someone assumes a Church office he cannot be called to account for his actions but should be left unmolested.

Do

cument Number 92 deals with the Reich Labor Service and states that the individual may not be impeded in any way. It merely ,opposes the formation of denominational bodies. Then we come to the treatment of students of divinity and the avoidance of polemics *n Church matters in the Labor Service.

Document Number 93 deals with the book The Myth. When looking at it carefully, it is evident that it did not receive the Party's official seal of approval.

Document Number 94 deals with lynching. It refers to the Japanese measures concerning the sentencing to death of airmen participating in air raids there. The document condemns a similar attitude in Germany. This is in the year 1942.

Document Number 95 deals with the treatment of prisoners of -war. It states that they were to receive sufficient food and that their treatment, although strict, should not be rough, and must be just and decent.

Document Number 96 deals with the employment of Eastern workers. This is a circular by the Reich Propaganda Leadership, -which was also sent to Political Leaders. It says that the workers were to be reasonably treated, and therefore would have to be properly fed, and that "they must not be confused with prisoners -of war."

Document Number 97 deals with the religious needs of the Eastern workers, and it says that Orthodox clergymen may be appointed.

Document Number 98 deals with the question of the interruption of pregnancies of female Eastern workers. This is a confidential communication by the Party Chancellery, which states that only with the consent of the worker concerned may such an interruption -of pregnancy be carried out. It is only at the request of the pregnant woman that the pregnancy may be interrupted.

Document Number 99 deals with protective custody. This excep-tionally severe measure may only be resorted to when the facts of the case and the question of guilt have been thoroughly investigated, and it is expected that it will be asked for only in really urgent and well-founded cases. This circular is addressed to the Kreisleiter.

Document Number 100 deals with the care of families of political prisoners and of the prisoners themselves after their release. The peculiar fact arises that the relatives of the political prisoners who are in concentration camps are taken care of both as to their economic and their political needs while, after their return, the internees released from concentration camps will continue to receive economic care.

Document Number 101, on the Jewish question, condemns rumors and states:

"Terror actions against Jews are to be avoided as provocations, so that it will be possible to counteract the foreign propaganda about atrocities and boycotting, and brand it as lies."

The next document is of significance insofar as the Prosecution has stressed the consumers' co-operative associations, which were incorporated together with the trade unions.

Document Book Number H has now been discussed in detail. Certain other applications have been granted me. Document Num-ber 59-a has been admitted. It states that Himmler had only the Party rank of a Reichsleiter, but that he was not actually a Reichs-leiter, which may be of legal significance.

Then we have another document which has been admitted, taken from a Leitz folder in the Gestapo office at Duesseldorf and dealing with the ill-treatment of foreign workers. In that document beating, detention, and ill-treatment are prohibited, and a Special Court sentence is mentioned, according to which the guard personnel of a camp were sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 4 months for having deprived people of liberty and caused them grievous bodily harm.

Thus, Mr. President, I have submitted all the actual documents.. I shall now turn to the affidavits which have been granted me.

THE PRESIDENT: You are going to deal with your affidavits now?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President.

The Tribunal has before it a list showing these 64 affidavits which are granted to me. I should like to proceed now according to that list.

Affidavit Number 1 has been translated, and I shall submit it to the Tribunal. Up until now we have only had this document in English.

This is an affidavit furnished by a 60-year-old Landgerichts-direktor (judge) in Ratisbon, who had been a Block Leader. He states how he ha4 to take over this office and explains in detail what the work consisted of. He mentions the significance of the organization book, which is of some importance inasmuch as many conclusions are drawn from it concerning the size of the organi-zation and the activity of the various members. It is frequently repeated that this book was only a draft and was to be a working basis rather than a final official Party solution.

Document Number 2 has not been translated. It may be found in the transcript of 16 July 1946 before the first Commission. This is the testimony of a Kriminalobersekretär (clerk of Criminal Police) of Munich, who shows how his application was received; at first he was turned down as unreliable for the post of Blockleiter, but later on was installed nevertheless. The point of the matter is to show that these were not important political offices such as could only have been carried out by a so-called "Hoheitstr6ger." The witness answers the various questions.

Affidavit Number 3 was taken in the same session of the Com-mission. This is a commercial employee who was a Block Leader for eight years.

Then we turn to Affidavit Number 4, to be found on the same page. This is sworn to by a head dairyman who for ten years was a Block Leader in a small country town, and who was a former member of the Trade Unions. He deposes on the question of spying and informing. He also deals with the card index which was kept of the inhabitants, and the orders and instructions that he received-

Affidavit Number 5 comes from a Wiesbaden locksmith who is 72 years old, who for many years was a Block Leader and then later a, Cell Leaden He deals with the question of spying and says that it was unwise and that it created ill will and mistrust. He also mentions the reason for his joining the Party and he describes the type of people from whom the Block and Cell Leaders were taken; inn-keepers, tailors, locksmiths, carpenters, and similar people.

Now I shall turn to Affidavit Number 6, which has been trans-lated. This is the testimony given by a government office employee from Stuttgart. He gives information about conditions before the war and detailed statements on the various points which are of importance in connection with the matter of Block Leaders.

Affidavit Number 7 has not been translated. It may be found in the transcript of the Commission. This witness was a wartime Block Leader and an engineer. He defines his attitude toward the well--known card-index system and describes what a Block Leader had to do in his area. He mentions everything, from the collection of Party subscriptions to snow-sweeping and such work, in which he had to assist in the general interest.

Document Number 10 is the testimony of a bricklayer's foreman, who deals with the relationship with the Church in the district of Cologne, and says that at the creation of this cell they were all strictly orthodox members of the Evangelical Church; that the parson was a member of the Party and that in the neighborhood theologians appeared as speakers; however, all that was changed in the year 1935 with the beginning of the German Christian move-ment.

Document Number 11 has also been translated. It comes from a Kreisamtsleiter-that is a professional Party official in the district of Cologne and Euskirchen. He deals with the card-index system.

I have omitted Document Number 9. It comes from Brake in Oldenburg and deals with general matters.

Now I should like to refer to Affidavit Number 16, and here I must make a correction. I have repeatedly referred to these affi-davits as "documents," which may bring about confusion. Docu-ments are in the document book, whereas the affidavits have been numbered separately.

Affidavit Number 16 was made by an engine fitter who was a member of the Metal Workers' Union and who knows 200 Block-leiter. He deals principally with the question of nomination and confirmation of Political Leaders and he says that this hardly ever happened.

Affidavit Number 18 was sworn by a Zellenleiter in Bremen -who was Verwaltungsoberinspektor (senior administrative inspector). He deals with the question of accepting office under coercion. He says that he had to fill out questionnaires which were added to his personnel file. -

Affidavit Number 19 was sworn by a Block- and Zellenleiter at Hamburg, who deals with the question of whether a functionary is a Hoheitsträger or not, and, he gives a detailed statement of facts -which may be of service in judging this matter.

Affidavit Number 20 comes from Berlin and it describes activities in the metropolis; the collection of winter relief contributions and other contributions, the distribution of pamphlets, collections, and so forth. It also deals with the question of obtaining information on individuals, and the procedure followed. If negative reports were turned in in answer to requests through official channels, an extensive investigation from higher authorities would take place in order to check the correctness of the accusation.

Affidavit Number 12 comes from Berlin-Hessenwinkel, which is in the Soviet Zone. This is a publisher who gives a clear survey of conditions that prevailed in his area.

Affidavit Number 17 comes from Dresden and enumerates the activities of Blockleiter in simple matters and non-essential things. He compares the members of the Ortsgruppen staffs with the Block-and Zellenleiter and concludes that the Block- and Zellenleiter were less influential than the members of the Ortsgruppen.

Finally we have Affidavit Number 21 which comes from Eisenach and which also deals with the question of the treatment of the population; winning of confidence, exemplary behavior, no chicanery, spying prohibited.

Affidavit Number 13 comes from the Gau organization leaders of the Gau Munich, Upper Bavaria, and deals with the evidential value of the organization book which I mentioned previously; it deals therefore with the question of Hoheitsträger and the authority of the individual. It says that one passage of the book is partic-ularly exaggerated: the one dealing with the opinions and plans about Block- and Zellenleiter who are named for propaganda reasons as the Party's most important peopl6.

Three more affidavits follow, all dealing with Block- and Zellenleiter, which are:

Affidavit Number 14, the statement of an Amtsgerichtsrat (judge), who deals with the question of authority. Then there is a farmer from Westphalia who was elected mayor. He also states, in con-nection with the Hoheitsrechte, that they did not exist in the case of Block- and Zellenleiter, and that spying activity never took place, nor any activity connected with a conspiracy.

Affidavit Number 15 is the affidavit of a full-time Kreisleiter at Nuertingen. He gives a survey of the Block- and Zellenleiter in his district and how they were composed: 40% industrial workers, 20% small farmers, 20% members of professions and civil servants. He then deals with the tasks involved,' the issuing of food cards was the most important task. As far as the organization book is con-cerned, he said that it was merely a routine compilation.

Affidavit Number 24, made by Karl Hederich, has been translated. It deals with the matter of the number of Political Leaders, which I touched upon when I submitted my documents.

This witness was in the Reich Leadership of the Party and he was the deputy chairman of the examination board for literature. He dealt with statistical material and had to summarize it. There-fore, he is well-informed as to the questions which he treats in his affidavit. In his affidavit he shows that the number of the Political Leaders was not just 600,000, but in reality at least one and a half million. He emphasizes in this connection that this figure is set very conservatively and that he had taken into consideration that one person might have had more than one office.

Affidavit Number 25 is in Commission Report Number 1. It deals with the significance of the organization book, the terminology of which is of fundamental importance in these proceedings. The author says that he had talked this matter over repeatedly with the expert assistant of the author of the book, that is the witness Mehnert, who stated that the book did not represent actual circum-stances, although it was hoped to do so in the future.

Next, Affidavit Number 26 made by Foertsch. He is the former Gau Organisationsleiter of Munich, Upper Bavaria. He, too, says. that the book was a theoretical work.

Affidavit Number 27 is a second affidavit by the same Hederich of the Reichsleitung just mentioned, in which the significance of the organization book is described in detail, based on personal knowl-edge of its contents.

Affidavit 28 is a second affidavit by the Gau organization leader of Munich, Upper Bavaria, Foertsch, wherein he defines his attitude to the question, "What is the Corps of Political Leaders?" He states that one should clearly differentiate between official position (Dienst-stellung) and official rank (Dienstrang). He says that only a fraction. of, those people who held an office in the Party were also appointed "Political Leaders." For instance, he estimates that in the Gau Munich, Upper Bavaria, about 20 percent of the people who held Party offices were "Political Leaders," while the balance of 80 percent were never nominated Political Leaders; therefore, as to the legal aspect, a considerable reduction in numbers must be made. Then he points out that the granting of the title "Political Leader" and the installment in office were carried out by different agencies.

Affidavit 29 was sworn by the witness Davidts and states that the speakers, such as Reich speakers, Gau speakers, and Kreis speakers, did not as such have the rank of Political Leaders.

Then follows Affidavit Number 30, which is a document by Alfons Schaller, Kreisleiter at Cologne. He deals with the well-known card-index which was in use in the Gau Cologne, Aix-la-Chapelle, and explains its existence on the basis of local circumstances; that is to say, since the large card-indexes had been destroyed by air raids, they were to have been compiled afresh by the lower offices, although, he says, these card-indexes were in practice not re-estab-lished.

Affidavit 31 is made by a Richard Schaller and deals with political appraisals. He states that the offices under the Kreisleitung could not issue any such appraisals.

A document by Gauleiter Sprenger was submitted by the Prose-cution, Document Number D-728. At the time, I disputed the authenticity of the document, and various witnesses testified about it. Here we have an affidavit made by a man who was adjutant to. the Gauleiter and worked with him as Gau manager for years. He says, according to his personal knowledge, that judging by the nature of these letters, they could not possibly come from the source to which they are attributed, and, he adds to his affidavit the state-ments of other people who told him so, too.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am very anxious that the Prosecutions case should rest on documents which are unchallenged as far as it is humanly possible. Therefore, rather than have any dispute on the document, the Prosecution will not rely on that document which is dealt with here.

DR.SERVATIUS: Mr. President, if I understand correctly, this Document D-728, by Sprenger, is being withdrawn. Is that correct?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes; go on.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then I will omit Affidavit 33, which deals with the Sprenger document.

Affidavit 34 is sworn to by an Oberlandesgerichtsrat (Provincial Judge), who presided over a Supreme Party, Court, and he states his opinion that Party judges were not Political Leaders, although later, in 1943, a certain change was made in the organization book, according to which they came closer to the Party.

Mr. President, may I refer once more to the document which has been withdrawn, D-728, and ask that the excerpt recorded from that document be stricken from the record.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I make no objections, My Lord. When I withdrew the document, I withdrew it entirely from the record. Certainly.

DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I shall turn to the various depart-ments...

THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr.Servatius.

DR.SERVATITJS: Now, I shall turn to the affidavits dealing with the expert appointments in the staffs of the Hoheitsträger. In the Hoheitstr5ger's staffs there were various groups of offices, com-prising the regular political leadership offices, Party administration offices, and finally professional and specialists' offices. These special-ists' offices were as a body and in matters of discipline subordinate to the Hoheitsträger, but they received their instructions directly from the Reichsleiter.

I shall begin with Affidavit 35, deposed by Schön, a Gau training leader in Mainfranken. He deals with the training material for the schools and also with the problem of severing connection with the Church. In this connection he says that it was prohibited. He says further that he never, in any way participated in the planning of any war crimes or crimes against humanity. He testifies as to the activities of his office.

Affidavit Number 36 is made by Dr. Schulz, chief leader for education of the Gau propaganda office in Gau Lower Silesia. He states in detail what kind of information was received concerning the outbreak of the war, and that everything happened very rapidly and surprisingly. He further talks about the setting up of the DAF and its propaganda activities. He states that it is essential to note that only 4% of the people in office were paid officiLs and 961/o of them were honorary officials, also that 76% belonged to the Christian denominations.

The next group of affidavits deals with the Party administration.

We have Affidavit Number 37, given by Paul Kuenzler, who was in the finance administration. He confirms the exclusive activities in finance and technical administrative matters, and how the personnel were kept away from all political tasks.

The third group of expert offices comprises the expert liaison agents between the Party branches, the professional representatives, the general expert counsellors and offices, and finally the office of welfare and public care. To the liaison experts belonged the Women's League (Frauenschaft), the Teachers' League, and the Students League. They are independent organizations, which have no connection with the Hoheitstriiger through an office in their staffs. Only the local leaders form the liaison with the Gau- and Kreisleiter in an advisory capacity. Before the Commission two female witnesses for the Women's League, Westernacher and Paul, were heard, and for the Teachers' League, a Dr. Kutover.

As Affidavit Number 38, we have a statement by Frau Minast, Gau department leader in the Berlin mother's service. It says that she had no connection with the Gauleiter or any of his collaborators, and that she was directly subordinate to the Women's League Gau Leadership.

In Affidavit Number 39, a lady physician, Dr. Hildegard Brauns, testified as to the activity of the Women's League's district leaders in Wesermuende and the manner in which conferences were carried out; she also says that at conferences which did not deal with purely feminine matters the women had to leave the room, and they were never called in for political work.

The professional group was composed of teachers, civil servants, technicians, physicians, and lawyers. For the educators and teachers, I cannot submit an affidavit as yet. For technical reasons it was impossible for me to do so.

Concerning civil servants, I have Affidavit Number 40, made by Dr. Schenk, who also confirmed that at conferences of Hoheitsträger with their staff officers these groups did not participate, and, he says that since 1943 the office for civil servants was closed down since its work was not considered sufficiently important.

Dealing with the Kreis and Gau offices for technical science I have one affidavit given by Sch6nberger, a Kreis technical office leader of Cologne, who describes his activity, which was purely technical, in connection with electric power, building, transport, and so on. He says that he was called in only for practical work of a technical nature.

Affidavit Number 42 is from the Gau technical office leader for Pomerania, Mackels; he makes statements on the same lines as the previous witness and says that all work had to be done without pay, and outside of his usual occupation.

Then follows the Office of Public Health. Here Affidavit Num-ber 43 applies, which was sworn to by a Dr. Sassé, head of the Kreis public health office in Iserlohn. He says that the local leaders of the National Socialist physicians' league were at the same time leaders of their respective Gau offices for public health. He states that he was consulted as far as professional work was concerned, while at the inner staff conferences the physicians were not admitted, so that they were not informed along political lines.,

Then follow the tasks of the legal offices. Affidavit Number 44, by a Kreis legal office leader, Dr. Steinhauser of Augsburg, deals with the task of the lawyers' league; he says that the legal offices which were attached to the staff had no political significance, since as early as 1942 they were dissolved as being non-essential to the war effort.

The next group are expert offices and expert advisers, the DAF leaders, representatives of handicrafts and commerce, the office for agrarian policy, the office for communal policy, the economic consul-tants, and delegates for racial questions. In this connection I should like to submit Affidavit Number 45, made by a Kreis leader of the DAF, from Neu Ulm, whose name is Haller. He describes in detail just what the DAF men had to do and what their position was, and emphasizes that exclusively social work represented the only activity which was carried on in his sphere.

For the office of trade and commerce, I cannot give you any affidavits, since I have no witness at my disposal.

Then follows Affidavit Number 46, made by the former Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture and Reich Farmers' Leader, Darré. He deals extensively with the development of the Reich Food Estate and clarifies the question as to how far a farmers' leader can be active in the Party or to what extent he can belong to the Reich Food Estate and shows that the Reich Food Estate was entirely independent of the Party and was a separate professional organ-ization which until 1942 succeeded in retaining its independence of the Party. He expresses his views on various questions in detail, particularly as regards the attitude of the Reich Farmers' organ-ization toward the Church.

Then I shall turn to the Office for Communal Politics. I have two affidavits, one made by Dr. Plank, of the Office for Communal Politics in Nuremberg. He says that the Party concerned itself with the so-called human leadership, whereas expert legal and adminis-trative questions ...

THE PRESMENT: Dr. Servatius, I do not know whether Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was going to refer us to these passages in Göring's evidence this evening; maybe he was. Perhaps we had better break off now because we may not be able to finish the whole of this affidavit summary. Were you, Sir David?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was going to inform Your Lordship of the fact that we had not been able to find any passages in the examination of the Defendant Göring. It extends over certain ones. I hoped we had not missed them, but we have been through them and cannot find them.

THE PRESEDENT: Well, then...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that leaves the applica-tion of Dr. Stahmer in this position. The document that reference is made to is Number 008 (GB-586), which is a letter of the witness Sievers, and it contains the sentence:

"As I have informed you, the direction for carrying out the experiments is in the hands of the Director of the Hygienic Institute of the Reich University of Strasbourg, Professor Dr. Haagen, Major in the Medical Corps, and Consulting Hygienist to an air fleet, who was commissioned with this task by the Reich Marshal, the President of the Reich Research Council..."

That, My Lord, is the effect of it. The position is that when Field Marshal Milch was giving evidence, letters were put to him on Docu-ment Number 343-PS, the second of which, under date of the 31st of August, said that he had heard with great interest of the reports of Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg.

"I am informed about the experiments. I shall ask the two gentlemen to give a lecture combined with the showing of motion pictures to my men in the near future."

Then Your Lordship may remember that Field Marshal Milch said that he was only acting as the signatory for his own medical inspection in the air force when he signed these letters and he could not remember anything about them. My Lord, that was the way the evidence was left. As to the rulings of the Tribunal, there are two that seem to be applicable. One was that when the Tribunal decided what the order should be-final speeches of the defendants before the taking of evidence of the Organizations-the Tribunal stated on the 31st of May that the defendants will be allowed to call to the attention of the Tribunal any circumstances developed in the hearing of the Organizations which is thought to be helpful to their defense; and, My Lord, previously the Tribunal have laid down the general ruling that certain sub-paragraphs of their ruling of the 23rd of February do not limit the power of the Tribunal to allow a defend- and to be recalled for further testimony in exceptional cases if, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the interest of justice so requires. My Lord, the Prosecution feel naturally reluctant even to suggest to the Tribunal what is an exceptional case and what are the interests of justice in a particular case, but, My Lord, they do want to make two points-one particular to this application and one in general. The point peculiar to this application is that it was known, of course, when the Defendant Göring went into the witness box, that there were these letters in existence and that his second- in-command, Field Marshal Milch, had said that that medical inspection of the corps of the air force was dealing with these experiments and were in touch with the SS on them. My Lord, -as far as we can find, the matter was not pursued after that; therefore, at that time, the defendant had notice of the general position although not-I quite agree with Dr. Stahmer-with these particular experiments dealing with spotted fever. My Lord, the general point-the Prosecution desire to emphasize this-is that this procedure ought to be confined to exceptional cases where the interest of justice requires this course very clearly. It would be unfortunate if this procedure of recalling were to become common or were to be dealt with on any points which are not of primary importance. Your Lordship, of course, remembers that the English rule is that the procedure is only used for matters which are strictly ex improviso. As I say, the Prose-cution here cannot say that the particular point of spotted fever is not ex-improviso, but the general position of experiments was brought to the defendant's attention before he gave his evidence and therefore does not arise as an unforeseen point. I do not think that the Prosecution can help the Tribunal further regarding this matter.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter.

On Monday the Tribunal will sit until I o'clock. After 1 o'clock they will sit in closed session.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am much obliged.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 19 August 1946 at 1000 hours.]