DR. BOEHM: Yes. Now briefly --
THE PRESIDENT: The contention is that the Steel Helmet weren't really volunteers, into the SA; is that it?
DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. They entered the SA on the strength of orders.
THEPRESIDENT: Very well. You can pass from that group, I think.
DR. BOEHM: Very well. Now I shall turn to Document Book No. 5, in which I dealt with those documents relating to the mounted units. Documents 56 and 57 deal with the origin, the development, and the organization of the NS Mounted Corps. Document 56 is an excerpt from an official organ of the Reiter Corps, German utility horses, in the year 1933. Perhaps it is important that the president of the riding societies said that the associations were to be changed into a National Socialist Reiter Corps so that all riding in the country would become a certain organization with its own formation, without being incorporated into the SS. the Reiter Corps only at the top was connected with the General SA. of the NS Reiter Corps. Documents 59, 60, and 61 are extracts from the rules of riding villages whose members were not permitted to carry out political activity. This attitude was maintained and retained after 1933. we can see the activity of the NS Reiter Corps. the receiving of the Reiter certificate. This document has no political character at all. Document 70 gives the prerequisites for the granting of the Reiter emblem. Military and political views played no role in this connection. The emblem was an honorary sport emblem and it was the highest hope of all members of the NS Reiter Corps to have this. I shall have this submitted to the High Tribunal as document 71, dealing with the emblem, and perhaps I might refer to the fact that it was the only emblem which boars no National Socialist insignia.
from a tremendous number of photos and photostats, which give us a typical picture of the activities of theReiter Corps.
Now I shall turn to my discussion of the affidavits, Mr. President, and I shall deal with the first group of affidavits which I have submitted. I should like to refer to the General SA 17, 74, and 81. These affidavits deal with the topic of coercion, legal coercion to force entry into the formations. Affidavit 1, deposed by Dr. Menge, deals with the problem of the forceful incorporation into the SA, dealing with the Later Sports Association into the Naval SA. sport associations as closed sturm units of the SA.
Affidavit No. 61 deals with the responsibility of leaving the SA. of the state government is dealt with in the affidavits General SA 38, 39, and 40. From these we see that the preaching of a war of revenge against France would result in an expulsion from the SA, for the SA leadership forbade all discussion regarding the South Tyrolean and Alsation question.
Affidavit SA 38, deposed by Dr. Busse, deals with Staff Chief Lutze, and it characterizes him as an Opponent of any and all warmongering. We can see unequivocally from Affidavit SA 1, deposed by Dr. Menge, which deals with the agreement concluded between the Wehrmacht and the SA, the contents of which it gives, if there were to be any conflict between the SA and the Wehrmacht, the SA would take the side of the Wehrmacht. From the same affidavit we can see that Staff Chief Lutze, in the autumn of 1939 at a conference with Hitler and Goebbels, energetically condemned a war against Poland.
Affidavit's General SA No. and 6 deal with the preparation of the SA for the Party Rally in 1939.
Affidavit No. 76 deposed by General von Hoerauf, deals with the negotiation carried on by Roehm in 1931 and 1932 and the agreements he reached with English-French political circles, the contents of which were:
1, within a brief period of time Roehm reached the top of the NSDAP; 2, the press of the NSDAP has come under British influence; 3, the establishment of an extra political and military political bureau. In connection with these negotiations -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is finding this very difficult tofollow. You have here, I suppose, about 200 affidavits, something like that. Now, wouldn't it be the best way to put them into groups, and tell us the numbers of those which relate to some subject? Don't they relate to any particular subject, or are there 200 subjects that they relate to? Have they no possibility of being grouped together?
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, that will be hard to do, for this reason; as far as the individual affidavits are concerned, special points are found which have to be emphasized and which are not commonly found in all of the affidavits.
I should like to be brief and I have tried to be brief already when I grouped my collective affidavits together but as far as those individual affidavits are concerned, it is almost impossible for me to do that and to apply a common denominator.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a great deal more difficult for the Tribunal to follow.
DR. BOEHM: Of course, but in one affidavit No. 76, deposed by General Hoerauf, we hear about what aims were pursued by Roehm.
THE PRESIDENT: Surely, Dr. Boehm, if you are going to inflict upon us the whole of these two hundred affidavits, you might at least do it in order.
DR. BOEHM: Then I shall turn to No. 83, deposed by Adolf Freund.
THE PRESIDENT: I would think that if it is up to 85, we are not going to hear any more about it or are we going to jump back to 1, 2, 5, and 4?
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, those affidavits have been grouped according to certain points of view and therefore I cannot present thorn in consecutive order.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afrain I must not be speaking clearly or else the translation is not coming through to you clearly. What I asked you to do was to give us the topics with which these affidavits deal and then give us the numbers of the affidavits which deal with each topic. Now you are telling me that there are groups and that the affidavits are grouped with reference to topics. Will you kindly give us the topics raid the number.
DR. BOEHM: Certainly, Mr. President. I have told you, Mr. President, th I have been able to adhere to this grouping in my collective affidavits; howeve it was very difficult to follow the same procedure with individual affidavits. Of course, that was the idea I intended to convey.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. BOEHM: But I shall try to take into account what you have said in so far as possible. Now, I shall turn to the group of those affidavits which deal with the fact that the SA was not a military formation. This topic is dealt with in affidavits 25, 27, 28 and 30, that the schools of the chiefs of the training system did not have any military character. That is to be proved by affidavits 32, 33 and 37, that the sport emblem and its character is to be explained and clarified in the affidavit No. 8, dealing with the question whether the Feldherrnhalle was subordinate to the Wehrmacht and the SA and the question is to be clarified by affidavit No.18 and how far it was subordinate to the Wehrmacht and this is an affidavit deposed by the General Guenther, the commander of the 1st Panzer Division, who was with the Feldherrnhalle.
advanced by the prosecution that the SA was a terrorist organization. From affidavit No. 15, deposed by General Hoerauf, we can see that the Reich Minister Severing was the one who issued the SA service regulation -- Affidavi No. 19, 20, 21 and 22.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, I don't know whether you were in Court yesterday but I pointed out to the counsel who was dealing with the matter then, that it is utterly useless to simply read over to us the summary which we hive before us. Now, you have just referred us to affidavit No. 15 and the summary before us is this: "Franz von Hoerauf. 24.6.46. Former Reichsminister Severing's lack of objection to SA Service regulations." Those are practically the identical words which you have just repeated to us. Now, what is the good of that.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I do not know the compilation you have before you and I haven't read it. I do not have any translation of this compilation either; therefore, I do not know what is contained in your compilation and what is not contained there.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you haven't got this summary?
DR. BOEHM: I received the book and I repeatedly asked that a translation be given me, because of the fact of my colleagues --
THE PRESIDENT: If you were here yesterday, you must have heard me say over and over again to counsel who was presenting the documents, that we had before us a summary and that it was useless for him to repeat the summary to us Now, what would be useful would be, as I have already pointed out, if you would group these, affidavits and tell us what topics they relate to and also tell us which of them have been translated and if there are any to which you particularly desire to draw our attention, which have been translated, then draw our attention to the passages in those to which you wish to draw our attention.
DR. BOEHM: My last group which I set up is to prove that the SA was a protective organization against terror and in this connection, I mention affidavits No. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, and that the excesses in Berlin extended only to a restricted circle of persons. That fact is to be proved by affidavit No. 84.
THE PRESIDENT: Have any one which you have just given us, which show that the SA was not a terrorist organization, been translated?
DR. BOEHM: I have not received the translation of my affidavit, Mr. President, therefore I do not have any possibility to check which have been translated and which have not been translated so far.
THE PRESIDENT: Surely, you must know which you have asked to be translated. Somebody must have asked it.
MR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President -- that, I don't know, whether the translation actually has been done?
THE PRESIDENT: No.
DR. BOEHM: For I did not receive any books which --
THE PRESIDENT: You can tell us which ones you wanted to have translated couldn't you, which were being translated.
DR. BOEHM: I applied to have 21 affidavits translated, which are 1, 2, 5, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 76, 79, 82 and 89.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now go on with your grouping, if you will. The last one you gave us was 84 which you said showed that the excesses were only very exceptionally.
DR. BOEHM: On the same topic, I should like to submit affidavit No. 87, in which we see what steps were undertaken against excesses in the West and that the SA did not have any attitude inimical toward the Jews, as asserted by the prosecution, and which may be shown by affidavit 54 and 57. The same may be seen from affidavit No. 54 and 53 - To the topic which was the object of the presentation of evidence, Document 1721, the following deal with affi davit 85 and 96; affidavits which are to prove this is a specific case, that the Gruppenfuehrer of the Brigade Kurpfalz-Mannheim did not give any order to destroy synagogues and in the same connection, I should like to quote affidavit No 89 and have it taken into account, and in conclusion, affidavit No. 78, from which we can see that Lutze, after the 9th of November 1938, did not any more permit the use of the SA for police use by the political leadership unless the leadership gave its permission for the use of the SA.
affidavits 71 and 72 deal with this matter; and affidavit No. 70 shows how those people were punished who participated in the enterprise from the 9th to the 10th of November 1938; how the SA took measures of its own accord against these who have participated on the 9th to 10th of November 1933, which may be seen from affidavit No. 4, and the basic attitude by the SA towards the church was, may be seen from affidavits 43, 44, and 45. The activity of the physicians in the SA can be seen from the affidavits No. 62 and 63 -- in so far as the SA was connected with concentration camps, this matter should be gathered from the general affidavit No. 15, deposed by Leonhard Gentermann. Finally, in order to conclude this topic and to conclude this group of affidavits, I should like to submit affidavit No. 62, deposed by Dr. Priese who, as a member of the KTD (?), was an expert in the Bavarian Ministry for the Plenipotentiary for Political Liberation, in which affidavit he states and he is speaking as one who was able to gather an overall picture as a political opponent that the SA was not a criminal organization in the sense of the charter and that it cannot be called such.
THE PRESIDENT: Which number was that?
Dr. BOEHM: That was No. 32. I bog your pardon, there scorns to be a typographical error -- 82. Mr. President, now, I should like to turn to the collective affidavits. This is grouped and compiled in perhaps 21 pages and I can save time myself on this report, if it is permitted me, to submit this document and have it translated. This compilation is of importance, for it is the result of more than 17,000 attitudes and in my opinion this would --
THE PRESIDENT: 17,000 what?
DR. BOEHM: 17,000 affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. BOEHM: The complete contents of those affidavits have been summarize a by me and compressed into 2 pages and I believe that it would have importance if it would be translated and I can save time be reporting on it now.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Boehm, it may be translated but it should not be translated until after your speech has been translated.
DR. BOEHM: Very well. Then I should like to submit this document which is a compilation and I should like to submit it to the Tribunal under the general No. SA-90. in the interests of the Steel Helmets and the members of the riding organizations. The Junior Steel Helmets being taken over into the SA on the strength of orders, that is a matter which is dealt with by affidavits 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 18, 37 and 42; of all of these affidavits, Mr. President of the ones which have been submitted in this connection, the following were translated, Nos. 1. 2. 3. 4. and 9.
Reserve may be seen in affidavits number 1, 2, 5, 19, 20, 30, 33, 36, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43. The assimilation of the SA Reserve with the SA on the strength of orders is seen from affidavits number 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 41, 41 and 42. And the fact of the resistance by the Steel Helmet members was prevented to the Session may be seen through affidavits number 1, 2, 4, 15, 17, 16, 9, 10, 11, 12, 34, 41, 41 and 42. taken over by the SA and that these people formed an independent unit within the SA according to the assurances given them, and it is to be proved by the following affidavits: 1, 5, 6, 7, 5, 14, 16, 17, 37, 38, 41 and 42. It is to be proved further that after the assurance of the corporative independents had been broken, the members of the Steel Helmet formed a closed circle or block within the SA, and that is to be proved by affidavits 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 37, 39, 40, 41 and 44; and that the members of the Steel Helmet who had been token over and who had been rejected for war may be seen from affidavits number 1, 2, 5, 9 and 40. men is shown by affidavits 4, 5, 9, 13, 16, 37, 39 and 44. The fact that the Steel Helmet men condemned religious persecution is shown by affidavits 1, 2, 9 and 18; and that the Steel Helmet members taken over condemned persecution for racial reasons may be seen, from affidavits 1, 2, 4 and 38. Helmet members who had left the ranks, the members of the Steel Helmet who had been taken ever, felt themselves impelled to remain within the SA, and that is to be proved through affidavit number 1, 2, 3, 4, 37 and 39. The fact that the Steel Helmet members taken over had reason to believe that upon leaving the SA they would have trouble in making a living can be seen from affidavits 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 16, 18, 34, 37, 38, 39 and 40. That the Steel Helmet members taken ever because of orders or through laws were kept within the SA may be seen from affidavits 1 and 41. The fact that those members of the Steel Helmet nucleus taken over into time SA Reserve, even if later on they were assigned to active SA formations, in practice they were reservists, may be seen from affidavits 1, 7, 12, 19, 33, 40, 41, 42, 6, 12 and 30.
automatically and were in many cases only titles can be seen from affidavits 5 and 42.
I believe Mr. President, that it is possible for me to be equally brief in grouping the affidavits as they have been submitted for the Riding Associations, for my data in this connection hardly permits that but I should -Mr. President -
THE PRESIDENT: Haven't you already given us in your documents adequate evidence about the Riders' Corps. Surely, you have given us four documents generally which allege that the Riders' Corps was -
DR. BOEHM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: -- purely a sporting organization, and that being, I suppose, the topic of the affidavits, why not give us the numbers of the affidavits.
DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: I am going to adjourn now. I am only indicating to you what you might do. We will adjourn.
DR. BOEHM: Yes, sir.
(A recess was taken.)
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, with reference to the Cavalry Corps, I should like to refer to affidavits numbered 1 to 5, which deal with the construction, organization and creation of the Cavalry Corps.
Nos. 6 and 7 confirm the fact that its activity was horse breeding, care of horses and training in riding, and that the Cavalry Corps had in no way acted criminally and had no criminal character is to be established by affidavits Nos. 9, 11, 12, 13, 36, 71, 72, 73, 74, Nos. 19 up to and including 24, 67 and 88. and was not furnishing cavalry replacements for the armed forces is to be established by affidavits Nos. 11, 13, 86; and the fact that the Cavalry Corps did not participate in the seizure of power is to be established by affidavits numbered 71 up to and including 74, and that no crimes against humanity have been committed by it is to be established by affidavits Nos. 19 to 24, inclusive, 87 and 88. problem is to be proved by the submission of affidavits 19, 20, 21 and 88. 22, 23, and with reference to the fact that there were differences of opinion regarding politics between the Cavalry Corps and the NSDAP, I am submitting as evidence affidavits 25 and 29, and that even the Party Dealers distrusted the Cavalry Corps is to the proved by affidavits 31, 85, and that members of the Cavalry Corps could hardly have hit upon the thought that by belonging to the Cavalry Corps they were belonging to a criminal organization is to be proved by means of affidavits 76, 34, 77, 33 and 35. individual zones and individual sectors of the Reich. That is to say, conditions in the British Zone with reference to the Cavalry Corps and in the Rhineland will be proved by NSRK 37, 38, 39, 40, 78; with reference to Westphalia by 41, 42, 79; in Hannover, 43, 44, 45; in Oldenburg, 46; Eastphalia 47; in Bremen, Hamburg and Holstein, 48. Bavaria, I submit affidavits 49, 50, 51; Wuertemburg, 52, 53, 54; Hessen 55, 55, 57, 80; with reference to Baden, 58, 59, 60; Upper Swabia 61, 62; Pfalz 63.
Zone, Saxony, 64; Thuringia, 65; East Prussia, 66 and 67; Berlin Brandenburg 82; Pommerania, Mecklenburg, 83; Silesia 84.
Mr. President, I should now like to make two applications. The first application is that the affidavit submitted by the prosecution from Dr. Kurt Schuhmacher and from the Judge Advocate General of the General Staff, Dr. Stapf of Brunswick, may be introduced in evidence by me, and I should then like to ask you that the affidavit of Dr. Kurt Schuhmacher be given SA Number 91, and that the affidavit from Judge advocate General Dr. Stapf be given SA Number 92.
THE PRESIDENT: Have they not already been offered in evidence by the Prosecution?
DR. BOEHM: They have not yet been submitted in evidence, but I should like to introduce them into the proceedings. I do not know whether they are to be submitted by the Prosecution. At any rate, I believe that considerable material on behalf of my organization is contained in these affidavits which has not been introduced by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you refer to the Prosecution then?
DR. BOEHM: The Prosecution have these affidavits in their original form. I merely received copies of these affidavits which were placed in my pigeonhole in the Counsel Room. That is how I learned of them, and I must emphasize that because I must ask the Prosecution to give me originals.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, these were the affidavits to which we referred at the close of the evidence of the witness Juettner. My Lord, we proposed, as I told the Tribunal, to put in certain affidavits in rebuttal. These two were affidavits which we did not propose to use, but we gave copies to the Defense, and I said that I had no objection to the Defense using them if they so desired. If they think they can get any benefit from them, they can use them as far as the Prosecution are concerned. My Lord, that is the position.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well, then, Dr. Boehm, you can offer these in evidence. SA 91 and 92, did you say?
DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. And then I should like to make yet another application with regard to the admission of another affidavit, which comes from Arnold Rechberg. I am trying to prove by means of that affidavit that, contrary to the allegation of the Prosecution, the SA was not a uniform body and that the conspiracy on the part of the SA cannot be regarded as a uniform action. This affidavit mentions that it is quite true that there was lack of unity in the SA in that the National Socialist fighting organization of the SA had been deliberately penetrated by elements faithful to Moscow who were under orders from Moscow, that this had been done before July 1940, and that up to July 1932, 24,000 communists, among them some under instructions from Moscow, had changed over into the SA. It is further stated in this affidavit that this penetration into the SA continued after the seizure of power.
THE PRESIDENT: Has this affidavit been submitted to the Commissioners and has it been submitted to the Prosecution?
DR. BOEHM: Yes, certainly, Mr. President, this affidavit was the subject of examination before the Commissioners, but it was not admitted before the Commission. However, I have the possibility of discussing the document before the Tribunal and of asking the Tribunal to admit it, and I have now made use of that possibility. I wish to base my view on the fact that I want to say that this document is of the greatest value as evidence insofar as the SA was principally constructed on the basis of national trends of thought. Through these indubitably non-national but outwardly differently thinking people, a spirit was introduced in the SA which would no doubt destroy the uniform principles which the prosecution allege and which deprives the allegedly uniform aims of the SA of existence, since the aims of National Socialist thought were no doubt quite different from the aims of these people who are discussed in the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I object to this affidavit as being completely irrelevant and based on sources which have no probitive value whatsoever. My Lord, if Your Lordship has in front of you the proceedings before the Commission, at page 3221, My Lord, there is a summary of the affidavit.
My Lord, paragraph one of this summary is, "Elements loyal to Moscow infiltrated into the National Socialist Combat organizations, SA and SS, consciously, by order of Moscow."
My Lord, that shows the sort of allegation that is made. It is made by Herr Rechberg who, of course, is a person who shows from the affidavit no possible grounds for any confidence being put in his statements. 24,000. took place between Herr Rechberg and Sir Wyndham Charles and Sir William Turral, as he then was. Again I have seen the letters. They are clearly cases of somebody pestering these people with letters and getting a reply.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in what way does this deponent describe himself? Is he a member of the SA?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I just saw the affidavit in German this morning. My Lord, he does not say he is a member of the SA. He is merely a business man who had certain interests in these matters. He quotes two pages which were one a secondary sheet and one a practically unknown German paper, which contained declarations of a Soviet official. It would be in my submission an abuse, if evidence of an unknown German paper, purporting to quote a large Soviet official, were to be taken as a basis in this matter. If it were all based on proper evidence, and if the affidavit was the affidavit of a person who showed he was useful, it would still be completely irrelevant to the question of criminality which is before the Court. I respectfully request your Lordship to uphold this objection, as when it came before the Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, have you anything to say, on this?
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I have quite a different view with relation to this mis-statement as made by the Prosecution.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: The Soviet prosecution fully agrees with the competent explanation as submitted by Sir David. I would like to add a few words to what was said by Sir David. Besides the fact that the Commission already denied the use of this document and that it has no evidential value or any relation to the subject, for that reason I would like the Tribunal to know the fact that the fact that the author of this document is a well known person, who has written a number of anti-Soviet documents, for that reason, since the document referred to has nothing in it except anti-Soviet propaganda and falsehoods against the Soviet-Union, it is not directly related to the present affair. For that reason, I would like to bring to the Tribunal's attention our objection to the documents 85, 86, 87, 132, and unfortunately Sir David did not have the copies of these documents. All these four documents, which I have mentioned, refer to 1925, and to the problems of the inter-party strife in Germany. For that reason they do not relate to the present situation. The last document to which we object is document 82 which we have only just heard about for the first time. It mentions a person whose name I do not know, and whom the attorney for the defense says he is a former Communist who gives his conclusions on the SA.
That man is not in any way competent to give conclusions as an expert on the questions of organizations, which only the Tribunal can decide. That is all, my Lordship, I would like to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Do you want to say anything more, Dr. Boehm, before the Tribunal decided.
DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President, to answer what the prosecution have just described it that I intended to misuse the Tribunal and to clear it up. Not only once, but repeatedly, as proven by the record of the 15 December, has it been stated by the prosecution what the SA had been a uniform body, and that as such had been a uniform unit regarding its aims. It is my contention that the contents of these affidavits contradict this point of view. It is quite wrong to say here that possibly the man could not have possibly had the necessary background, because the representatives of the prosecution know, after discussing this affidavit, that the Commission knows of its contents, and they all know the name of this man and know he is in Germany and where he is living, so if there is any doubt against the creditability of this man, then this could have been done today, but obviously it was not done. No reason is given why this affidavit should not be admitted. I am of the opinion as before that such a large number of people, having different political views on different lines, should not be accused on these different aims. I must again request that this affidavit be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks the decision of the learned Commission was correct, and the document will be rejected, for that reason, and on the grounds that it is irrelevant and the deponent has not stated any grounds for his knowledge. The document is rejected therefore.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, in this case I should like to clear up one question, namely, I have not been in a position to deal with all the evidence individually as contained in my document book, owing to the short amount of time to complete it. I should like to put the question whether during the passing of the judgement on the documents it will be made the subject of all legal documents, all the documents which are contained in my document book. Otherwise only a part of the material will be taken into consideration, that to which I attach important value. I am interested in seeing that everything is taken into consideration.
If I had taken the necessary time required to go over everything and taking everything into consideration, my presentation would have taken six hours. I should like to ask if all my documents become subject to the findings of the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better hear from you about this affidavit which the prosecution have objected to, 82, 85, 86, 87 and 132. I take it the Commission accepted these affidavits. Have you got the numbers?
DR. BOEHM: All the documents and affidavits which I have discussed during the session today have been subjected to the examination and discussion before the Commission.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Evidently there is a misunderstanding in the translation. I mentioned 85, 286, 287, 132. This is not written testimony or written affidavits so it has not gone to the Commission. The last number I mentioned is 82, which was mentioned today for the first time.
THE PRESIDENT: What are these affidavits, what are they?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: These are the documents, my Lordship, with the exception of 82 -- number 285, 286, 236, 237. These are the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The numbers are not coming through accurately on the translating. What are the number? Read it slow.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: 85 -
THE PRESIDENT: 85 did you say? It just came through as 285, you mean 85?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: 85. I keep repeating -- 8, my Lordship, 85.
22 Aug M LJG 9-1 Williams and the last one is 82, which is an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Now, Dr. Boehm, do you want to say anything about this?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I want to be forgiven, My Lord, for a mistake. The numbers of the documents in my copy were not given correctly. Please correct this. It is 285, nor 85 as I said originally. It will be 285, 286, and 287. We just gave the Secretary of the Tribunal the list of the numbers.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President -
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, doctor.
And, Dr. Boehm, I ought to give you the opportunity of saying what you wish about these documents.
DR. BOEHM: First of all, I should like to defend myself against the accusation according to which I have not discussed in my document book which I have not discussed with Mr. Griffith Jones, and nothing over and above these documents alluding to it. The documents objected to were included in the document book after agreement had been reached with Mr. Griffith Jones; and Documents 285, 286, and 287 are extracts from findings of the State Court for the Protection of the Republic, and the Reich Court.
The contents are known to the Tribunal. They are in evidence. We are not concerned here with the activities of anyone who participated in the activities or the part of the Communists during the period we have discussed; but we are concerned with a statement contained in the summary of the police presidency in Stuttgart, which corresponds literally with the findings passed with reference to these affairs. newspaper of a forming-up plan on the part of the communists, who intended to carry out Communistic Putsch plans in Berlin. These forming-up plans are reproduced, and they are commented upon. They show the necessity existing in Germany to create an organiza 22 Aug M LJG 9-2 Williams tion capable of giving protection against such extension; and it is only for that reason that this document, 132, has been included in my document book.
The affidavit No. 87 must be due to a misunderstanding. It, too, had been discussed with Mr. Griffith Jones and Mr. Marreco. That document has been allowed by the Commission. in that respect are somewhat belated.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, the Tribunal will take into consideration the matter of there documents and will let you know their decision.
DR. BOEHM: Very well.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: May it please the Tribunal
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: My Lord, I have these few documents to put in in rebuttal. My Lord, first I have a document to which Sir David referred in his cross-examination of Juettner the other day, which was not formally put in. It is D-972, which becomes 618. of a document contained in the SA defense book, SA No. 156, which was a decree from the Munich University Department to the SA, of which, on the face of it, it is clear to say that membership of the SA was compulsory for all students. character, and based upon the some order of the Supreme SA Command, which was issued by the SA University Department for Cologne. It is dated two days before the Munich Decree which Dr. Boehm put in. I think you have been given copies of translation of both, for your convenience. It will be dealt with later. I would only at the moment draw your attention to Paragraph 3 of each document. say, the SA document -- Paragraph 3 reads:
22 Aug M LJG (9-3 Williams "According to the decree of 7 February 1934, SA Service (SS Service) is compulsory for all German students.
In accordance with the decree of the Supreme SA Leadership, F 6914, of 27 March 1934, the ban on taking on newly matriculated students is raised in the period from 25 April to 5 May. All newly matriculated students are therefore bound to join the SA. They have to report at the latest on the 5th of May 1934 to the local offices." paragraph in the order issued by the Cologne SA University Department, one sees, at least, that that was not common to all universities. the Tribunal will see that it starts in the same way -"According to the decree of 7 February 1934"-- the same decree -"SA service is compulsory for all German students." in the Munich Decree is not membership in the SA, but a course of training run by the SA. If one might draw a parallel, it is practically the same as what we know in England as the Officers' Training Corps in the public schools.