Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-203.02
Last-Modified: 2000/11/29

Q. Can one say that the SA adopted the principle of positive
Christianity as its own?

A. I believe I can answer that absolutely in the
affirmative.

Q. The beginning of the war in 1939 has been connected with
the activities of the SA. What evidence can you give to
prove that the work of the SA did not serve as a preparation
for war?

A. I assume that primarily, or altogether, it is the
practical activity of the SA which is meant.

These things which the SA did in the past can be judged
correctly only in regard to the situation that existed at
the time. It cannot be judged according to the picture which
has been painted now as a result of the war. The situation
which prevailed in Germany at the time, if I am correctly
informed, your Lordship, has been sufficiently described in
this courtroom. But I should like to emphasize that the
German men of that day were physically very much run down
because of the prevailing distress. They were hardly fit for
induction, much less suitable for work, even in their
professions. The degree of their physical fitness and morale
had reached an extremely low level, and the only aspiration
of the SA was to contribute to the development in Germany
once more of a physically efficient, brave, and reliable
body of men, suitable for induction, who would be ready and
willing to serve the Fatherland in all emergencies. In 1933
Germany was threatened with civil war and revolts. Behind us
we had the Polish insurrections. Because of her central
position, Germany, more than other countries, was intent on
the protection of her boundaries, and necessarily so; and
finally this country, which is so poor in raw materials, was
forced to prevent natural catastrophes by all possible means
so that greater damage would be averted. For that purpose a
well-trained, healthy body of men was necessary, who were
physically able and ready for military service. The SA had
set itself the task of training these men.

Q. Did the SA, until the outbreak of war, believe in peace,
and how could you prove that this belief of the SA in a
peaceful development actually did exist?

A. The SA truly did not want a war. Hundreds of thousands of
former soldiers of the First World War were in the SA. These
men were familiar with war and its unspeakable sacrifices.
They did not want war. For the sake

                                                  [Page 167]

of their country's life, but also for the sake of their own
existence, they wanted a peaceful development. In 1939,
until the end of August, I myself was busy here in Nuremberg
as parade leader for the Reich Party Rally, to prepare the
contest and the big military review for the Reich Party
Rally, and we had no thought of war. The SA were not
enthusiastic about the war, but rather it struck them with
dismay. We always believed in peace, because of many
historical events in the past; the naval agreement with
England, treaties with Poland, trade agreements with other
States, friendly relations with the South-eastern States of
Europe, and above all the events of international
reconciliation at the Olympic Games in 1936. We believed in
peace because of the co-operation between the veterans'
organizations of the European countries, which was always
strongly supported by the SA, because of the constantly
increasing understanding between the youth associations of
the various States, because of the regular international
labour meetings at Hamburg. We knew of the friendly courtesy
visits which the great statesmen of other European nations
paid to Adolf Hitler, we were acquainted with the
publications of prominent foreigners about the Third Reich,
and finally, it was the Munich agreement, which we took up
and welcomed with enthusiasm, which seemed to assure peace.

Q. Did the SA leadership have any influence on policy?

A. After the death of Roehm not at all. The SA was
completely unsuited for exerting any influence on policy,
both the SA as an organization and its leadership. Even the
misuse of the SA for war-mongering purposes was quite out of
the question. Militarism such as the glorification of
military activities, uniforms and drilling or jingoism, or
the creation of a warlike spirit, was never approved by the
SA; Roehm's attitude toward neighbouring countries and
Lutze's attitude toward war in general alone speak for that.

Q. Would the SA have had to follow an order for war
propaganda?

A. I have already declared in my interrogation before the
High Commission that the SA did not observe any blind
obedience. Demands for war propaganda never came to the SA
from any quarter. Consequently, the SA never carried on any
war propaganda, either in the instruction or in the training
of its units.

Q. A few days ago the prosecution placed an affidavit by
Prime Minister Dr. Wilhelm Hoegner, among other things, in
my, mail box, and since I have no other opportunity to
define my attitude as to this affidavit except here and now,
I should like to put a few questions to you dealing with
these matters.

This affidavit states:

  "As early as 1922 - I believe it was the so-called Coburg
  Convention - the SA dominated the streets with its armed
  bands and attacked the peaceful population, especially
  political -

THE PRESIDENT: Is the affidavit in evidence?

DR. BOEHM: This affidavit was put in my mail box three days
ago. I would have no occasion to present this affidavit, Mr.
President, but since I received it -

THE PRESIDENT: I asked you a perfectly simple question.
Cannot you give me an answer to it? I asked you if it was in
evidence.

DR. BOEHM: This document has not been submitted in evidence,
Mr. President, but I shall not have another possibility of
commenting on this document from any aspect if I do not take
advantage of this opportunity.

THE PRESIDENT: Either you want to put it in evidence or you
do not. If the document is not yet in evidence there is no
need to go into it.

DR. BOEHM: No, I only wanted to ask a few questions based on
this document.

THE PRESIDENT: You cannot do that until you have put the
document in evidence. If you want to put it in evidence then
you must put it in evidence. If
you do not want to, then - just listen to me.

                                                  [Page 168]

It is not true to say that you would have no opportunity of
dealing with the document. You can deal with it in re-
examination. If the document is put in in cross-examination,
you can deal with it then. Otherwise, if you want to put it
in evidence now, subject to its admissibility, you can do it
and take the responsibility for it.

DR. BOEHM: Yes, that would be true if this affidavit were
submitted in cross-examination, but it is not -

THE PRESIDENT: If it is not submitted, we shall not look at
it, we shall not know anything about it.

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I gather from that that if this
affidavit is not submitted in cross-examination that it
cannot be submitted afterwards, either. Then the procedure
is quite clear and I do not need to have anyone comment on
it.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. At any rate, if there was an application
by the prosecution to summit the affidavit m rebuttal you
would have an opportunity of answering it after that, in
these circumstances.

DR. BOEHM: Then I should like to ask the Tribunal to permit
me to call the witness whom I had provided for that and who
is now on the witness stand, so that I might interrogate him
about the contents of this affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: No, either you put it in evidence yourself
now or else you wait for re-examination.

Sir David, I do not know what all this is about. Dr. Boehm
does not seem to know what the position is.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it may be - I did not quite
catch the name of the deponent, but it may be that this is
one of the affidavits with regard to which I applied to the
Tribunal a day or two ago, and I was going to put them in
after the defence's documents in general rebuttal.

Yes, my Lord, it is an affidavit from the Prime Minister of
Bavaria, which is one of those I mentioned to the Tribunal a
few days ago.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you can put it in on cross-examination,
can you not?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I can quite easily.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that not be the most convenient course?
Then Dr. Boehm can re-examine upon it. He has had an
opportunity, apparently, of looking at it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord, I will do that.

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, the thing I wanted to avoid is the
situation which would have arisen if the document had been
submitted after the testimony of my last witness so that I
would not have had another opportunity to refute this
document.

BY DR. BOEHM:

Q. Herr Juettner, now I should like to put my final question
to you.

Did the political aims of the SA have a criminal character?

A. The things which the SA did and the aims which its
leaders pursued need never fear the light of day. The SA
leadership did not pursue any criminal aims and did not even
know of any criminal aims of any other agencies. The SA, as
an organization, never carried out any actions which could
justify its defamation as a criminal organization. The SA,
Mr. President, had many followers in the Reich, that is, in
the former Reich, and even beyond its boundaries. The SA had
opponents as well. Many of these opponents raised their
voices and, out of hate or disapproval, created prejudices
against the SA. Not the truth but only prejudices of the
kind which, as is well known in history, have caused the
downfall of many a brave man, could lead to a situation
where five to six million men who belonged to the SA in the
last two and a half decades would be stamped as criminals.

                                                  [Page 169]

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I have no further questions.

THE WITNESS: For these men, for these five to six million
men and for the many millions in their families, I can
declare under oath and with a straightforward countenance
that the SA never had a criminal character.

Mr. President, my entire life has been guided by the rule
that one should stand bravely behind what one has done,
whatever the danger might be, and fear nothing, not even
death itself, but only dishonour. I consider it dishonour if
one evades responsibility by putting an end to one's life,
or if one becomes untruthful. In this respect, Mr.
President, my conscience is clear.

Therefore, with my declaration of the innocence of the SA I
can meet even the highest judge.

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put
to the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution desire to cross-examine?

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:

Q. Do you say, witness, that the SA had nothing to do with
atrocities against the people of the occupied territories?

A. I do not quite understand the last part of your question.
Atrocities?

Q. Against the people of the territories occupied by
Germany, foreign territories occupied by Germany?

A. The SA leadership -

Q. That is a perfectly simple question. You have made your
speeches. Now answer "yes" or "no" to the question whether
the SA had anything to do with the atrocities against the
people of the occupied territories.

A. It is my intention to give a true answer; therefore, I
cannot let anyone prescribe what I am to answer -

Q. Can you not answer "yes" or "no"?

THE PRESIDENT: You can explain afterwards, you know. If you
answer "yes" or "no," you can then give your explanation.

A. The SA had nothing to do with the treatment of peoples of
occupied countries.

Q. I see. Well, now, I want you to look at your report on
the SA during the war, which the Tribunal will find in
Document Book 16 - b at Page 113.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is Document 4011-PS, and
will become Exhibit GB 596.

Q. (continuing): Now, witness, just before you look at that,
do you remember saying before the Commission: "At the
beginning of the war with Poland the SA Group Sudeten
carried out transports of prisoners of war into the camps.
Other SA Groups in the East may have been used for similar
purposes later on. The SA leaders and the SA as an
organization had nothing to do with this question." Do you
remember saying that? Page 336 of the transcript. One of
your groups carried out transports of prisoners of war into
camps and other SA Groups may have been used for similar
purposes. Do you remember saying that to the Commissioner?
If you would take your mind from the document and just
address it to the point as to whether you said that before
the Commission, it would help. Do you remember saying that
before the Commission?

A. I admitted before the Commission, and I will not deny
today, that the SA Group Sudeten, on instructions from the
Wehrmacht, transported prisoners of war to the rear in the
Polish campaign. But, Mr. Prosecutor, you asked me before
about the treatment of the population in the occupied
country.

Q. I got your answer to that. We must take it by stages. You
admit you said that before the Commission, that the Sudeten
Group carried out transports of prisoners of war into camps
and that other SA Groups in the East may have

                                                  [Page 170]

been used for similar purposes. Do you remember saying that?
I am only putting in the record what you said. You admit you
said it?

A. I have already said that.

Q. Right. Now let us look at. your report. This is a report
made by you on 23rd June, 1941, and you see that after a
general paragraph - My Lord, if you would turn to Page 116,
it is Page 4 of the original document - and, witness, if you
would go on to the heading "Section 4 A," you will see -
"The SA men who have remained in the communications zone
primarily care for the maintenance of the SA organization.
All units; even the smallest ones, are alert, and the men
willingly sacrifice their spare time for duty in the Party.
This includes assistance to the political leaders in the
educational and orientation tasks, propaganda and
counterpropaganda, preparations for meetings, control of the
population in the frontier areas." Is that correct, what you
wrote in 1941?

A. It is exactly true. The communications zone is, of
course, the homeland and not occupied territories.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Turn to Page 117 of the English
version, my Lord.

BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:

Q. I think it is Page 123, witness, of your version. Have
you got 123? It is Page 5 of the original. It is the next
page, Page 5. You see under "C," "The duty achievements of
the SA, which deal with direct support of the armed forces
and which benefit the power of German arms, have developed
in all directions. At the time this report is written or in
the previous weeks, the following were employed:" ... "27
groups of SA men for guarding prisoners." Where were the 21
groups guarding prisoners?

A. In the German Reich area during the Polish campaign.

Q. This is 1941, the Polish campaign had been finished for
nearly 27 months. You see, you say that, that is, "at the
time this report is written, or in the previous few weeks,"
... where were they guarding the prisoners then?

A. This report is a summary of the activity of the SA during
the war from the very beginning and everything of a positive
nature which the SA had also done earlier is enumerated
there again.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor