Q I just want you to look at an extract of Hitler's speech on the 13th of July, 1934, a fortnight after the Putsch.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I passed on to the witness an extract for 1934. I put in an extract from the Times. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Reichstag: "At this point I must establish the fact for the present and for posterity that these men no longer posess any right to invoke National Socialism as an ideology." This is Roehm and his friends. "Their lives have become as bad as those of the people we overcame and repressed in 1933. The behavior of these men made it impossible for me to invite them to my house or to enter the Chief of Staff's house in Berlin even once. That would have become of Germany had these people been victorious it is difficult to imagine." Now, witness, you know perfectly well, and I ask you to tell the Tribunal, why was it that Hitler wouldn't enter Roehm's house even once ?
A That was up to Hitler. I cannot judge that; I can not give you any information. torious homesexualist in Germany, isn't that right ? but that that was Hitler's reason, I do not know.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I am sorry, there is one duty that I had forgotten. Your Lordship asked me to put the affidavit of Dr. Hoegner to this witness. He was the Prime Minister of Bavaria. If your Lordship remembers, Dr. Boehm referred to it and your Lordship suggested that I should put it in cross examination. I think the Tribunal have copies, My Lord. That is document D-930, GB-617.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I don't remember saying you should put it to him. I think what I said was that if you did put it to him that Dr. Boehm then would have an opportunity in re-examination of him upon it, and if you did not put it in evidence, it already being in evidence, it would be in evidence.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I have no desire to put it. I thought Your Lordship wanted me to do it. This is one of the group of affidavits which I mentioned to the Tribunal that I would give to the defense counsel at once, as they are general affidavits from ministers and other prominent people in Germany which are in general rebuttal of the affidavits put in by the defense, and My Lord, I was quite content--in fact I suggested and the Tribunal approved--that they should be read when we are dealing with the documents after the defense documents, but that I should give it to the defense so that they would have an opportunity in advance of seeing them. My Lord, that is my position, and I am very content to adhere to it.
THE PRESIDENT: If you want to make use of it, I think perhaps it should be offered in evidence so as to make it strictly in evidence.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Well, My Lord, I am quite able to do that. They were going to be offered in evidence as affidavits. My Lord, it is only a matter of procedure; I don't mind which-- of course the Tribunal will decide that. The defense are putting in about 3,000,000 affidavits which are being summarized in a number of general affidavits. My Lord, I suggested the other day that we should put in--at the same time we should put in rebuttal these few affidavits that we have.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, do it then. Offer it in evidence now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Well, My Lord, I will do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other rebuttal besides these affidavits ?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is this group-I think there is one addition to it, My Lord, but that is all the rebuttal as far as I know.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you are not going to apply to call any additional witnesses ?
SIR DAVID MAZWELL FYFE: No, My Lord. I will not try to say for my colleagues, but as far as I know, I haven't. I will verify that at once, My Lord. any oral evidence in rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, this is the affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Hoegner, the Bavarian Prime Minister, and it gives his address. In the second paragraph he mentions: "The two pamphlets, part I and part II, submitted to me-'Hitler and Kahr, the Bavarian would-be Napoleons of 1923, a scandal of justice, exposed in the committee of inquiry of the Bavarian Provincial Diet', we re written by me. At that time I was assistant reporter of the committee of inquiry of the Bavarian Provincial Diet on the Hitler Putsch of 1923. All the facts mentioned in these pamphlets originate from court documents through which I worked personally and from which I made extracts. That also applies especially to the military orders and instructions, partly quoted literally in the pamphlets." and violent activities of the SA from 1921 to 1933, and, My Lord, that is the long paragraph. Then he goes on to say, dealing with 1933 and 1934: "The SA did not change their behavior later on either. Especially after 1930 it distinguished itself in the conflicts with its political opponents by its violence and ruthlessness. After the coming into power of the National Socialists, the SA broke into the houses of political opponents as heavily armed hordes, ill-treated and arrested them.
It is known to me that the SA also played an evil part in the persecutions of the Jews in April 1933. The same was the case in the occupation of the Trades Union buildings on the 2nd of May, 1933. Already before that, the chairman of the Munich Trades Unions, Gustav Schiefer, had actually been attacked by members of the SA in the Trades Union building, and so seriously ill-treated that he had to spend a long time in the hospital." information about the SS in the next paragraph. And then in the pre-penultimate paragraph, it says: "Before my departure from Germany the former Communist Diet Deputies Dressel and Schlaffer were murdered in the concentration camp of Dachau, probably in May, 1933. Whether by the SS or the SA, I do not remember for certain. I knew the incident very well because I complained about it to the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, in Berlin." body else. Then he says. "The gross excesses of the SA and SS in the service of the NSDAP were accomplished so publicly that the whole population knew about such excesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Does he say when he left Germany?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I don't think he does.
THE PRESIDENT: It is rather material, isn't it ?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I will get that point discovered. Your Lordship is of course right, we ought to have had that stated as to when he did leave Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps one ought to conclude from the document that it only relates to 1933.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: well My Lord, he does say; "After the coming into power of the National Socialists, the SA ......" did so and so. That is after the beginning and he goes up to May, 1933, to the Trade Unions. But Your Lordship is quite right.
There is no specific dote given after 1933.
I will verify that point, My Lord. Much obliged, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, hadn't you better wait for your re-examination until after Dr. Seidl has asked questions, if he wants to ask them?
DR. BOEHM: Certainly, but I should like to make one suggestion. The declaration of Dr. Hoegner was submitted at my suggestion, as I gathered, and I now ask that the statment of the State prosecutor and the Court in Braunschweig and the declaration of Dr. Schumacher and the declaration of the -Mayor of the provincial capitol of Braunschweig should also be submitted. These are affidavits which were given to me with the affidavit of Dr. Hoegner.
THE PRESIDENT: You ask that we should consider the other seven affidavits which were given to you at the same time ?
DR. BOEHM: Yes, certainly. I have learned now that the affidavit of Dr. Hoegner was introduced because I referred to it yesterday. Now those other affidavits form evidence in favor of the organization. They were placed at my disposal or given to me at the same time and I would ask the prosecutor to submit the affidavits which have just been mentioned or to introduce them into the trial so that I may have an opportunity, in the coarse of evidence, to have the witness comment on the contents of these affidavits.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I have no objection, of course, t Dr. Boehm's putting away of the documents. We have given, I think, all, whether we have decided to use them or not. Some are not in the form of a sworn statement, and we were not going to use them. If Dr. Boehm thinks that he can get any help from any document to be had from the prosecution, the Prosecution, of course, make no objection to his using it.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, you can offer these affidavits or other documents in evidence, if you want to.
DR. BOEHM: Very well. I am in a position to refer to the affidavits in the course of the taking of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. But for the purpose of the record, you must offer them in evidence, and they will be given, or you will give them, proper exhibit numbers.
DR. BOEHM: Very well.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for the defendants Hans Frank and Rudolf Hess): Mr. President, yesterday the Prosecution submitted a new document, GB-602, a letter from the commander of the Security Police, General Warlimont, to the defendant Dr. Frank.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the other reference to it? You said GB-602 It must have some other reference.
DR. SEIDL: D-970. It is a letter from the commander of the Security Police in the Government General to the defendant Dr. Frank of the 26th of September 1944. The document also says that it is an annex, and I make the application that I may be permitted to submit an excerpt from the diary of Dr. Frank, which belongs to this document.
THE PRESIDENT: If it refers to this document, yes.
DR. SEIDL: This is an entry of Tuesday, the 26th of September, 19 "Conference with the State Secretary Buehler.
In this conference the murder of the Prior at Czerna was discussed. The Commander of the Security Police in the Government General reported on this incident."
This is the report of the prosecution:
"In the opinion of the Governor General, this report was not suitable and the Police Office at Kattowitz wanted to take the responsibility and lay down the condition that in the future not SA men but Police officials would carry out such undertakings.
The Governor General told the first public prosecutor Roter to carry out a detailed investigation of that case."
The diary does not show what happened to these SA men. Therefore, I have taken an affidavit of the Defendant Frank which I ask to be permitted to submit in evidence here. It is very brief. It indicates that the people were tried and received severe punishment.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering the affidavit in evidence?
DR. SEIDL: I should like to offer this as Frank Exhibit 25.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any other documents that you want to offer in evidence?
DR. SEIDL: This is the only new document that I want to offer in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then. I think we may as well put it in new, and you will put it in as Frank Exhibit 25. And you did not give us -
DR. SEIDL: Frank No. 25.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you give us the reference to the diary of Prank, the passage that you read?
DR. SEIDL: It is an entry of the 26th of September, 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that already in evidence? I know some parts of the diary are. But is that in evidence?
DR. SEIDL: It is a part of the document GB-602.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state that again? What was the number of the document?
DR. SEIDL: GB-602.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not Franks diary, is it? GB-602?
DR. SEIDL: No; but the letter submitted by the prosecution by the Commander of the Security Police.
THE PRESIDENT: I know that. I was asking the number, if it has an exhibit number, of the diary of Frank of the 26th of September, 1944.
DR. SEIDL: This has the number 10. The whole diary was submitted in evidence under this number.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I do not wish to object to the submission of this affidavit; but I should like to observe that if other affidavits are offered by the defendants, it may be necessary for the prosecution to have the right to cross-examine in this case. But it might very well call for cross examination if they are now going to make an effort to put in further testimony on their own behalf under the disguise of an affidavit.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, my intention was to recall the defendant Frank to the witness stand and examine him on this question. If I submit an affidavit, this is done only to save time, and for on other reason. I would have preferred it the other way.
MR. DODD: I am not altogether sure, Mr. President, that this is done in the interests of saving time. I have some feeling it may be cone in the interests of prolonging the time.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not heed to hear any more, Dr. Seidl. We have admitted the document.
DR. SEIDL: I may assume that this brief affidavit may be read into the record. Exhibit 602 was also read into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Haven't you read it? Read it into the record, then if you say it is short.
DR. SEIDL: "In the second half of September, 19744, Governor Dr. von Burgsdorff reported to me that the Prior of the Karmeliter Monastery Czerna had lost his life and that there was a suspicion of punishable action. I immediately ordered that an investigation be made and ordered, the case to be prosecuted. In the course of this investigation procedure, the Commander of the Security Police in the Government General made a report on the 25th of September, 1944, which has now been submitted by the prosecution under the number D-970, GB 602. This report was also the subject of a discussion which I had with the State Secretary Dr. Buehler and Keppe, on the 26th of September, 1944, and also with higher officers, during the course of which I ordered State Prosecutor Roter to make a detailed investigation of the case "Further investigations have shown that the men mentioned in the report of the 25th of September, 1944, GB 602, did not belong to an SA unit of the Government General.
As is already shown from the report of the 25th of September, 1944, the Monastery Czerna, although still within the boundaries of the Government General, was subordinated on the basis of a Fuehrer decree of the summer of 1944 with regard to customs, police, and military administration, to the neighboring province of Upper Silesia, which was in the Reich.
The order of the Fuehrer had to be given in connection with the fortification work to be carried through in the East at that time. It can be thereby explained, as is shown from Document GB-602, that the investigation of the State police Office of Kattowitz has actually peen carried the by a State police office, which is situated in the Reich territory. Ilkenau was not situated in the Government General, but in the Reich (Upper Silesia ). In these details not only SA men, but also members of other organizations, such as members of the Volkssturmmaenner were used.
On the basis of the investigations of Prosecutor Roter penal proceedings were instituted against several SA men in Kattowitz. It was later reported to me that these proceedings had ended in sentencing of several of the accused, with severe penalties. (Signed) Dr. Frank."
THE PRESIDENT: No, Dr. Boehm, do you want to re-examine?
DR. BOEHM: I do not want to ask any further questions.
DR. SEIDL: I would like to call the attention of the Tribunal to a document, also in the name of the defendant Frank, a document which was submitted today, GB-615, Document D-923. In the report of the defendant Frank of 6 September 1933 it is shown under -3 that the defendant demanded strict prosecution of the accused SA Fuehrers.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has noticed that document and it does not require having its attention called to it by counsel for the defendant Frank have you any other documents.
DR. SEIDL: For the defendant Rudolph Hess I should like to make application that the Prosecution be requested that the answer of the Deputy of the Fuehrer to Document 784-PS also be submitted. This is a letter of Reich Minister of Justice to the Deputy of the Fuehrer of the 5th of June 1935. From the documents which were given to me it is now shown what occurred between this latter and the later decision of Hitler in this case. In particular the attitude which this took is not shown.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you not got the document you mean? You are referring to 784-PS and you are asking us to take notice of some other document. Have you got the document?
DR. SEIDL: No, I do not have it, but I should like to ask the Court that the Prosecution be requested to submit the answer to this document, the answer which the defendant Hess gave, that it be given to me.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will request the Prosecution to produce the document if they have got it.
LT. COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: It will be done. I cannot say at the moment whether the document is in our possession. If it is, it will be done
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. New, Dr. Boehm, do you want to ask any questions; Do you think that you will be able to finish by 1:00 o'clock?
DR. BOEHM: That is impossible, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you be able to finish shortly afterwards?
DR. BOEHM: No. I believe that this re-examination which must take place after this cross-examination may last three hours. A number of now documents have to be taken up.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well,. We hope they will be relevant. BY DR. BOEHM:
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, the Tribunal thinks that three hours is not a reasonable time for re-examination. You will remember that re-examination should not be put in the form of leading questions; that is one rule, and another rule is that it must arise out of the cross-examination and not be for the purpose of introducing fresh evidence which has not been dealt with be cross-examination. You will be kept strictly to these rules.
DR. BOEHM: I believe that today and yesterday the cross-examination dealt with a number of now matters, especially with the matters which were...
THE PRESIDENT: We don't want any arguments from you, Dr. Boehm. I am telling you what the Tribunal rules. If your questions arise out of the cross examination they are admissible. If they do hot arise out of the crossexamination they are inadmissible. Now will you go on with your re-examinate please? BY DR. BOEHM: prosecutor was whether, and I assume that you personally as SA Fuehrer and SA Leadership were meant in this case, whether you dealt with the treatment of people outside of the borders of the Reich.
A No. The SA Leadership did not deal with the treatment of such people unless Germans were employed outside the Reich Borders who belonged to the SA. a report on the activities of the SA in the war was submitted yesterday. In connection with this report the prosecution assorted that its contents referred to the last week before the 23rd of June 1941; that is the day who this report was issued.
Now I should like to ask you whether it is true that the beginning of this report, under #1 on the 1st page: "The whole work of the SA from the beginning of the war" and on page 2 the last four lines, I quote: "Decorations.....
THE PRESIDENT: Did you give us the reference to this document?
DR. BOEHM: The first document which was submitted yesterday, 4011-PS on page 1 the first line and on page 2 the last four lines. May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. I only wanted the reference to the document. Go on. BY DR. BOEHM:
Q "Decorations given to the SA: 21 Knight's Crosses of the Iron Cross, and 31,125 Iron Crosses, first and second class." Is it true if I say that this shows that the assertion of the prosecution that the report was only a report of the weeks before the 23rd of June 1941, that this assertion is incorrect: Is that true? activity of the SA during the war is a report beginning with the activity of the SA on the 1st of September 1939?
A These reports were always comprehensive reports. The third report I believe I signed it myself, sums up the activity of the SA from the beginning of the War until the day of the report. Hinterland was the activity of the SA in occupied territories, Mr. Huettner, if you will look at page 4 of this report that in the flood on the elbe, in the spring of 1941, for example, there were SA engineer units who were the first to arrive to give assistance and who, by means of their amphibious equipment, saved humans and animals from drowning, can one assume from this statement that what is called "Hinterland" was within the borders of the Reich?
Q And then please look at page 5 of the same report. Do you have it?
Q Well then, I will read it to you. On page 5 of the some report, I quote:
"The DAF was given many SA Fuehrers and Unterfuehrers duty in the Todt organization. The SA also fulfills extensive authoritative requirements, for example in the frontier control service." Does this not show clearly that the SA was eliminated from the authority of the SA Supreme Leadership and, like other drafted German citizens, was assigned to other authorities for a certain task?
A In all these services we released the men from the SA. We did not offer them. We released them. The agencies in question, the Organization Todt, and other authorities took such men in.
THE PRESIDENT: That has been said already, hans't it? He said already in cross-examination that these men, insofar as they were employed outside the Reich, were not operating as SA men in the SA units.
THE WITNESS: Within the Reich it was also true.
DR. BOEHM: What I asked had to precede the question which follows new or which was to follow. I should like to ask you, Mr. Huettner, were non the same conditions in existence in your report on the 21 groups of SA men who were assigned to guard prisoners?
THE PRESIDENT: That again, Dr. Boehm, he has already said. He said that all activities referred to in this report, insofar as they are concerned with the SA man, were not under SA men or SA units.
DR. BOEHM: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1000 hours, 16 August 1946.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, in answer to the question of how long the redirect examination would be, I gave 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. BY DR. BOEHM: again in connection with the report that 21 groups participated 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 in the capacity of these men as soldiers? made every month and later every three months. The men were under the Wehrmacht for the purpose of guarding the prisoners. macht members in connection with the transport of prisoners?
A I do not know the number. They were quite small units. before and after the beginning of the Second World War was the same. I should like to ask you, Mr. Juettner, before the first of September, 1939, was shooting taught, or was it only small caliber shooting?
A Only small caliber shooting such as was practiced previously; but after the beginning of the war, we laid more stress on the war sport exercises, and the ordinary sport exercises were put somewhat into the background. was forbidden in the SA to base maneuverson military situations?
SA, to a large extent, did not have any previous military training in order to base the exercises on military situations.
Q Then a historical questions. On the basis of the association the prosecution made in connection with the statements on Page 15 of the document 4011, do you know, Mr. Juettner, when the Mamelland became part of the Third Reich? Perhaps, do you know that it was in March, 1939?
A I can't say that exactly, but it is probably true. and part of the province of East Prussia; I believe I can say the prosecution is still confusing the SA-group Ortsland with the so-called Reichscommisari
A In East Prussia, the SA-Group Ostland, we had an SA; we organized and lead them. From the west of the Ostland, Lithuania, Latvia, etc., there was; never a German SA which was organized or directed by us. This question is probably connected with a document, an excerpt of which is registered by the prosecution. Perhaps I may explain to your Lordship that since the beginning of the cross examination, I have been in solitary confinement and have no connection with the SA. For that reason, I believe I can comment on the document presented yesterday which accused the SA. I believe I can give the following three sentences. In the first place, to such serious documents, one can comment when one has been able to look them over in peace and quiet, -- that was not possible for me. In the second place, numerous documents, excerpts of which were read, no questions were asked about them. For example, the Blomberg letter. In the third place, the documents which were submitted to me, questions were asked only which had no connection with the facts contained. For example, the report of Brigade 50 requesting the dissolution of a synagogue.
Even today I consider this report false because it is impossible according to the content and because what is said in the report could not be carried out in view of the time, but I believe that the Defense will clear up the doubts through its questions. ed themselves with foreign nations. In this connection, I should like to ask you if you did do that and if that would have been your intention?
A We did not concern our selves with foreign nations in the SA. That was never our intention. Reichkommissariat Ostland the establishment of Party branches was prohibited. In Esthonia, Latvia or Lithuania could an SA Group or SA Brigade exist?
A No, it could not exist, and we did not organize any. The men of the SAwho were employed there wire not under the SA Fuehrung. For example, there were the SA Fuehrers Kunze and Kramer. They were Fuehrers for special purposes. They were not under the SA leadership when they were employed there. These men were a different uniform. Perhaps confusion arose from this.
Q Would you have violated such an order of the Reich Government? administration of the Ghetto in Vilna? 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?
DR. BOEHM: No, and order of the Reich Government which is generally known. BY DR. BOEHM:
Q An affidavit of Mr. Szloma Gol was submitted yesterday. In that connection I should like to ask you whether the City Commissar of Vilna come under you in any way? Did you have any authority over him, and did he carry out any assignments for you? did not receive orders from the SA. If I recall correctly, three more SA members were also mentioned yesterday.
Q Was the Provincial Kommissar of Vilna ever under you? Leadership. It says that the export on Jewish questions was an SA officer. Muerer. Was he under you in any connection with respect to his activity in Vilna? This man who is mentioned was not either. If he was employed there, he was only from the SA for the duration of his assignment there, and he carried out his tasks there without the SA Leadership being able to inflence him in any way.
Q. In connection with the Indictment against another organization, the Prosecution submitted a document, Exhibit US 276. I shall quote on page two of this document, the last paragraph:
"In the first hours after entry, even though under considerable difficulties, native anti-Semitic forces were excited to pogroms against the Jews. According to orders, the Security Police was determined to solve the Jewish question with all means." Police who caused pogroms in Vilna, Schaulen and Kovno. In the case against the SA, oh the other hand, the Prosecution says that it was the SA. As Defense Counsel, I should like to now which organization is actually responsible for the Jewish pogroms in this cities, and I ask you, did the Supreme SA Leadership through orders or instructions have any part in any excess or any measures against Jews in this district?
A. At no time and under no circumstances.
Q. And then an affidavit was submitted yesterday by a Mr. Khaim Kagan. The witness says that he saw girls in SA uniforms. Were there ever femanle SA members?
A. I have already answered that. We did not have female SA members -never.
Q. The senselessness of this assignment of guilt in the affidavit -- is it not made obvious by the fact that it asserts that it had to be SA people because they were a brown uniform? This assertion is made repeatedly in this affidavit.
A. In my testimony yesterday and the day before yesterday, I pointed out on various occasions that in the course of years, everyone who were a brown shirt was called en SA man. That seems to be the case here too, although those concerned had nothing to do with the SA.
Q. It is the some with the affidavit of Mr. Laib Kibart; the people whom he mentions and whom he calls SA men, he identifies as SA men because they were brown uniforms with a swastika armband. Were not the swastika armband and the brown uniform worn by others, and primarily by these people who worked in the Eastern Ministry and the duties connected with it?
There was an East uniform. the SA?
A. The East uniform was worn by those who were employed in this task, employed by the East Administration, not by the SA, It was brown, and I believe that it had the swastika armband, and, without doubt, like any other brown uniform, it could be consued with the SA uniform.
Q. The document PS 1435 was submitted yesterday. It is a letter from the Reich Kommissar for the Ostland. It was written on 13 June 1943. I wanted to ask you, Did you or did the SA Fuehrung at any time -- were you the superiors of the Reich Kommissars for the Ostland?
A. No. No Reich Kommissars in the Ostland were under SA Leadership. They were under the East Administration. The SA Leadership had no influence on this. It was not its function.
Q. Now I should like to show you the paragraph which yesterday was the subject of statements by the Prosecutor but which, in my opinion, was taken out of context. It reads:
"On the order of the Chief --"
THE PRESIDENT: What is the reference?
DR. BOEHM: That is Number 1435-PS, Mr. President. It is the second paragraph from the end in this document. BY DR. BOEHM:
"On orders of the Chief of Anti-Partisan Activity SS Obergruppenfuehrer Von Dem Bach, units of Wehrmannschaften took part in the undertakings. SA Standartenfuehrer Kunze led the Wehrmannschaften, which included 90 members of my group and the District Kommissariat Minsk. Our men returned from the undertaking without loss yesterday. I refused commitment of officials and employees of the General Kommissariat in the army rear area. The men employed by me were not deferred in order to combat partisans in the place of the Wehrmacht and the police. One railroad man was wounded (shot in the lungs)."