Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-22/tgmwc-22-209.03
Last-Modified: 2001/01/10

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now go on with your group, if you
will. The last one you gave us was 84, which you said showed
that the excesses were only very exceptional.

DR. BOEHM: On the same topic, I should like to submit
Affidavit 87, showing the many measures taken against
excesses in the West. Affidavits 84 and 57 show that the
attitude of the SA toward the Jews was not hostile, as the
prosecution asserts, and Affidavits Nos. 54 and 53 show the
same. Affidavits 85 and 86 deal with Document 1721 which has
already been discussed here, and prove a specific case,
namely, that the Gruppenfuehrer of the Brigade "Kurpfalz-
Mannheim" did not order the destruction of the synagogues.
In the same connection, I should like to mention Affidavit
89, and finally Affidavit No. 76, which shows that after the
9th November, 1938, Lutze prohibited the use of the SA for
the purposes of the political leaders, in so far as he
ordered that in the future the higher authorities had to
approve the use of the SA at any time.

Affidavits 71 and 72 deal with the attitude of the Chief of
Staff Lutze, himself. Affidavit 70 shows how people who
participated in the incidents during the night from the 9th
to the 10th of November, 1938, were punished. How the SA
took measures of its own accord against those who had
participated in the events of

                                                   [Page 10]

that night in November, 1938, may be seen from Affidavit 4.
The basic attitude of the SA towards the Church is described
in Affidavits 43, 44, and 45. The activity of doctors in the
SA is evident from Affidavits 62 and 63. The facts regarding
the connection of the SA with concentration camps are
contained in Affidavit 16, deposed by Leonhard Sondermann.

Finally, to conclude this group of affidavits, I should like
to submit Affidavit 62, deposed by Friese, who is a member
of the KPD and an official in the Bavarian Ministry for
Political Liberation. As a political opponent who was able
to obtain an overall picture, he states that the SA cannot
be called a criminal organisation in the sense of Article 6
of the Charter.

THE PRESIDENT: Which number was that?

DR. BOEHM: That was No. 62, no, I beg your pardon, there
seems to be a typing error - 82.

Mr. President, I come now to the collective affidavits. They
are summarised in about twenty-one pages, but I need not
discuss them now, if I could have this document translated.
The document is of importance because it is a summary of
more than 17,000 statements, which would in my opinion -

THE PRESIDENT: 17,000 what?

DR. BOEHM: 17,000 affidavits.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. BOEHM: I have summarised the whole contents of these
affidavits in twenty-one pages and I believe that it might
be of value to have the document translated. It would then
not be necessary to deal with the summary now.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Boehm, it may be translated, but it
should not be translated till after your speech has been
translated.

DR. BOEHM: Very well. Then I submit this summary of
affidavits to the Tribunal as General SA 90.

Now, I should like to discuss the affidavits submitted for
members of the Stahlhelm and the SA Reiter Corps. The forced
transfer of the so-called Junior Stahlhelm into the SA is
dealt with in Affidavits 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 18, 37 and
42. Of all the affidavits submitted in this connection, the
following have been translated: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9.

The forced incorporation of the Stahlhelm into the SA
Reserve is the subject of Affidavits 1, 2, 3, 5, 19, 30, 33,
38, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43. The compulsory
amalgamation of the SA Reserve with the SA is shown in the
Affidavits 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 40,41 and 42. Affidavits 1, 2, 4,
15, 17, 18, 9, 10, 11, 12, 34, 40, 41 and 42 show that the
resistance of the Stahlhelm against incorporation was
overcome by coercion or deceit.

Affidavits 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 16, 17, 37, 38, 41 and 42 show
that, when the members of the Stahlhelm were taken over by
the SA, they formed an independent unit within the SA in
keeping with the assurances given to them. Affidavits 1, 2,
4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 37, 39, 40, 41 and 44
further prove that even when the promise of corporative
independence had been broken, the members of the Stahlhelm
continued to represent a separate ideological block within
the SA. The fact that the members of the Stahlhelm who were
taken over into the SA condemned the war may be seen from
Affidavits 1, 2, 5, 9 and 40.

The political tolerance and democratic views of the members
of the Stahlhelm are confirmed by Affidavits 4, 5, 9, 13,
16, 37, 39 and 44. That the Stahlhelm did not advocate
religious persecution is shown in Affidavits 1, 2, 9 and 18,
and Affidavits 1, 2, 4 and 38 show that the Stahlhelm
members who were transferred to the SA condemned racial
persecution.

In view of the arrest and persecution of the members of the
Stahlhelm who had not gone into the SA or who had left the
SA again, those of the Stahlhelm

                                                   [Page 11]

members who had been taken over felt themselves compelled to
remain in the SA, and that is to be proved by Affidavits 1,
2, 3, 4, 37 and 39. That members of the Stahlhelm who had
been taken over into the SA had reason to believe that upon
leaving the SA they would encounter difficulties in earning
a living can be seen from Affidavits 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 16,
18, 34, 37, 38, 39 and 40. Affidavits 1 and 41 show that the
Stahlhelm members who were transferred to the SA were kept
in the SA by legal decrees and orders. That the members of
the Stahlhelm who were taken into the SA Reserve remained
reservists in practice, even if they were later formally
assigned to active SA formations, may be seen from
Affidavits 1, 7, 12, 19, 33, 40, 41, 42, 6, 12, and 30.
Affidavits 5 and 42 show that the ranks of the Stahlhelm
members in the SA were given out automatically and were, in
many cases, only titles without corresponding duties.

I do not think, Mr. President, it will be possible for me to
be equally brief in grouping the affidavits for the Reiter
SA, because my data on this subject make it difficult -

THE PRESIDENT: Before we hear ... Have you not 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 purely a sporting
organisation, and that being, I suppose, the topic of the
affidavits, why not give us the numbers of the affidavits.

DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: I am going to adjourn now. I am only
indicating to you what you might do. We will adjourn.

(A recess was taken.)

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, in connection with the Reiter
Corps, I should like to refer to Affidavits 1 to 5, which
deal with the purpose, development and organisation of the
Reiter Corps.

6 and 7 confirm that the Reiter Corps was concerned with
horse breeding, care of horses and training in riding.
Affidavits 9, 11, 12, 13, 86, 71, 72, 73, 74, 19 to 24, 87
and 88 are to establish the fact that the Reiter Corps did
not commit criminal acts and had no criminal character.

That the Reiter Corps was in no way connected with the
Wehrmacht and did not furnish replacements in horses for the
Wehrmacht is confirmed in Affidavits 11, 13, 86. That the
Reiter Corps did not participate in the seizure of power is
established in Affidavits 71 to 74 inclusive, and Affidavits
19 to 24, 87 and 88 prove that the Reiter Corps did not
commit Crimes against Humanity.

The attitude of members of the Reiter Corps to the Jewish
problem is proved in Affidavits 19, 20, 21 and 88; and their
attitude to the Church question in Affidavits 22 and 23.
That there were differences of opinion on political matters
between the Reiter Corps and the NSDAP is explained in
Affidavits 25 and 29; that the Party Leaders were even
distrustful of the Reiter Corps is proved in Affidavits 31
and 85, and that those who belonged to the Reiter Corps
would hardly have conceived the idea that their membership
of the Reiter Corps made them members of a criminal
organisation is stated in Affidavits 76, 34, 77, 33 and 35.

Finally I should like to give a brief list of affidavits
dealing with the Reiter Corps in the various zones and areas
of Germany. First the British Zone: Affidavits NSRK 37, 38,
39, 40, 78 refer to the Rhineland; 41, 42, 79 to Westphalia;
43, 44, 45 to Hanover; 46 to Oldenburg; 47 to East Frisia;
48 to Bremen, Hamburg and Holstein.

In the American Zone: For Bavaria, Affidavits 49, 50 51;
Wurttemberg, 52, 53, 54; Hessen, 55, 56, 57, 80; Baden, 58,
59, 60; Upper Swabia, 61, 62; Pfalz, 63.

                                                   [Page 12]

For the French Zone, Affidavit 81; and for the Russian Zone:
Saxony, 64; Thuringia, 65; East Prussia, 66 and 67; Berlin
and Brandenburg, 82; Pomerania, Mecklenburg, 83; Silesia,
84. Mr. President, I should now like to make two
applications. The first application is that I may be allowed
to introduce as evidence the affidavits deposed by Dr. Kurt
Schuhmacher, and the Judge Advocate General, Dr. Stapff of
Brunswick, which the prosecution has obtained. I should like
to ask that the affidavit of Dr. Kurt Schuhmacher become SA
No. 91, and that the affidavit of Judge Advocate General Dr.
Stapff of Brunswick become SA No. 92.

THE PRESIDENT: But are they already offered in evidence by
the prosecution?

DR. BOEHM: They have not yet been submitted in evidence, but
I should like to introduce them. I do not know whether they
will be submitted by the prosecution. At any rate, I think
that valuable material for the defence of my organisation is
contained in these affidavits, which were obtained not by
me, but by the prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: Why do you refer to the prosecution then?

DR. BOEHM: The prosecution has the original of those
affidavits, Mr. President. I merely received a copy which
was placed in my pigeonhole in the Counsel Room. That is how
I learned of them, and I must mention that, because I now
have to ask the prosecution to give me the originals so that
I may submit them.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, is there any objection, Sir David,
to the ...?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, these were the affidavits
to which we referred at the close of the evidence of the
witness Guettner. 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 defence, and I said that I had no
objection to the defence 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 those in evidence. SA 91 and 92, did you say?

DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President; and then I should like to
make a second application with regard to the admission of an
affidavit by Arnolf Rechberg. I wanted to submit that
affidavit to disprove the allegation of the prosecution that
the SA was a uniform whole and that the conspiracy on the
part of the SA must be regarded as a uniform action. This
affidavit mentions that there was quite certainly a lack of
unity in the SA because elements faithful to Moscow ha
deliberately infiltrated into the National Socialist
organisations of the SA and the SS; this process began
before July, 1930, and by July, 1932, 24,000 Communists,
some of them upon instructions from Moscow, had changed over
to the SA. It is also mentioned that this infiltration
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
discussed before the Commission but was not admitted by the
Commission. However, I had the alternative of discussing the
document before the Tribunal and of asking the Tribunal to
admit it, and I have made use of that alternative. I should
like to explain my view by saying that this document is of
the greatest probative value, namely in the following
connection: Fundamentally, the SA was built on national
ideas, but these people, whose ideas certainly did not run
on national, but on entirely different lines, brought into
the SA a spirit which no doubt destroyed the uniformity
alleged by the prosecution and which made the alleged
uniformity of the aims of the SA quite impossible, for the
aims of National Socialism were, surely, quite different
from the aims of the people mentioned in this affidavit.

                                                   [Page 13]

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 probative 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 there. My Lord, Paragraph 1 of this summary is,
"Elements loyal to Moscow infiltrated into the National
Socialist combat organisations, 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.

My Lord, the same applies to the allegation in Paragraph 2
about the 24,000.

My Lord, in Paragraph 4, there is some reference to
correspondence which took place between Herr Rechberg and
Sir Wyndham Charles and Sir William Turral, as he then was.
But 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, what - in what way does this
deponent describe himself? Is he a member of the SA?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I do not - 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. My Lord, he quotes
two pages which were papers ... one a secondary sheet and
one a practically unknown German paper, which contained
declarations by a Soviet official. My Lord, it would be in
my submission an abuse of the purpose of the Tribunal if
evidence of an unknown German paper, purporting to quote a
Soviet official, were to be taken as a basis in this matter.
And, my Lord, as I said ... the whole ... if it were all
based on proper evidence, and if the affidavit were the
affidavit of a person who showed any grounds of his
affidavits being useful, it would still be completely
irrelevant to the question of criminality which is before
the Tribunal. My Lord, I respectfully request your Lordship
to uphold the learned Commissioner who excluded it when it
came before the Commission.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything you have to add, Dr. Boehm?

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, my view in this matter is quite
different from that of the prosecution -

COLONEL POKROVSKY: My Lord, the Soviet prosecution fully
agrees with the point of view submitted by Sir David. I
would like to add a few words to the objection which he
made. Apart from the fact that the Commission has already
rejected this document as being irrelevant and without any
probative value, I would like the Tribunal to take into
consideration the fact that the author of this document is
well known as the source of a number of provocative anti-
Soviet unfounded statements. This document contains nothing
but slanderous, provocative, dirty attacks in a style
typical of the author; such attacks have, I repeat, nothing
to do with the present case. At the same time I would like
to bring to the Tribunal's attention our objection to
Documents 85, 286, 287 and 132. Unfortunately, Sir David did
not have the copies of these documents and therefore did not
take them into consideration. All four of the documents I
have mentioned refer to the year 1925 and to problems
connected with the inter-party strife in Germany.
They, therefore, have nothing at all to do with the present
case. The last document to which we object is Document 82 of
which we have only just heard for the first time. It
mentions some person whose name I have forgotten for the
moment. The defence counsel said that he is a former
Communist who comes to the conclusion that the SA is not a
criminal organisation under Article 6 of the Charter.

                                                   [Page 14]

We are of the opinion that this man is in no way competent
to draw expert conclusions on questions which only the
Tribunal can decide. That is all I wanted to say, my Lord.

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