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.
different -- "In accordance with the decree of the Supreme S.A. leadership the ban on taking on newly matriculated students is raised." -- in the same period, the 25th of April be the 5th of May -- "Every student is thereby offered the possibility of joining the S.A. The S.A. service is compulsory, but the joining of the S,A.,becoming a member of it, is left purely to the student himself. He simply is offered the possibility of joining." Tribunal, and I can leave it for a moment by drawing your attention to these two paragraphs. That document will be GB-619. The Munich Decree, of course, is SA-156. And I have a number of short affidavits to put in in rebuttal of the many thousands which have been submitted by the Defense.
Perhaps first, I might draw the Tribunal's attention to these two which Dr. Boehm has asked to be submitted. First of all, to the affidavit of Dr. Staff which is D-946, and I might mention that the only reason that these two affidavits were not going to be submitted by the Prosecution is because they are not actually in the form of affidavits, but a declaration. Some error was made in obtaining them, and they do not show on the face of them that they are affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Haven't we already admitted them? Sir David said that he didn't object to their admission.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: I was only going to draw the Tribunal's attention to the one passage, if I might. I think, taking D-946, the second paragraph is the paragraph from which Dr. Boehm probably hopes to receive some assistance. I would draw the Tribunal's attention to the last paragraph which deals with the S.S. The remainder of the document describes the appalling atrocities which were happening in Dachau in and around the year, 1934. In fact, the last paragraph particularly, "As far as the SS proper is concerned -- in contrast to the Waffen SS, the conditions of which I am not in a position to judge -- the pretext of compulsory membership cannot be credited in my opinion."
THE PRESIDENT: The number of this is SA-91 or 92, isn't it?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: 91. I had forgotten that they had been given up. And the second one is the affidavit of Dr. Schuhmacher, D-947, which will be handed up to the Tribunal, SA-92. I think the second half of paragraph number one is probably the paragraph to which Dr. Boehm referred. "That voluntary membership remained customary extensively after 1932, " but he is dealing now with the SA and the SS. "In a great number of cases membership resulted also from direct or indirect pressure or was the result of personal wrong speculations." And then he says that that is so particularly in the case of the Stahlhelm, and that Stahlhelm consisted of a number of persons who were not National Socialists.
I would draw the Tribunal's attention particularly to the last paragraph, Number 4, of that affidavit which deals with Blockleiters and Zellenleiters. They "were the foundation for the whole system of terrorism, including the activity of the Gestapo."
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, this document which is being introduced is a direct indictment against the political leaders. I object to the uses of that document, but for another reason than the one that has been stated up to now. A number of copies of these affidavits have reached me. They are the outcome of an inquiry which has been made. Some of them are being made available, but it is my point of view that if the result of such an inquiry is being utilized, then all answers should be utilized, and it is my opinion that if one hundred questions and questionnaires were put, then there may be arguments in favor of political leaders contained in these affidavits which are not made available, and I beg, therefore, that if the subject, as such, is admitted at all, that all the results of that inquiry be admitted so that a true picture is obtained which might be more useful to me than the testimony given by my members, because these people who have given these leading affidavits are opponents of National Socialism and I must assume that favorable arguments are contained in these affidavits which are not submitted, which may be very valuable with the entire evidence with which I am concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal doesn't think it is right at this stage of the trial to allow this document to be put in against the political lenders, and therefore the document will have to be excluded altogether.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: That, of course, will apply to the other eight or nine affidavits that the Prosecution has. These affidavits were obtained to rebut the vast mass of material which has been put in in the form of affidavits by all these organizations. In actual fact, I can state that there were no other affidavits, other than the ones that I am proposing to put before the Tribunal, and these two which we were not intending to put in, because, as I say, they were not in the form of an affidavit, but there are no other affidavits that we have obtained and they organizations. They are put in simply in rebuttal of the mass of material which has been presented to the Court on behalf of the defense of these organizations.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better offer these so we may see them, We have seen this one, and we know, of course, from what you have told us that it is one which the Prosecution had before and did not propose to offer, but the others may be different.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: They are all in very much the same form, and of course, Defense Counsel have had copies of them now for nearly a fortnight
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you had better offer them to us and we can look at them.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: And without referring the Tribunal to any particular passage?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think you had better offer them and refer to the passage, and we will see whether we will admit them.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: If your Lordship pleases.
Dr. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I add one remark? These affidavits all originate from persons who are today holding high offices of this state. They are probably the most important ones ever submitted until today and I shall now not have an opportunity to investigate what is being said against them or can be said against them in detail now. I should like to be in a position to go into this question, and that, of course, isn't possible for me to do at this moment. I didn't even know whether they were to be introduced or not, and since I have completed my evidence and am ready with my final plea, it makes it difficult for me.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: Might I say this? Sir David, of course, asked the Tribunal's permission to put these in some days ago. The Tribunal will remember ever since then Defense Counsel have had an opportunity of investigating and seeing these documents and Dr. Servatius says that he had no opportunity to investigate, whatever he meant by that, these documents. The Prosecution has had no kind of opportunity to investigate the three hundred thousand affidavits that have been put in on behalf of the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that they better look at them and see.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I draw your attention to a point of mere formality? I haven't get the documents at hand at the moment, but as far as I have been able to see, they are dated after the 7th of May, which was the key date. They were taken after the 7th day. They do not comply with the formalities, either. They were to be taken by our officer, but some of them are only certified before an Advocate, and that, of course, according to the rules passed down wouldn't suffice. I myself haven't been able to introduce any statements at all unless they were certified or sworn before our officer.
COL. GRIFFITH JONES: Half of them were performed before Mr. Marreco of counsel, whom you know. Others, from the north of Germany were performed before local notaries. Some were performed before Mr. Marecco, who is an allied officer and others appear to be sworn before notaries. As I see it, Dr. Boehm has hopes to put in affidavits which were not signed before anyone.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we should see the Documents before we consider the objection.
COL. GRIFFITH JONES: May I hand you first, B-929, which becomes GB - 620. It is an affidavit by Dr. Anton Pfeiffer, Bavarian Minister of State in the State Ministry for Special Tasks.
THE PRESIDENT: When was he minister?
COL. GRIFFITH JONES: In the year 1933 he was Secretary General of the Bavarian People's Party.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, in order to prevent the type of proceedings that are developing on the occasion of hearing ...
THE PRESIDENT: The type of proceedings which are now going on are the type of proceedings which the Tribunal has just ordered. The Tribunal wishes to see the Documents in order to decide upon them. Go on.
COL. GRIFFITH JONES: Your Lordship, in the affidavit here it says that pressure was brought to bear on certain officials to make them join the party, that is civil servants. He goes on in the latter half of the affidavit to state that he and other people had a knowledge about the atrocities that happened in the cast and the liquidation of the Jews. He states in the center paragraph, "I am not aware that officials who were party members, were threatened with dismissal from the service if they refused to accept a political Party job, like Blockleiter or Zellenleiter. At any rate I never heard of such a case." I don't think it is necessary for me to read any other passages of this affidavit, No. D-929. GB 621. It is an affidavit by the Lord Mayor of the Provincial Capital of Brunswick, in which he describes himself and gives personal data. He then also goes on to describe the activities of the SA from 1921 until 1923 in the first paragraph marked number one.
He then goes on to describe the activities of the SA. In 1933 , he, himself, was removed from his office by the SA. On the next page, he describes how he was led out of the town hall and put into prison by the SA. He states that membership in the SA was absolutely voluntary until 1937 and until 1933 one could assume that many SA members acted in good faith, believing that the SA had a just task for combatting Communism. After the events of March, 1933 there was, in his opinion, no longer any doubt that the SA acted contrary to law, by their participation in the seizure of power by Hitler. He goes on to say how later on the SA distinguished itself in an illegal sense particularly in the persecution of the Jews in 1938.
He deals then with the SS. He says that while membership in the SS was voluntary and the selection of members was severe, membership in the Waffen SS during the war was often compulsory. arrest by the SS and the appalling torture to which he was subjected by members of that organization. He says, "Before I was ill-treated, I pointed out that I was a war cripple to which Sturmfuehrer Meyer replied that in that case the arm (stiff in the elbow joint owing to a grenade wound) would be spared." He was then beaten with hippopotamus-hide whips until he was unconscious, then he was revived with cold water and beaten again.
The next paragraph of page three states, "The organization and the ideology of the SS were aimed so exactly and so pitilessly at eliminating political opponents and so-called racial inferior persons that everyone who joined it was bound to realize its criminal nature." which becomes GB 622. This is an affidavit from Dr. Viktor Fenyes, president of two central committee of former political prisoners of the Province of Hanover. This affidavit deals with the Leadership Corps, particularly the Block and Zellenleiters.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell us, before you introduce each one. of these affidavits, where they were taken and before whom?
COL: GRIFFITH JONES: My Lord, I am very much obliged, of course. If the Tribunal will look at No. 938 it states that it was taken before a Notary in Hanover. The previous one states the affidavit was taken on oath before a Notary in Munich.
It is not written on the copy. there was definite pressure brought on people to join the party, pressure by way of threats. That they assisted in the persecution of the Jews and that the Block and Zellenleiters participated, without exception, in the setting on fire of the synagogues in 1938. It then deals with the SA, stating that membership was voluntary. He states that former members of the SA who protest they entered the organization under pressure are not telling the truth, as actually everyone was not admitted into the SA. He then goes on to tell of the SS, but I do not think it is important to read it again.
The next document is an affidavit, which was signed before Mr. Marreco, D 931, which becomes GB 623. This affidavit is from the Secretary General of the Bavarian Peasants' Union in Munich, Dr. Schlogl who was a delegate of the Bavarian Diet at the time of the seizure of power by the Nazis.
Dr. Alpis Schlogl, my Lord, was the victim of an assault by the SA. The affidavit deals with the decision of the court concerning the SA men who perpetrated that assault. That is already before the Tribunal as Document D-936, GB 613 and perhaps the Tribunal will remember that because the decision stated that the dealings of the SA men were only aimed at the well being of the National Socialistic movement for political reasons.
Dr. Schlogl, in his affidavit, describes them is treatment he received. He says in the third paragraph, "Following my complaint, the perpetrators were not punished but pardoned, the ring leader Bernhard was promoted as a reward and, as I have been told now, rose to the rank of Brigadefuehrer." SA and SS were common knowledge and everyone who joined the organizations knew to what use they would be put by the party.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could just hand them up and not read the documents. Then a decision can be rendered.
COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: Yes, My Lord. I submit Document B-935, which becomes G.B. 624, which is an affidavit sworn to before Mr. Marreco. It is an affidavit by Albert Rosshaupter, Bavarian Minister of Labor in Munich.
Document D-932, which becomes G.B. 625, is an affidavit also sworn to before Mr. Marreco.
Document D-933, which becomes G.B. 626, is an affidavit by Joseph Ackermann, director of Munich, also sworn to before Mr. Marreco.
Affidavit D-950, which becomes G.B. 627, is by Adolf Fahlbusch and was sworn to before a notary in Hanover.
Perhaps I should say that all the affidavits not taken by Mr. Marreco were taken by the Legal Division of the Control Commission of Germany, or were taken under their auspices. This Legal Division of the Control Commission were asked to take these affidavits and they did so in accordance with the regulations set down by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all?
COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: I have one further affidavit of a somewhat different nature, which shows the credit or the value the Tribunal can place on the affidavits which have been submitted by the defense. It is an affidavit of an SS man, who was in an internment camp in the British zone and he tells of the questionnaires which were filled out at the camp. The questionnaire, which I understand the Tribunal allowed the defense council to submit in these camps. This affidavit, which I shall hand to the Tribunal, is D-973 and becomes G.B. 628. It is an affidavit by Mr. Kurt Ehrhardt. part in their activities and was dismissed from the SS in 1937 because he had a Jewish partner and a Jewish brother-in-law.
THE PRESIDENT: I can get all this from the affidavit, I suppose.
COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: That affidavit does not show on the copy that it was signed on oath and before whom. My Lord, the original shows it was sworn before Major Hill of the British Delegation.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell me when it was Sir David Maxwell Fyfe offered to introduce these affidavits, or intimated he was proposing to do so?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I shall check it during the adjournment I would believe that it was the Friday before last, but, my Lord, it was certainly before I cross-examined the SA witnesses. My Lord, I offered as an alternative either to put the affidavits to the SA witnesses or to put them in after the documents of the defense counsel were presented.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I wanted to know. That will be in the transcript.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord. I understand it was accepted and your Lordship asked if there were any objections and there were no objections. I will find it, your Lordship.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I recall this very clearly. These affidavits were brought up for discussion by me during the examination of the Witness, Juettner. Upon my raising an objection, the Tribunal stated at the time that if these affidavits were to be presented, then they must be presented then, because I objected saying that I would not be in a position to prove it contrary to the statements contained in the affidavits when my last witness was heard and I would not be in a position to present any other type of evidence. I considered from the decision passed by the Tribunal that the submission of affidavits by the prosecution should not be permitted once I no longer was an a position to submit any other evidence and the Tribunal agreed with me that these affidavits should be submitted when we were taking the evidence or previously.
THE PRESIDENT: We will refer to the transcript to see what happened.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: They were already mentioned before the incident arose. It was in regard to Dr. Hoettl's affidavit that the affidavits were mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now and will sit again at 2:30.
(THE HEARING RECONVENED AT 1445 hours, 22 August 1946)
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the first group of documents which were objected to by the Soviet Prosecutor, the Tribunal thinks that, as those documents had been included in the Document Book for the SA after the agreement and the Affidavit 82 has been allowed by the Commission, in spite of the fact that these documents relate to a remote period, they ought to be allowed. They are, therefore, admitted. They are Documents 285, 286, 287, 132 and 82. say to the 10 affidavits which the British prosecution offered in evidence, the Tribunal has reconsidered the shorthand note which shows what Sir David Maxwell Fyfe said on the 9th of August and what was said on the 14th of August and on the 15th of August, and although there was at that time no doubt a suggestion that these documents might be put in, the Tribunal considers that the question still has to be considered whether the documents ought to be admitted as rebuttal. In view of the nature of the documents, the Tribunal thinks that the documents are not proper evidence in rebuttal on the whole, and that therefore they ought to be excluded. That includes all the affidavits with the exception of the affidavit of Kurt Erhardt, which stands in a different position. In view of the nature of the evidence contained in that affidavit, it will be admitted.