to combat partisans, as had to be on the basis of the Soviet Russia order? Could this have been an SA detail?
A. No, under no circumstances. They were called Wehrmannschaften under an SA Fuehrer Kunze, who had for some time been out of the active Leadership Corps of the SA. He was a leader for special use. He was in the East. I have just learned that he was used in the East.
He was employed in connection with the East Administration. If he trained men, they were not our own. There were none there, We did not organize, train them or influence them in any way. was an official of the Kommissariat Minsk, he had nothing to do with the Supreme SA Leadership? That is true?
THE PRESIDENT : Will you ask the witness, or. Boehm, what "Wehrmannschaften" means literally?
DR. BOEHM : The witness has already commented on that yesterday by distinguishing between "SA Wehrmannschaften" and "Wehrmannschaften" of the type mentioned here.
THE PRESIDENT : I asked what the word meant literally. BY DR. BOEHM : understand under the term "Wehrmannschaften." "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 from released soldiers so that they could be kept ready for the front physically and mentally. The Wehrmannschaften" mentioned here were given this designation without our having anything to do with it. I imagine that in this "Wehrmannschaften" men were gatheres together to combat partisans in the occupied territory.
THE PRESIDENT : The witness still has not told me what the were means. It is a German word. All we want is the translation. Is it possible to translate it?
DR. BOHHM : If I may, I will 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 counsd has said, or what the organization counsel has said as to the meaning of the word?
THE WITNESS : One can define it differently, too. It is a unit under a leader, in this case for committment against enemy action in was occupied territory that is behind the front, a defense organization.
DR. BOEHM : I believe that it is necessary, Mr. President, for me to demonstrate to you with the aid of Document 14011 the difference between "Wehrmannschaften" and "SA Wehrmannschaften". It is on Page 9, the third paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT : Page 9 of what?
DR. BOEHM : I thought I said 4011, Mr. President. The deputy General Kommando, IV A.M. speaks of "SA Wehrmannschaften and the same term is used on the same page in the same document in paragraph five. It is the position the Deputy General Kommando. There it is stated also : "While I was on duty with the "SA Wehrmannschaften on the second of June, 1940--" If the Wehrmannscheften were concerned and they were explicitly designated-
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Boehm, the translation we have states : "When I was standing at the training of the SA Armies on the second of June, 1940, I observed that the physical training of the SA was carried through under military conditions and was done with great ambition."
DR. BOEHM : Mr. President, I should like to contrast the term SA Wehrmannschaften" if there were such "Wehrmannschaften" if they did not belong to the SA.
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, 1959, certain men called "Wehrmannschafter were to be set up in the Reich, as he says, ready for defense.
Of you can confirm that, it would be useful perhaps.
DR. BOEHM : If the explained of this term is sufficient, may I continue?
THE PRESIDENT : Certainly. BY DR. BOEHM : to be shown that the Supreme SA Leadership was in charge of the guarding of forced labor camps. That was first affidavit given in this connection. I should like to ask you under whom the forced labor camps were operated? Can you clearly state that. Did you ever assign SA men as SA units for the auxiliary or to another authority as employment in such labor camps? the SA. The guarding and supervising of forced laborers is a police task. If SA men were used for this, they were obligated for this duty on a legal basis and were no longer under the authority of the SA. They fulfilled their pllice tasks, just like anyone also fulfilled his task there. He remained an SA man but for the time of his use for police tasks, he was on leave from the SA and was no longer under the influence of the SA leadership.
Q Not for orders either? is Document 3681 PS. This document is signed by a certain Gewecke. The prosecution wants to show the part of the SA in an attack on Jews in Germany. Therefore, I should like to ask you did not the district Kommissar in Schaulen show this was the affair of the Reich Kommissar? This latter was written on the 8th of September, 1941. The heading roads "The District Kommissar in Schaulen."
Was the District Kommissar in Schaulen ever in any way under you? in the occupied eastern territory, or in any of the occupied territories, were in no way under then SA Leadership and as a result, did not receive and could not receive any instructions from the SA Leadership. The District Kommissar was not under then influence of the SA.
Q That is cleared up. This letter was written by a certain Gewecke. He was an SA man, but it is interesting in this connection to emphasixe that from the contents of this document. it shows that a certain Gewecke complaining about attaks on Jews compistted by the SS.
16 Aug M LJG Karr 4-1 to the commander of the Security Police and the in the Government General. In view of this Prosecution document I should first like to state that Kattowitz or the outpost Ilkenau was not in the Government General but in Upper Silesia. the following sentence which I will quote.
"Therefore, the construction staff at Kattowitz set up a special detail of 12 SA men in order to obtain workers in the individual villages." SA post but that the official construction staff Kattowitz accidently chose SA members, amongst others. Did you understand me witness?
A Yes. Which question should'I answer?
Q Was a construction staff at Kattowitz over under you? Todt were never under the SA leadership. If a construction staff used SA men for such assignments it, no doubt, took them from its personnel who in that case were SA members. If they chose SA men who were directly under its orders that was out side the powers of the SA leadership. If such men would have been guilty of illegal actions in this connection they deserve just punishment. In any case, the SA leadership, as the document shows, had no influence on such employment. It was under the construction staff which was not subordinate to the SA leadership. actually were SA Einsatzkommandos of which you know nothing? Would that have been possible? the term "Einsatzkommando" was completely foreign for such purposes. If Einsatzkommandos existed and there were SA members among them that was due not to any instructions of the SA and was not approved by the SA.
Reichsfuehrer SS and chief of the German Police Berlin to the Inspector of the concentration camps, dated 21 February. I do not have the exhibit number given yesterday but there is no doubt about this letter because I have a photostatic copy of it here.
I should like to ask you, Mr. Juettner, whether the supreme SA leadership had a labor camp for shirkers, as was assorted yesterday and as this document might be interpreted to indicate.
Regarding the camp Frauenberg, it says:
"About twenty men of the SA guarded the camp. in Styria concerning the labor camp in which twenty SA men are said to have been used as guards? Would you like to see the document? Have you seen the document?
(Witness handed document) the document in the Must third. SS took over the concentration camps at the end of 1933 the SA, as an organization, had nothing to do with concentration camps and guarding of concentration camps. If SA non were in fact used as guards, in this case they were drafted by the autheritie as auxiliary police or something similar for this assignment. But they were no longer under the authority of the SA.
Q Another document is document 4013-PS, which says:
"This morning I had an inquiry from very important English quarters whether it could be possible that, behind the back of Hitler and Rabicht, the Austrians in Germany could invade Austrian My informant added that so far the Austrian charges had been laid aside 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 16 Aug M LJG Karr 4-3 the world just at that time, could produce conflicts."
canards? Do you know the document?
( Witness handed document) affair. I would have had to learn of it. The so-called Austrian Logon was far from the Austrian "border, several hundred kilometers at the Rhine. This alone should indicate that any border incidents or what is inferred here was quite out of the question. In any case, I know nothing about the affair until now. yesterday, D 951. On the second page of the document it says:
"According to the report of the VI Military District Headquarters, the SA Brigadefuehrers are also said to be considering forming such a staff guard already find to be engaging SA men for one to one and a half year's service for this purpose. Numerically this would amount to six to eight thousand SA men permanently armed with rifles and machine guns in the area of the VI Military District alone."
The second letter says the training is to be begun 9/8.
Have you seen this document?
(witness handed document.)
Q Do not those documents refer to the People's Militia which Roehm intended to set up and which failed? Please describe Roehm's People's Militia and its political connection and plea so be brief. in part armed, to protect the offices and to set up honor guards and other guards which were public. That six thousand non were to be included in the staff guards as here indicated, is quito out of the question. Mr. von Blomberg repeatedly made mistakes. Those mistakes are especially clear from an exchange of corres 16 Aug M LJG Karr 4-4 no personally because of an order of May 8, 1934, for which he attacked me personally and in which he presented the state of facts completely falsely.
On my objection and that of Chief of Staff Lutze he excused himself with the explanation that in such turbulent times such mistakes could occur. discussions, in addition to the Reichsfuehrer, wanted to create a militia from the ranks of the SA amounting to 300,000 men. He repeatedly emphasized that the state leadership had to keep the word they had given to the old gentleman, morning Hindenburg, that is the Reichsfuehrer could not touch the Reichswehr.
attaches of the western powers. I myself was twice a witness; and had the unequivocal impression that the military occupancy of France particularly -
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 Roehm wanted to set up. Is that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
DR. BOEHM: Yes, those were the plans of Roehm. were not these plans completely shelved?
A These plans were in no way carried out. On the contrary, the comparatively few arms which the staff guards had after the 30th of June, 1934, were turned in. contains a collection of articles from the SA Mann, which was commented on adequately in the Commission. It was cleared up sufficiently just what importance SA Mann had to the individual members of the SA and what influence the SA leadership was upon this paper. Since, these things were brought up again, however, I must briefly comment on it once more. It is fundamentally false, if one quotes articles, to quote only excerpts.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't seem to have an understanding. 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.
DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. I should like to quote an article which is given here in Document 3050-A. This article must be quoted by me, Mr. President, since I should like to ask a question, because it arises from the submission on the part of the prosecution by quoting one article from the SA Mann. It does not read as given here.
The article reads: "Since the march is in the last analysis a sport exercise, the same principles are true of it as for any other sport. Pulse and hardening of the body are conditions for successful march training For those marching, foot care is especially important."
This article then describes the foot care in detail. 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, also an article from the SA Mann of the 24th of March, 1934. It is the third article under the Document 3050. It is to prove the military attitude of the SA.
THE PRESIDENT: I've already told you that what you are doing is raking an argument on the Document 3050-PS; and what you ought to do is to ask the witness a question as to the document.
Q Mr. Juettner, the document which I read to you and on which I corrected the mistakes was to 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? Mann. The editors were responsible for them. The SA did not have a military character and never attempted to attain it. If, as I said yesterday, the paper "SA Mann" was used in the training of the SA -
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.
DR. BOEHM: Very well, Mr. President. In summary of these documents, that were submitted yesterday, the witness must comment on this matter; and I must ask him about it; and I must let him know the contents of these documents if he is to comment on them. There is no other opportunity.
THE PRESIDENT: He had ample opportunity to get familiar with the documents. The documents were put to him yesterday.
DR. BOEHM: They were not put to him, Mr. President. No questions were asked.
THE PRESIDENT: He stated yesterday that that was a lecture by Lutz.
DR. 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.
DR. BOEHM: Very well, Mr. President. with the heading, "We are going into maneuvers. The most effective means in the hands of the clever leader of youth is to plant a love of nature in their hearts and to steel them physically and mentally." others? Do you conclude a military attitude or military training? Do you conclude that this article means to express a militaristic attitude? "There is no resting, no tiring, neither as political battle nor in the saving of valuable goods of German political economy. The SA is always ready." Do you conclude that from that is a military attitude? I do not know who wrote this article. It was not ordered by you in any case; but can one conclude a military training or a militaristic attitude? attitude. plan in which six hours of drills, three hours of shooting, and three hours of maneuvers per month are demanded of the SA members. In the first place, what was done in the drill? appearance of the SA in the demonstrations and parades and so forth. That was a matter of course and a necessity. For example, at the Reich Rally men had to move in big parades among twenty thousand people. They had to be prepared for this by drill if that was to give a possible picture. For all these purposes and for the hearing of the men these drills were carried on as is the case in other countries, too.
Q And what was the shooting?
A We had only small calibre rifles, the sport model. We could shoot only with small calibre. That was sport shooting.
Q What were the maneuvers? What did they consist of? of nature. The man was to be forced to think, to train his courage; and his initiative was to be trained. It is similar to motorcycle exercises of the NSKK, in which men were to be trained to overcome obstacles and for skill in difficult terrain. the difference between the training of the SA and that of the soldier of the Wehrmacht. It says military maneuvers are only a part of what is understood under SA maneuvers. the SA had any thing to do with the military ones. Is it true that it goes far beyond military points? Is it true that the SA man considered training not only for technical shooting reasons but that he was trained to look at the terrain as his home? SA man that the military view of training has no comparison with that in the SA because we collected with us the ideological training of the man. He learned from his home soil. He was to learn the beauties of his own country, the historical importance of it.
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 being proved by repetition; and the Tribunal does not desire to hear any more of this.
DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. Then I can skip over the next articles. They are all more or less the same in content. Then a Document 4009 was submitted yesterday. It was to prove that the SA Mann contained official and semi-official articles of the Supreme SA Leadership. This was repeatedly discussed. these things are submitted ten times, Mr. President, then I must have permission to comment on them ten times. These things were dealt with by the Commission to the smallest detail, and were cleared up by the Commission. yesterday this document was submitted again; and I am forced to comment on it once more; and unwillingly I do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask the witness questions about the document. I suppose there is a difference in our language between making a comment and asking a question. Will you ask the witness a question?
DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. consultant of the paper, "Der SA Mann" to a Mr. Koerbel, who was at that time Reichsleiter. He was told to write an article. Did that have anything to do with the Supreme SA Leadership?
I did not quite understand. Koerbel was not a Reichsleiter. The letter was sent to whom?
AA letter to Rosenberg, yes. 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 his affair. Also he gives himself the title of press consultant of the Supreme SA Leadership. He has only the task of the rest of the German press. News which he wanted to have published was to be gathered and their publication was to be taken care of.
Q 750,000 subscribers are mentioned in this letter. There is suspicion that one could assume that these 750,000 were members of the SA. Can you comment on that?
A How these 750,000 subscribers were composed I do not know. I know only that the paper, which we considered with very divided feeling, was little read in SA circles, comparatively.
Q. Did you know that this paper was banned ?
A. It was banned in 1939.
Q. Another document was submitted yesterday, 366-1. That is a repeat of Mr. Koechling as a special delegate of the OKW with the youth leader of the German Reich in connection with the Sudeten German Free Corps. the Sudeten German Free Corps here.
A. Your Lordship as I can recall, I have already commented on this before the commission. I was the liaison Fuehrer to Conrad Henlein.
Q. Mr. Juettner, perhaps I may shorten this by asking : Is it true that participation or cooperation of the SA in this Sudeten German Free Corps existed only to the extent that these people, in the time in which they were in Germany as refugees, in which they were not organized into a Free Corps, were given economic support by the SA, and in such cases, individuals were given the necessities for human existence.
A. In individual groups of the Free Corps, there were individual SA men who without orders from us to do so, led the Free Corps. In the way which to defense counsel has just stated, they helped bring the refugees back and equipped the Free Corps members with the necessities, such as blankets, cooking utensils, and so forth. Are 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 express myself drastically, it was a loosely organized band which had taken as its task receiving the refugees who were, in part, coming back in great misery, putting them into refugee camps, and preventing incidents at the border such as actually occurred, in other words, protecting their fellow citizens. This Free Corps aid not have any military value.
Q. Then Document 3993-PS was submitted yesterday. It is a letter of the Chief of Staff Lutze to Reichslieter Alfred Rosenberg, in which he thanks him for congratulations which he received because the pre-military and postmilitary training of the SA was assigned to him. Is it true that this pre-military and post-military training came about ?
A. I believe I said yesterday, the decree of Hitler of January 1939-
Q. Please be very brief, Mr. Juettner.
A. This assignment was given to the SA -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): The Tribunal has asked about it in crossexamination. What is the point of cutting it to him again ? He has given his account of it in cross examination.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I asked him to be brief. I only did it for the sake of completeness.
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.
DR. BOEHM: Document 923 was submitted -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal wants you to understand that the function of reexamination is not to repeat what has been said in cross examination, but simply to explain and to alter, an to explain and clarify--, if you like the word-- what has been said in cross examination.
DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. BY DR. BOEHM:
Q. Document 923 was submitted to you yesterday. It concerned the Pflaumer and Schloegel cases. Did you hard any part in the measures in this case ? Did you have any influence on any edges or was your point of view, as in all cases of amnesty, that amnesty was a matter of the amnesty decree, an affair of the state, and you wanted to apply it to your SA members in the cases in which this was possible ?
A. In these two cases, as I said, yesterday, I had no part. I did not know about them. The SA leadership on principle tried and punished offenders. In cases of amnesty, it urged application to the SA as well. the concentration camp guards at Hehenstein. The juridical punishment was expressly at the suggestion not of Reichstatthalter Mutschmann, but of SA Obergruppenfuehrer Killinger. The SA leadership asked for the punishment of the Hehenstein men and had the court carry it out.
DR. BOEHM: Then Document 704 was submitted yesterday, which was said to be a typical case of suppressing political opponents, and I have discover in my study of the files that old fighters of the NSDAP were mistreated. For example, there was a certain Stahl who joined the Party in 1923, and a certain Seifert, an old fighter from the year 1924. There was the case of Kruege of the Cerran 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. BY MR. BOEHM:
Q. Now, I should like to ask you, witness -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE (Interposing): My Lord, I had a search made a we haven't got the documents, the answers from Defendant Hess or from Chief of Staff Lutze.
MR. BOEHM: That letter would have been quite essential, Mr. President to show the attitude of Chief of Staff Lutze in this case.
Now I must go back to Document 1721, Mr. President. It is a report of Brigade 50 to the Group at Mannheim, and the order of the Supreme SA Leadership in connection with the objects which were possibly stolen or other wise lost in the year 1938. BY DR. BOEHM:
Q. Witness, the situation was dealt with here yesterday in cross examination as if there were a number of indications of evidence of the authenticity of the report of Brigade 50. Please note the report. At the top, at the right, look at the three letters which are contained in this document, ZDA. The same letters are contained on your order signed " Juettner" at the left the bottom, next to the stamp. You are not a handwriting expert, but even a layman can see whether these letters were written by the same hand.
A. As far as I can recall, I was asked yesterday whether I saw these. I said yes. If I compare them, I must say that on the one document another handwriting has written these letters than on the ether document. That is shown especially by the A and the D. The Z also is different.
Q. It is not difficult for a layman to see that. Now, please look at these signs on the reception stamp and conpare them. This is on the left at the bottom on your order.
Do you see two signs there ? Is it probable that these two signs who may mean the same thing were written by the same hand ?
A. On closer observation of the note on the stamp, one must come to the conclusion that on the report of brigade 50 the stamp is forged. The differences are so obvious. The for instance, the H, and the crooked G or whatever it is supposed to be, indicate that it is forged.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken.)
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I have but four more questions which deal with the affidavit which was submitted yesterday, deposed by Minister President Dr. Hoegner, and one final question. BY DR. BOEHM:
Q. Witness, in the affidavit deposed by Minister President Dr. Hoegner which was read yesterday, it says :"Already in the year 1922 -- I believe it was 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 thought differently politically, and traveled in lorries to all festivities of the National Socialist movement." Now I should like to ask you, how were conditions in Coburg and how did occurrences take place there ? Who attacked whom ? Please be brief.
A. On the first appearance of the SA outside of Munich, at the German Day at Munich, I did not participate in that event, but through a series of colleagues who were participants I was informed exactly. For quite some time prior to that the opposing Press tried to prevent this deployment of SA and they incited against it. Already, when the transports left Munich conflicts occurred and the police searched the SA membership who were leaving for weapons, and the same thing happened when the transports arrived at Coburg. In Coburg there was a majority of the political opponents, the S.P.D. and similar organizations. The SA was in the minority by far and there were no extensive conflicts there due to the strictly decent behaviour of the SA, and Coburg may be taken as a classic example of that kind. These attacks were not only carried out by the Coburg political opponents but by people who had come in from the outside who were in an overwhelming majority as against the SA. These people initiated these attacks and carried them through.
Q. Dr. Hoegner says in his affidavit -- he declares further that the behavior of the SA was all the were dangerous for it was trained by the Reichswehr as a sort of auxiliary unit, had its own munition dumps and had admission to the secret ammunition dumps of the Reichswehr. Is that true
A. This statement is quite incomprehensible to me. The Reichswehr at the time, with the agreement of the government, carried on a training program to the effect of protecting the border, especially after the incidents along the Polish border, in order to protect our home boundaries. These men who were called in for this period of training were taken from these units like "Steel Helmet"," Jung Deutscher Orden" and "Reichsbanner". Only one organization was not admitted to this training and that was the SA, particularly at the instigation of the civil authorities, who, according to my memory, were very close to Dr. Hoegner's party at that time. Point 2. The Reichwehr had munition and arms dumps for the purpose of protecting the boundaries and these arms and munition dumps were covered with great secrecy, and that was right, for everywhere in Germany riots threatened, -- I am thinking of Braunschweig, Hamburg and so forth -- and these riots were starting so that these weapons would not fall into the hands of unauthorized person On the occasion of the Polish riot or uprising where I myself participated in the Free Corps, one of these dumps was used and with the agreement of the Inter-Allied Military Commission, one of the British officers who belonged to the Commission and who was very close to me because of the former war and who supported us in the most chivalrous manner. It is remarkable that Dr. Hoegner would try to transfer these arms dumps to the SA, for he real should know that Colonel General Helm, who was very close to him, had given the permission for the Reichswehr. Point 3. I should like to say that between the SA and the Reichswehr an extraordinary state of tension existed and I know, as it was told me by Helm who was the successor of von Segt and whom I have known from the previous world war, that von Losso, in November of 1923, was that General who was responsible for the futile action in which the SA participated; and it may also be seen that General von Segt was stregly inclined against the NSDAP. Dr. Hoegner, should have known that as well for this question -
THE PRESIDENT : That is just argument.
Q. My question was only whether these dumps, if they actually existed as secret Reichswehr dumps, whether you had admission to them ?