System, nothing was changed in the organization of the prisonerof-war system. The SS especially did not exert any influence on the treatment of the prisoner of war.
I will refer now to next group of affidavit. They deal with the assertion of the prosecution that there has been political unity. This took place under the so-called "Higher SS and police Leader." That assertion of the prosecution is on Page 12,and 16 of the German Trial Brief. It is in the transcript of the 19th and the 20th of December. The following affidavits are to refute this statement, 86, 87, 83 and 10. I will ask the Tribunal to pay special attention to Affidavit 87. These affidavits rove that the Higher SS and Police Leaders within the Reich have no authority over the Ordnungspolizei or the security police, The presentation of war, Best's document PS 1052 did not correspond to the facts and is a wishful dream.
which are to refute the assertion of the Prosecution that the SS was trained, in favor of the doctrine of the master race and for racial hatred and that spiritually and physically it had repared for war. Refer to the Trial Brief, page 5 and the transcript of the 19th and 20th of December. not trainee, for racial hatred and certainly not for racial extermination, also that the SS does not train for war either mentally or physically.
The affidavits in group 4 deal with the following charge: That the Waffen-SS me an integral part of the whole SS. That is found in the transcript of the 19th and 20th of December, 1943.
exceptions, had been voluntary at the end of the war. In the third on the basis of its training.
Affidavit 84 proves that the Waffen SS as a unit had no concept of Himmler's idea, and above all that Himmler's power and that they were not lead by Himmler in a 39 and 40.
It has been proved that a considerable part of the 81 prove the following : The Waffen-SS was repeatedly instructed above observing the rules of war.
The rules of war were kept and like the documents quoted previously.
They prove that these SS out connection with the SS.
The police divisions, to be distin under the SS.
Only after that were they forcibly ordered into the The Duerlewanger has been mentioned repeatly.
Affidavit 35 deals with it.
This affidavit says, "This brigade was not an SS unit, out a unit set up directly, on Himmler's orders, of the SA on June 30, 1934, is false.
The general SS in Frankfurt and Berlin, for example, was only allotted. No arrests or shooting took place. of German is given by affidavit 70. It is a cross-section of the whole camp, a whole internment camp. A digest is given. ment, participation of the SS in the Jewish program as of the 9th of November, 1938. These are affidavits 7, 6, 8, 9, 104 and 105. They prove that the SS in Nuernberg, Offenburg, Hamburg, Berlin and in Ulm did not participate in Programs, but on the 10th of November was employed for protection. error from, above was given to the SS, to participate in those Programs, I consider this affidavit number 5. It is by a certain Schallermeier. I have just jeard it is available in English. I would be grateful if the Tribunal would permit me to read it.
20 Aug A LJG Karr 22-1 THE PRESIDENT:
Has it been digested in the transcript before the Commissioners?
DR. PELCKMANN: It is digested in the transcript, your Lordship. I do not want to read the whole document but may I read only part of it once more, something which is especially important.
"About 3 a.m. on November 10 (this is Schallermeir speaking) the Reichsfuehrer dictated to me in my room a declaration running as follows:
" I went on 9 November to the Fuehrer and towards 11:30 p.m. the Gruppenguehrer Wolf came to me and informed me about the orders issued by the Gau Propaganda Office in Munich. (I emphasize Gau Propaganda office.) I asked the Fuehrer what orders he had to give me. The Fuehrer replied that the SS had to keep out of this action. The State Police were to provide safety for Jewish property and see that the Jews themselves were protected. The General SS, who remained in barracks, were only to be helpers on protective measures if absolutely necessary. I passed on this command of the Fuehrer to Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich for the State Police Headquarters and to the Oberabschnittsfuehrers for the General SS at once. When I asked the Fuehrer I had the impression that he knew nothing about what was happening. The order came from the Reich Propaganda Headquarters and I presume that Goebbels had started this action in his lust for power which had struck me for some while past and in his empty-headedness, just when the foreign political situation was at its worse.'" May I correct myself.
If I said this was Schallermeier that was a mistake. This quotation was dictated by Himmler; Himmler dictated these paragraphs.
And now the author of the affidavit goes on:
"I had to type this dictation personally." in the safe.
20 Aug A LJG Karr 22-2 of the SS in these events of 9 November is given to the Tribunal by affidavit number 70, a digest from a camp.
The next group includes the following affidavits; 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25. It deals with circumstances in the concentration camps. These affidavits are to prove that treatment in the concentration camps, which these witnesses described only in general, were satisfactory. Mistreatment of prisoners was severely punished. number 70, which I have mentioned in the digest of many affidavits in the collective affidavit 119, 122. camps and the role which this played within the SS organization, the affidavit SS and 100 are important. They prove that the income of concentration camps from the labor of prisoners was not turned over to the SS, in particular not to the Waffen SS but this income was entered on the budget of the German Reich. on living human doings. I consider them valuable only as to the question as to what the SS men know of those experiments. for freezing experiments after they had been given a physical examination and special food. with the question of secrecy regarding crimes, especially crimes in concentration camps and to refute the assertion of the Prosecution on page 3418 and 3420 of the German transcript, that the whole German population know of the atrocities in concentration camps. That would include the SS men outside concentration camps. contact in any way with concentration camps statements of secrecy were demanded; furthermore that the guards of the concentration camps did not have any insight into the actual protective custody 20 Aug A LJG 22-3 Karr camps and that in part even within the commandateurs one section was not informed about the activity of the other section.
the SS I consider very important affidavit number 24. In answer to the express question of a Waffen SS fuehrer, who reported to him, Himmler said that in the concentration camps everything was in order; that the prisoners word given satisfactory treatment, Himmler made this statement to the whole officers' corps of the 17th SS Division. Fuehrer's headquarters wont so far that crimes in concentration camps, extermination of Jews and the activity of the Einsatzkommandos that nothing was learned about these things.
I take three affidavits together, 63, 93 and 94. They also indicate extreme secrecy within Himmler's sphere and in particular extreme secrecy in the inspection of concentration comps. They notorious speech of Himmler's at Posen in October 1943 is known to the Tribunal. It was hold before Obergruppenfuehrers of the SS.
The Schneider affidavit, number 29, says the following: Schneider was warned by Himmler personally to keep silence about the Posen speech if he was fond of his life. main Office was competent for concentration camp administration through Amtsgruppe D. This affidavit emphasizes the extra-ordinary secrecy within this administrative organization. the SS main office inquired of the RSHA and also inquired of the WVHA Amtsgruppe D in 1943.
The Chief of the SS Personnel Main Office inquired whether rumors about the murder of Jews were true. The offices mentioned answered that these rumors were untrue. They were enemy propaganda.
THE PRESIDENT: We shall break off now, Doctor, please. Will you be much longer in your summaries of these affidavits ?
Dr. PELCKMANN: No, Your Lordship, these affidavits will not take much longer but a resume of the mass affidavits which I must give so that the Tribunal will know what these mass affidavits deal with, that will take a little longer.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 21 August 1946, at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. Pelckmann, although perhaps you can help me. by most of counsel for the organizations but not, I think, by Dr. Servatius, dated 15 August, 1946, the Tribunal would be glad to knew from counsel for the organizations how long they anticipate those who remain to present their documents and affidavits think they will take in doing so and in in what order they propose to make their speeches and whether they are ready or will be ready when the time comes to make these speeches because the Tribunal is very anxious and is not prepared to postpone the presentation of those speeches. as far as possible, whether the speeches will be ready in due time, I see that Dr. Kubuschok is not here.
Dr. Pelckmann is here and perhaps he can tell us as far as he is concerned and Dr. Servatius.
DR. PELCKMANN: Perhaps I will need two more hours. I believe my colleague, Dr. Laternser, will need one day for his speech. How long the SA will take I do not know. As to how long we shall take with the pleas, I can only repeat what was said in the letter because we were occupied with the taking of testimony until a few days ago and then with the presentation of documents and affidavits. But I believe that on Monday we could all begin with our pleas. As far as I knew, my colleague, Servatius, would already be ready to his plea. of the week if we count on three days for the translation and mimeographing. If one or the other of us could hand in the manuscript on Friday, we could begin on Monday or Servatius could begin at the end of the week. I personally, If I may say so, would not be ready before Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be ready by Monday?
DR. PELCKMANN: Not before Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I ought to point out to the counsel for the organizations that the letter was addressed to the Tribunal on the 15th of August, which is six days ago, so that they have had six days since then in which to get their speeches ready. I have also pointed out to each one in turn of the counsel for the organizations that it is quite unnecessary and it is wasting the time of the Tribunal to take so much time in commenting upon their affidavits and other documents; and the time would have been very much better spent in preparing their speeches. But I gather from what you say -- and perhaps Dr. Servatius will be able to tell the Tribunal whether he agrees with it, and Dr. Laternser, too -- that the counsel for the organizations will in all probability be ready to go on with their speeches on Monday and not to request any delay after that. Dr. Servatius, I understand, is ready to go on at once.
DR. PELCKMANN: Your Lordship, perhaps I may say one more thing. The documents and affidavits are being commented on at somewhat greater length than seems necessary to the Court. This is because the Court said the following, if I recall correctly, when the time of the speeches was set at three hours, it was said at the same time that the attorneys would have an opportunity to make comments on their presentation of affidavits and documents so that the time of three hours for the speech would remain for other purposes. We concluded from that that we would have an opportunity to comment on the evidence now in the presentation of documents and affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but counsel for the organizations must realize that all these affidavits are summarized in writing before us; and therefore simply to repeat the summary which we have in writing, of course, does not really help us at all.
You have mentioned in the absence of Dr. Laternser, who I see is now present, that Dr. Laternser, you think, would be likely to take one day on these documents.
DR. PELCKMANN: Yes, he told me last night that he would need a day.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me hear what he is going to say. Dr. Laternser, in your absence, what I was saying was that the Tribunal had had this letter of the 15th of August, which was written six days ago, and that the Tribunal would like to know how long counsel for the organizations anticipate they will take over their documents and whether they would be ready to go on with their speeches immediately thereafter. In answer to that, Dr. Pelckmann told me that he would take two more hours and that he heard from you that you would be likely to take one day. to listen to one whole day upon the documents.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I believe that I will certainly need a day. Please consider the following: The American prosecution used two days to present their evidence. The Russian prosecution used many days for their evidence against the General Staff. I believe that within the framework assigned to me, I face considerable difficulties, and then I need only one day. That is a fraction of the time which the prosecution used to present the evidence against the General Staff, if that is not too much -- ?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, you are leaving out consideration altogether of the fact that we have set up these Commissions and the fact that you have been before these Commissions not only for one day but for many days.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I presented the affidavits to the Commission. This was of a formal nature. The purpose of my presentation of evidence as to bring a certain order so that the Court may see to what point of the indictment the individual affidavits are to apply.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I'd like to point out to the Tribunal that Dr. Laternser spent between nine and ten days before the Commission on the General Staff; and, of course, he called witnesses here in the court room as well, two, I believe, or three -- I've forgotten the number.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, that was not quite correct. I used several days to examine witnesses but not to present documents; and I must be in a position to present this written evidence to the Court in a certain order. Otherwise, it cannot be effective.
THE PRESIDENT: You say you are not in a position to present it in a certain order. Well, nobody wishes you to present the affidavits in the order in which they are numbered on the document; but you can group them, presumably, unless they all deal with different subjects. I rather gather that you have a very great number of affidavits; and I feel quite certain that a great many of them deal with the same topic; and, therefore, in a very short time -- probably in the course of an hour -- anybody could go through that list of affidavits and could see which affidavits relate to the same subject and could, therefore, group them. It is perfectly simple; and the Tribunal will not under any circumstances be prepared to have their time taken up for longer than half a day in the presentation of documents by your organization or by any other organization.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, may I say something else on this point? I ask the Court to consider that the Russian prosecution used several days to make the most serious charges against the military leadership; and I ask that I may have approximately the same opportunity to answer these charges.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd has just pointed out that you have been before the Commission for nine or ten days; and you have already spent two days here. We have the very able and laborious work which has been performed by these Commissioners all before us in writing. I have before me at this moment a document. I don't whether it is in consecutive numbers -- not quite consecutive numbers -- but any rate it goes up to the number of 3,172, affidavits which have been summarized. I say not consecutive numbers but at any rate a bundle this thick if affidavits, which have been summarized in writing by these Commissioners.
the report which has been made by the principal Commissioner on these affidavits and have, as I understand, not commented adversely upon any remark in that report. All these matters are before the Tribunal; and in my opinion the Tribunal have granted to the organizations the fullest possible and most adequate opportunity of being heard before the Tribunal; and the Tribunal think that they have heard enough on this subject; and they adhere to the decision which I have announced.
All right, Dr. Pelckmann.
DR. PELCKMANN: High Tribunal, I shall now take up the last group of individual affidavits.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I am sorry to interrupt, but we are a little bit confused. Sir David and I both feel that there may be some misunderstanding about the position of Dr. Pelckmann. We are rather of the opinion, from listening to him, that he means that he will be ready only to submit his speech for translation on Monday, and we wondered if the Tribunal did not understand him to say that he would be ready to make his speech on Monday, and there would be a spread the of three days.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, the way I understood you, Dr. Pelckmann, was that you would be prepared to make your speech on Monday; not that it would necessarily come on Monday because, of course, Dr. Servatius' speech will come before yours, Presumably, unless you make other arrangements amongst yourselves, the speeches will be made in the order in which the Documents and the witnesses have been presented. Doubtless you can make arrangements among yourselves--which the Tribunal will only be too glad to assent to--if one is ready and the other is not, but they will expect that there will be no delay.
DR. PELCKMANN: I believe, Your Lordship, that that will be all right. As stated in the latter, we will present the manuscripts for translation and mimeographing by the end of the week. If, for example, I turn it in on Friday afternoon, I believe I can speak on Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. That is all very well, but the Translating Division are human, and I don't see any reason why they should work on Sunday. I may be wrong, but I think I remember that you have assistants who are helping you and who presumably have been helping you ever since the 15th of August, on which day this document was presented. As I pointed out already, that is six days ago. Some parts of the speech ought to be ready now and ought to be in the hands of the Translating Division. or that Dr. Babel has four assistants and four secretaries, and that you have one associate counsel and a secretary. I don't understand why the speech, or some part of it, should not have been handed to the Translating Division already, and the Aug-21-RT-M-3-2-Daniels same with the other counsel appearing on behalf of the organizations.
DR. PELCKMANN: We are still in the presentation of evidence, Mr. President. So far it has not been possible for me to prepare a complete plea before the end of the presentation of evidence. But may I make a suggestion, in order to fix it exactly, Mr. President? I can turn in the manuscript of my plea for the Translating Section on Friday afternoon, and I can propably hand in a considerable part of it before that time.
THE PRESIDENT: All I am prepared to say is this, that I will not, on behalf the Tribunal, order the Translating Division to work any more than the officer in command of that Division thinks proper; and the Tribunal expects that the speech will go on without delay. Is that clear?
DR. PELCKMANN: I was just dealing with SS Affidavit 108. It makes it clear that the SS had nothing to do with the drive for the seizure of manpower. abbreviated FS--which the prosecution considers a fifth Column-- in Slovakia and the Sudetenland, had no connection with the SS and was never armed. NSDAP and with that of the NS Year Book. The prosecution quotes from these books to prove official opinions of the Party. These affidavits, however, state that the organizational book and the NS Year Book were not official publications and that they are therefore no proof for organizational questions. protected by the regime when they committed crimes. It proves that when SS member committed punishable actions, before the establishment of the SS courts in 1939, to the extent that these actions became known the SS officers saw to it that no difficulties were put in the way of the regular course of justice.
Finally, there is a last group, affidavits 90, 30, 91. and 92.
Affidavit 30 is available only in the French translation. It is an answer to the assertion of the prosecution that the whole SS organization and its members knew, or had to know, that the SS was a criminal organization. relations between the Foreign Diplomatic Corps and the SS, so that the SS members who heard of it could not assume that this organization was criminal.
ginning, of which no digest is available.
THE PRESIDENT: What did you mean by saying that there was a group, which to down as being 90, 31 or 30, or possibly both of them, and 92? By the document which is before me, Affidavits numbers 90, 91 and 92 have been withdrawn. Is that a mistake?
DR. PELCKMANN: I had made application in the Commission to have them admitted, and the prosecution did not want to have them admitted, as far as I can recall, no decision was reached by the Commission; the decision was postponed. I heard two days ago that Colonel Neave, who was presiding in the Commission at the time, had said that they had finally not been admitted. That is new to me. If that should be the case, then I would ask for a decision of the Tribunal whether these affidavits can be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: You just cited them as a group. Have they got any relation at number 30? Number 30, you say, relates to the relationship between the SS and the Foreign Diplomatic Corps. Do 90 and 92 relate to that?
DR. PELCKMANN: Yes, 30 was approved and is available in the French translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we can take it then, and we will consider the application. We can take it that 90 and 92 deal with the same subject, is that right?
DR. PELCKMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That's quite sufficient. I don't want any more.
DR. PELCKMANN: Now I shall deal with the affidavits 68, 64, and 69. I must refute the assertion of the Prosecution that the mistreatment of the men, the mass exterminations and killings in the concentration camps can be charged against the whole SS because, as the Prosecution assorts, they were known to the great mass of SS men. The very important records of the trials of the Allied military Courts against members of the concentration camp Kommandanturs and against guards, for example, the trials at Belsen, Mauthausen, Dachau, Neuengamme and Rasstadt -- I was not able to obtain these transcripts. A systematic examination of the witnesses and a part of the affidavits from the camps made it possible for me to ascertain facts to refute the assertion of the Prosecution. ranted from the defense precisely on the point concerning concentration camps. On the same day, in answer to the question of the French Prosecutor Dubost, the Court was convinced that the same terrible conditions prevailed in all camps which two witnesses had testified to. The President answered, "If you want to prove that it is necessary to call a witness from each of the hundreds of camps." I refer to the transcript. And therefore, for the purpose of defense, I have a number of affidavits from guards, members of the Kommandanturs, and inmates of camps, and also from visitors of the concentration camps. I have submitted them as evidence to the contrary. Now, I refer only to an affidavit which seems very important to me, number 68.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, why don't you tell us which the affidavits are, that's what we want you to do. You are telling us new, and referring to some statement I made in January, that you have got affidavits made from each camp. Well, what are the affidavits? It's quite easy to tell us what the groups are, isn't it?
DR. PELCKMANN: These groups, Mr. President, I mentioned yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: If you mentioned them yesterday, why do you go back to them today?
DR. PELCKMANN: In order to stress the importance of the affidavit number 68 which I am about to explain. It is an affidavit of a commandant of a concentration camp. I can understand that their general fooling, the Court will be distrustful of this commdant, but nevertheless, I ask that this very detailed affidavit be read. It deals with organizational questions which are significant in respect to the question of who is responsible for crimes and mistreatment of inmates in concentration camps, and who could know about them. I ask you to pay attention to the fact that this office must not be confused with the RSHA. Confusion has already occurred in sunning up the testimony of witnesses before the court. I should like to explain how important it is to re-examine the question of organization of the concentration camp system with the aid of this document 68. But the other parts of this affidavit are also very important.
The other important affidavits are numbers 64 and 69. They are also testimony of SS judges. Just like the witness Morgen, these judges had put in the investigation against concentration camp criminals. From the witness Morgen himself there are the affidavits 65, 66, and 67.
THE PRESIDENT: Why does he make two affidavits on one day?
THE PELCKMANN: I did not understand your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: I said, why does he make two affidavits on one day? Why not make one affidavit?
DR. PELCKMANN: On this day work piled up and there were examinations before the Commission. Witnesses were examined. The witness Morgen arrived quite at the end. I had to see to it that the affidavits were presented as quickly as possible. For that reason . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. PELCKMANN: It is only a technical reason, your Lordship. In order that this complex of concentration camp investigations which, in my opinion, is of importance for the court in judging the question of responsibility for the SS so far as the concentration camp system is concerned, I ask that those affidavits of those two judges be closely examined.
I will deal with them in my speech. translated completely and which is rather long. There is neither a French nor an English translation yet. This affidavit gives a cross-section from a camp with 2,800 SS inmates. They include reports from most Standarten of the General SS from all parts of Germany and reports of about 30 divisions, Oberkommandos, and replacement units of the Waffen SS. In addition, this affidavit is a good cross-section of the members at various camps. In accordance with the decision of the Court on 14 January, this might also be significant. The highest ranks are not represented; it is the so-called "little man" who is represented there. From a similar point of view, because this evidence of affidavits is still affecting the great mass of the SS, I ask for the hearing of the Tribunal for the 136,000 affidavits of which I have found a digest. For the evaluation of the credibility of these affidavits, the fact is important that they were taken down very early without juridical or any other explanations. The SS members comment only on one or several points which interest them the most. The fact that certain points are not mentioned in these affidavits is because the middle SS man naturally had only a limited view and was not able to judge on many subjects. As a result they could not write anything on this point. only evidence of their interest in their personal fate. But this digest is to refute that. In view of the individual, his general view is limited, and since the individual cannot testify to more them he knows, these affidavits with the viewpoint of the individual gained a great value for me, as defense counsel of the mass of the SS and not of the highest leaders assigned to them. They give a clear picture of the teachings, its training, statements end speeches of the leaders.
can speak of collective criminology in the SS, if that is at all possible juridically. These statements are also important for the question of conspiracy.
I may point out that this digest has not yet been translated. This digest consists of various groups. First, may I mention group I briefly. It deals with the motive of volunteering for the SS. The distinction is made between joining before 1933 and after 1933 in the General SS and volunteering for the Waffen SS before 1933. Of 12,749 affidavits, 12,671 say that the motive was idealism and patriotism alone. 78 affidavits give various other motives, transfer from other units for example, eventually cavalry units were transferred into the SS cavalry , and so forth. The fact that the motive for joining after the seizure of power is commented on only by 804 men proves that people did net join from pure Idealism and on a really voluntary basis to the same extent as before the 30th of January, 1933.
As for joining the Waffen SS there are only a few affidavits. Of 488 men, 406 say that the Waffen SS was select, young troops. Others say that they had to fulfil their military duties and that they preferred the Waffen SS. Many indicate that the Waffen SS considered itself a compulsory branch of the Wehrmacht. Many others indicate that they were racial Germans, and as I proved yesterday with the aid of documents, racial Germans could perform their military service only in the Waffen SS. Some reported to the Waffen SS because they wanted to be in the police service after the war. for joining the General SS and drafting into the Waffen SS. 67 affidavits say that the assimilation of the police brought them to a service rank in the General . teachers or members of the postal protection, the Reich Food Estate, civil service employees, Reich far Victims Care, and educators. Also honorary persons are in this group. 1,806 racial Germans and 1,826 transferred from other parts of the Wehrmacht or from the police, that is, ordered to the Waffen SS.
SS members. According to those statistics there were 246 Waffen SS members who were drafted into the Waffen SS by the Wehrbezirkskommando, the district command of the normal Wehrmacht. Only one-fifth of them belonged to the General SS. kommandos were drafting men for the Waffen SS. The witness Brill has also spoken on this subject. And Wehrbezirkskommandos drafted men to guard concentration camps by drafting them into the Waffen SS. into the Waffen SS. The concentration camps guards were supplied by the Labor Office, the so-called emergency service obligation. The Labor Office obtained the men for concentration camp guards, and they were taken over forcibly into the Waffen SS. Some other points are the forcible transfer of postal officials for the aid of the German Reich Post Office and for the SS field posts. with the knowledge which the SS members had of the intentions of their leaders -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, are you still dealing with Group I?
DR. PELCKMANN: No, your Lordship, I am on Group III.
THE PRESIDENT: Where did Group II begin?
DR. PELCKMANN: Group II began with the legal compulsion to join the General SS?
THE PRESIDENT: As far as the translation came through to me, I have taken down all the numbers you have given, and I thought they were all in group I
DR. PELCKMANN: I beg your pardon. I thought I said it. Perhaps it did not get through.
THE PRESIDENT: Now you have gotten to Group III, have you?
DR. PELCKMANN: Yes. It deals with the training which the SS members received. 55,303 SS members state that in this training they had no indication of criminal aims. It was training for character, for decency, for comradeship, and exemplary conduct of life. It is noteworthy that none of the SS men in connection with the training mentions Hitler's book "Mein Kampf."