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 ?
A, No. That was completely out of the question. May I continue ?
Q. That is quite sufficient. Dr. Hoegner, further asserts in his affidavit that on a night in November, 1923, luddendorf was the one who really wanted to unleash a national war. What do you know about that ?
A. I beg your pardon, but something like that can only be asserted by a fanatic. General Luddendorf, after the First World War, wanted a -
THE PRESIDENT: It is quite sufficient, if he says no to your question
DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. BY DR. BOEHM:
Q. Do you remember that in the Gewerkschaftshaus, Trade Union House, in Munich weapons were found in 1933 ?
A. Yes.
Q. And now my last question. What was the relationship of the SA to Himmler ?
A. The relationship of Staff Chief Lutze to Himmler was concededly poor and the relationship of the SA to the person of the former Reichsfuehrer SS was also poor. In conclusion may I make a few remarks and give but a very brief explanation, Your Lordship ?
DR. BOEHM: And to which question did you want to make a few remarks ?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, 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 upon his own, unless there is something he wants to clear up in his evidence.
DR. 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 ?
THE WITNESS: The question of whether the SA committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, may I ask that the witness be permitted to give this explanation ? I should be very grateful.
THE WITNESS: I shall be very brief, your Lordship. At the conclusion of the questions put to me under my oath I should like to assure you once again that we of the SA did not do anything bad. We did not want a were and we did not prepare for a war. We of the SA, of the leadership and of the organization itself, did only these things which, in other countries, are expected of the men of the nation as their ethical or moral duty, which Mr. Truman or Mr. 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. Neither the leadership decreed their, nor did they tolerate them, nor could the organization be guilty of any of them. If isolated misdeeds were committed, the evil doers were punished and this is our will, that they shall be brought to a just punishment. We, therefore, do not ask for grace. We do not ask for sympathy under the guise of our local need. We ask only for justice, for nothing else, for cur conscience is clean. We acted as patriots of the highest order -- however, patriots. If that is stamped as criminals, then we were criminals.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR. PANNENBECKER (Counsel for defendant Frick): Mr. President, one document has not come in for Frick. One is still outstanding, a document which was granted to me before the end of the evidence, but which has not come in. May I present it at this time, Mr. President ? It is an answer to a questionaire by Dr. Conrad in Berlin, who deals with the attitude of the Ministry of the Interior to the church question. This document shall have the number Frick Exhibit No. 15. I believe I may refer to this document without reading it.
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. STAHMER(Counsel for defendant Goering): Mr. President, on the 14th of August I applied for a bit of evidence which has not been decided upon, and I believe there hasn't been any time. It is not possible for me to see whether this application for evidence will be considered if I cannot refer to it at the present stage. It deals with incidents of the session of the 9th of August in the cross examination of the witness Sievers and the questions which were raised at that time by the British Prosecution. medical experiments which were made with concentration camp inmates, and we are concerned with the experiments of making sea water drinkable in order to find a cure for spotted fever, and finally, for experiments with "under coding". 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, Goering. Now I should like to prove that Goering did not decree these experiments. Therefore they were no carried on under his instructions, and that he did not even have knowledge of these incidents. Schroeder, Colonel General of the air force, who is in English or British internment. I also ask to be granted permission to have the defendant Goering himself as a witness, for it is un certain whether it is possible to bring to witness Schroeder here on time. Therefore I should like to ask the high Tribunal's permission to have Goering recalled to the witness stand so that I can question him in regard to these questions which I have just mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Give the Tribunal a reference to the transcript where the defendant Goering testified upon the question of experiments.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I tried to do that. I shall submit that subsequently. I have not received the transcript. These documents were submitted in the afternoon session of the 9th of August. I have not had the individual numbers, but I believe some time today I will be able to submit them/
THE PRESIDENT: You are misunderstanding me. What I asked you for was a reference to the transcript where the defendant Goering himself was questioned, as I imagine he was questioned, about experiments generally.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President. In general he has been examined on this matter, and the witness Milch also testified in general. And I think I can tell the high Tribunal where to find this passage. General Milch was heard on this matter on the 8th of March -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer ?
DR. STAHMER: General Milch was heard on this matter on the 8th of March 1946, page 5,577 of the German transcript.
But I should like to call the attention of the high Tribunal, Mr. President, that Milch was heard only on a fragment of these questions and gave but a general opinion. But now specific accusations have been raised, which were unknown to me at the time and as to which I could examine neither the defendant Goering 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 Goering himself dealt with the matter, either in the examination in chief or in cross examination or reexamination.
DR. STAHMER: At the moment I can't tell you, Mr. President, but I shall check on it and tell you immediately. Yes, I shall do that, Your Honor.
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 Goering ?
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 Marshall Milch, so that when the defendant Goering 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. 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 FIFE: 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 pages in the transcript at one o'clock, or even two o'clock. One o'clock would be preferrable.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: That would help a let.
DR. SAUTER(Counsel for defendant Funk): With the permission of the high Tribunal, I should like to call the defendant Funk into the witness box.
WALTER FUNK took the stand and testified as follows :
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you understand you are still under oath ?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Dr. Funk, can you understand me?
Q Dr. Funk, today I must examine you about this affidavit submitted by the prosecution last week, deposed by S. S. Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, dealing with concentration camps. You yourself have been asked about this pattern of questions already on the 7th of May here in this courtroom. In this examination of the 7th of 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 the Ton of day, "I saw him once at the bank, together with Mr. Puhl, the Vice President of the Bank, and some of the other gentlemen of the Directorate were having lunch. I passed through the room and I saw him sitting there." You said you did not talk these matters over with Gruppenfuehrer Pohl of the SS. You said, "It is completely now that these things took place." That is a literal translation of your testimony of the 7th of May. Now, Dr. Funk, Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, in his affidavit number 4045-PS, which was submitted to the Court on the 5th of 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? Can you recall that now, Dr. Funk? And what can you tell us in regard to this other conversation regarding the statement of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl? In this connection, I am referring to that conversation about which Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl stated that he had talked with you on Himmler's instructions, so that you, as Reich Minister of Economy, when textiles were being alloted for uniforms, that you would give preferred treatment to the SS? In any event, with every possible effort, I cannot remember a conversation like that with Pohl, and many things speak against this fact. First of all, I did not concern myself with matters or questions of a specific nature like that, such as the allocation of textiles, textile quotas to a branch of the service, and it was never my habit to deal with matters like that. Point two, it was my habit to mate conversations like that always in the presence of my State Secretary, or in the presence of the competent Chief of the Department and expert, and particularly if the conversation was involved with a person whom I never before had known.
The question of the supplying of textiles from concentration camps, that was a question that I never concerned myself with at all. These things were only in the sphere of command of the Reich Commissar, for old material and its use. That was an office outside my Ministry. The office quite logically worked together with the textile experts of the Ministry. According to my conviction, matters took their course this way. The material collected in the concentration camps, the scrap material found there, and old textile, this was to go directly to the factories which were to reprocess material of this sort. Therefore, I am of the conviction that the officials of the Ministry of Economy knew nothing about the supplying of this material from concentration camps, for previously these materials were contacted by the Economy Branch of the SS under the leadership of Pohl. Up to the day of this trial, I did not even know that Pohl headed the concentration camps and were under his subordination or jurisdiction. The connection between the Economical Department of the SS and the concentration camps was something I knew nothing about. This supplying of old materials relatively and with the entire production, did not play quite the decisive role, so that I would be bothered with it at all. But let us suppose that Mr. Pohl visited me. My memory is not quite, what it used to be and particularly after the many, many years of illness that I have passed through, so that a visit of that kind, which Pohl stated only lasted a few minutes, might have slipped my memory. If Pohl expressed a wish of Himmler like that to me, then I most certainly would have turned this matter over to my State Secretary so that he would handle it and do the necessary thing. Quite tremendously is the assertion of Pohl that he allegedly said something to me about the dead Jews; Or where these orders or shipments came in the year 1941 perhaps 1942, of which allegedly took place! The fact that Pohl should tell me, who he was seeing for the first time, that he would tell me a secret which was guarded most jealously up to the end, that I say is incredible. But he had no reason to call on me and speak of the dead Jews.
If he said to me which shipments from the SS will arrive it was something quite plausible to me, for in the large domain of the SS, where hundreds of thousands of men had been interned, and were being clothed by the State, and that much of the mid material and --
THE PRESIDENT: That is going into arguments rather than giving testimony of facts. me! I am calling it a lie: I am calling it a libel: Up to the day of this trial, no soul told me anything about that, not a soul. That Jews were being murdered in concentration camps, a report like that I would not let rest. Immediately, I would have turned it over to my superior, the Plenipotentiary of the 4 Year Plan, and I would have told him.
Q That is one point, witness. That is one point. I believe it has been cleared up sufficiently with your testimony. Now I will turn to page 2. Already in your testimony, in May, I believe, on the 6th of May, you testified that SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and you met once, that you met him at the Reichsbank at Lunch in the canteen of the Bank. The witness Pohl, in his affidavit, 4045-PS, refers to this matter, and he says everything that he originally discussed with the Vice President of the Bank, and you know nothing about. It would be a waste of time to read it. In the transcript of the 5th of August, this is to be found, "After we, that is, Gruppenfuehrer Pohl and Vice President of the Bank, Puhl, and several others, had inspected the various valuables in the bank, in the Reichsbank vaults, we went upstairs to a room and had lunch with the Reichsbank President, Funk. The lunch was served after the inspection. Funk, and Puhl, the Vice President, and several other gentlemen of the staff of Pohl, were there. 10 or 12 people were present."
the vaults, that is, the vaults of the Reichsbank.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, we have all heard this evidence the other do 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 those two sentences which apply to the defendant. There were two sentences and I am emitting everything else anyway, but naturally, I have to read these two sentences to him so he would Know exactly what I am referring to. Everything I said up to now is in this one sentence. And now, the second sentence follows, which is very brief. It reads as follows:
"On this occasion it was mentioned that a part of the valuables which we had inpsected had come from concentration camps." End of quotation, and the end of the second sentence. BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Witness, you have hear what Pohl, the Gruppenfuehrer, assorts in his affidavit. Is it correct or isn't it correct? You can answer the question will a yes or no, and if it is no, then you may give a brief explanation.
A. That he talked with me on this occasion, at this breakfast, that I do recall. That he discussed the valuables deposited be the SS, that I do not recall. That I know with certainty -- that he did not talk with me about those valuables about which I didn't know at all, therefore, about that part a the things which had been brought in by the SS were-not to be brought in to be used by the Reichsbank but rather, to be used by the Reichs Finance Ministry, that is gold, jewelry, and what other things there may have been. These thing I never know about, I never saw these things, and about these things Pohl did not talk about to me because if he had 1 would have known about them and would have inquired about them. It is quite out of the question that in the presence of twelve other persons, perhaps three or four of them directors of the Reichsbank, and in the presence of the servants, that he would have discussed matter like this. That things like that had come from concentration camps and possible might have come from Jews who might have been murdered, or even that the SS had collected foreign exchange and had deposited things like that and that the had come from the concentration camps, that I did know.
I discussed these matters with Pohl and that was the first premise that I had of this entirely terrifying matter about which Himmler, at that time, had asked me to have stored in the Reichsbank. I personally asked Himmler if the valuables were to be used for the legal Reichsbank business and whether I could dispose of then and use them but I did not know anything about the other things, I did not so them, and I did not know their origin.
Q. Witness, I should like to put one final question to you so that every thing will be entirely clear. When did you learn that, for instance, the glasses and their rims, gold teeth, and so forth, in addition to gold coins and foreign exchange, that hateful things like that had come in your Reichsbank? when did you first learn that?
A. Here, in this proceeding.
Q. You say that under oath? Can you say that with a clear conscience?
A. Yes, I can swear to that. please, Dr. Sauter .....
THE PRESIDENT: He has already given this evidence.
DR. SAUTER: It was just a very brief question.
THE WITNESS: Of course, what went on in the SS, that I did not know. I never saw that, but other things besides gold could have been, in that connection .....
DR. SAUTER: You have already said that. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I have no further questions. BY MR. DODD:
Q. You now tell us that you did know about the gold deposits and the jewelry coming in from the concentration camps, is that so?
A. I did not know anything about it.
Q. You did not know anything about it? I must have misunderstood you. I thought you just told the Tribunal that you did know that these gold depositand other things were turned over to you through Himmler?