The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc//tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-204.05


Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-204.05
Last-Modified: 2000/12/03

DR. BOEHM: Yes, certainly. I have learned now that the
affidavit of Dr. Hoegner was introduced because I referred
to it yesterday. Now these other affidavits, which contain
much evidence for the defence, were placed at my disposal or
given to me at the same time, and I would ask the Prosecutor
to submit the affidavits which have just been mentioned or
to read them into the record now, so that I may have an
opportunity, when hearing evidence, to form an opinion,
through a witness, on the contents of these affidavits.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I have no objection, of
course, to Dr. Boehm's putting away of the documents. We
have given, I think, all, whether we have decided to use
them or not. Some are not in the form of a sworn statement,
and we were not going to use them. If Dr. Boehm thinks that
he can get any help from any document to be had from the
prosecution, the prosecution, of course, make no objection
to his using it.

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, you can offer these affidavits or
other documents in evidence, if you want to.

DR. BOEHM: Very well. So I am in a position to refer to the
affidavits in the course of taking evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. But for the purposes of the record, you
must offer them in evidence, and then they will be given, or
you will give them, proper exhibit numbers.

DR. BOEHM: Yes, certainly.

DR. SEIDL (counsel for the defendants Hans Frank and Rudolf
Hess): Mr. President, yesterday the prosecution submitted a
new document, GB 602, a letter from the Commander of the
Security Police in the Government General to the defendant
Dr. Frank.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the other reference to it? You said
GB 602. It must have some other reference.

DR. SEIDL: D-970. It is a letter from the Commander of the
Security Police in the Government General to the defendant
Dr. Frank, dated 25th September, 1944. It appears from the
document itself that it is an annex, and I make the
application that I may be permitted to read into the record
a short excerpt from the diary of Dr. Frank, which belongs
to this document.

THE PRESIDENT: If it refers to this document, yes.

                                                  [Page 207]

DR. SEIDL: This is an entry of Tuesday, 26th September,
1944.

"Conference with State Secretary Dr. Buehler ..." and
others. At this conference first of all the shooting of the
Prior of the Carmelite Monastery at Czerna was discussed.
"As the report given by the Commander of the Security Police
and the SD in the Government General" - that is the report
concerning the indictment - "lacks clearness, according to
the opinion of the Governor General, and as the police
office at Kattowitz wanted to take upon itself the
responsibility that in the future not SA men but police
officials would carry out such undertakings, the Governor
General told the First Public Prosecutor Rother to carry out
a detailed investigation of that case."

The diary does not show what happened to these SA men.
Therefore, I have taken an affidavit of the defendant Frank
which I ask to be permitted to submit in evidence here. It
is very brief. It indicates that the men were tried and
received severe punishment.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering the affidavit in evidence?

DR. SEIDL: I should like to offer this as Frank Exhibit 25.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you any other documents that you want to
offer in evidence, or is this the only one?

DR. SEIDL: This is the only new document that I want to
offer in evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then. I think we may as well put
it in now, and you will put it in as Frank 25. And you did
not give us -

DR. SEIDL: Frank No. 25.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you give us the reference to the diary of
Frank, the passage that you read?

DR. SEIDL: It is an entry of 26th September, 1944.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that already in evidence? I know some
parts of the diary are. But is that in evidence?

DR. SEIDL: It is a part of Document GB 602.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state that again? What was the
number of the document?

DR. SEIDL: GB 602.

THE PRESIDENT: That is not Frank's diary, is it? GB 602?

DR. SEIDL: No; it is the letter written by the Commander of
the Security Police and submitted by the prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: I know that. I was asking the number - if it
has got an exhibit number - of the diary of Frank of 26th
September, 1944

DR. SEIDL: This has the number 10. The whole diary was
submitted in evidence under this number.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, I do not wish to object to the
submission of this affidavit, but I should like to observe
that if other affidavits are offered by the defendants it
may be necessary for the prosecution to have the right to
cross-examine in this case. But it might very well call for
cross-examination if they are now going to make an effort to
put in further testimony on their own behalf under the
disguise of an affidavit.

                                                  [Page 208]

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, my intention was to ask permission
to recall the defendant Frank to the witness stand and
examine him on this question. If I submit an affidavit, this
is done only to save time, and for no other reason. I would
have preferred it the other way.

MR. DODD: I am not altogether sure, Mr. President, that this
is done in the interests of saving time. I have some feeling
it may be done in the interests of prolonging the time.

THE PRESIDENT: We do not need to hear any more, Dr. Seidl.
We have admitted the document.

DR. SEIDL: I may assume that this very short affidavit may
be read into the record. Exhibit 602 was also read into the
record.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you not read it? Read it (into the
record then, if you say it is short.

DR. SEIDL:

  "In the second half of September, 1944, Governor Dr. von
  Burgsdorff reported to me that the Prior of the Carmelite
  Monastery, Czerna, had lost his life and that there was a
  suspicion of punishable action. I immediately ordered
  that preliminary proceedings be instituted and if need be
  punishment administered. In the course of these
  preliminary proceedings the Commander of the Security
  Police in the Government General made a report on the
  25th of September, 1944, which has now been submitted by
  the prosecution under the number D 970, Exhibit GB 602.
  This report was also the subject of a discussion which I
  had with State Secretaries Dr. Bulhler and Koppe and
  other high ranking officials on the 26th September, 1944,
  during the course of which I ordered the Public
  Prosecutor Rother to make a detailed investigation of the
  case.
  
  Further investigations have shown that the SA men
  mentioned in the report of the 25th of September, 1944,
  (GB 602) did not belong to an SA unit of the Government
  General. Although, as shown in the report of 25th
  September, 1944, the monastery, Czerna, was situated
  within the boundaries of the Government General,
  nevertheless, on the basis of a Fuehrer decree in the
  summer of 1944 the whole district, as far as customs,
  police and military administration were concerned, came
  under the neighbouring province of Upper Silesia, and
  therefore under the Reich. The order of the Fuehrer had
  been issued in connection with the fortification work to
  be carried through in the East at that time. That
  explains, as is seen from Document GB 602, why the
  investigation was carried out by the State Police Office
  of Kattowitz, that is by a State police office situated
  in the Reich territory.
  
  Ilkenau was not situated in the Government General, but
  in the Reich (Upper Silesia). For these tasks not only SA
  men were used but also members of other organizations,
  for instance Volkssturm men. The investigations proved
  further that the participating SA men were not being
  employed by any higher SA office but by the building
  staff, Kattowitz (Upper Silesia).
  
  On the basis of the investigations of Public Prosecutor
  Rother penal proceedings were instituted against several
  SA men in Kattowitz. It was later reported to me that
  these proceedings resulted in the sentencing of several
  of the accused to severe penalties. (Signed) Dr. Frank."

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Boehm, do you want to re-examine?

DR. SEIDL: I do not want to ask any further questions, but I
would like to call the attention of the Tribunal to a
document, also in the name of the defendant Frank, which was
submitted today, GB 615, D-923. The report of the defendant
Frank of 6th September, 1933, shows, under No. 3, that the
defendant demanded

                                                  [Page 209]

with the utmost rigour that penal proceedings be instituted
against the accused SA Fuehrer, and he even ordered it.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal has noticed that
document and it does not require to have its attention
called to it by counsel for the defendant Frank. The
Tribunal will consider the document.

DR. SEIDL: For the defendant Rudolf Hess I should like to
make application that the prosecution be requested also to
submit the answer of the Fuehrer's deputy to Document PS-
784. This is a letter dated 5th June, 1935, from the Reich
Minister of Justice to the Fuehrer's deputy. The document
given to me does not show what occurred between this letter
and the later decision of Hitler in this case. In particular
the attitude which Hess adopted is not shown.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you not got the document you mean? You
are referring to 784-PS and you are asking us to take notice
of some other document. Have you got the document?

DR. SEIDL: No, I have not got it, but I should like to ask
the Court that the prosecution be requested to let me have
the answer of the defendant Hess to this document.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will request the prosecution to
produce the document if they have got it.

LT.-COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, it will be done. I cannot
say at the moment whether the document is in our possession.
If it is, it will be done.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now, Dr. Boehm, do you want to ask
any questions? Do you think that you will be able to finish
by one o'clock?

DR. BOEHM: That is impossible, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you be able to finish shortly
afterwards?

DR. BOEHM: No. I believe that this re-examination after this
cross-examination may last three hours. A number of new
documents have been submitted -

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We hope they will be relevant.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. BOEHM:

Q. Witness, the first question which the Prosecutor asked
yesterday was -

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, the Tribunal thinks that three
hours is not a reasonable time for the re-examination. You
will remember that re-examination should not be put in the
form of leading questions; that is one rule, and another
rule is that it must arise out of the cross-examination and
not be for the purpose of introducing fresh evidence which
has not been dealt with by cross-examination. You will be
kept strictly to these rules.

DR. BOEHM: I believe that the cross-examination by the
prosecution dealt with a number of new matters, especially
with the matters which were freshly introduced today and
yesterday afternoon.

THE PRESIDENT: We do not want any arguments from you, Dr.
Boehm. I am telling you what the Tribunal rules. If your
questions arise out of the cross-examination they are
admissible. If they do not arise out of the cross-
examination they are inadmissible. Now will you go on with
your re-examination, please?

                                                  [Page 210]

BY DR. BOEHM:

Q. Witness, the first question which was asked of you
yesterday by the Prosecutor was whether you, and I assume by
that was meant you personally as SA Fuehrer, hence the whole
SA leadership, whether you had anything to do with the
treatment of people outside the borders of the Reich.

A. No. The SA leadership was not concerned with the
treatment of such people unless they were Germans belonging
to the SA and employed outside the Reich borders.

Q. A confidential report of the supreme SA leadership in the
form of a third report on the activities of the SA in the
war was submitted yesterday. In connection with this report
the prosecution asserted that its contents referred to the
last weeks before 23rd June, 1941; that is the day when this
report was issued. Now I should like to ask you whether it
is true that the beginning of this report, under No. 1, on
the first page: "The whole work of the SA from the beginning
of the war" and on Page 2 the last four lines, I quote:
"Decorations -

THE PRESIDENT: Did you give us the reference to this
document?

DR. BOEHM: The first document which was submitted yesterday,
4011-PS, on Page 1 the first line and on Page 2 the last
four lines. May I continue?

THE PRESIDENT: I only wanted the reference to the document.
Go on.

BY DR. BOEHM:

Q. "Decorations given to the SA: 21 Knight's Crosses of the
Iron Cross, and 31,125 Iron Crosses, first and second
class." Is it true if I say that this shows that the
assertion of the prosecution that the report was only a
report on the weeks before 23rd June, 1941, is incorrect: Is
that true? Is it correct if I conclude from this that the
third report on the activity of the SA during the war is a
report beginning with the activity of the SA on the 1st
September, 1939?

A. These reports were always comprehensive reports. The
third report - I believe I signed it myself - sums up the
activity of the SA from the beginning of the war until the
day of the report.

Q. The prosecution said yesterday that the activity of the
SA in the Hinterland was the activity of the SA in occupied
territories. Herr Juettner, if you will look at Page 4 of
this report where it says that when the disaster of the Elbe
floods occurred in the spring of 1941, for example, it was
the SA engineer units who were the first to arrive to give
assistance, and who, by means of their floating equipment,
saved human beings and animals from drowning, can one assume
from this statement that what you called "Hinterland" was
within the borders of the Reich?

A. By Hinterland was meant the Homeland.

Q. And then please look at Page 5 of the same report.

A. It was submitted yesterday.

Q. Well, then, I will read it to you. On Page 5 of the same
report, I quote:

  "Many SA Fuehrer and Unterfuehrer were assigned to the
  DAF (German Labour Front) for duty in the Todt
  Organization. The SA also carried out numerous tasks for
  the authorities, for example in the frontier control
  service."

Does this not show clearly that the SA seceded from the
authority of the SA supreme leadership and was assigned to
other authorities for certain tasks, like other drafted
German citizens?

A. We released the men from the SA for duty in all these
services. We did not offer them, we released them. These
agencies of the Organization Todt or other authorities
selected such men. They wanted to engage them and they
enquired of the SA whether they could be dispensed with.

                                                  [Page 211]

THE PRESIDENT: That is what he said already, is it not? He
said already in cross-examination that these men, in so far
as they were employed outside the Reich, were not operating
as SA men in SA units.

THE WITNESS: It was also true within the Reich.

DR. BOEHM: What I asked was supposed to lead up to the
question which now follows. I should like to ask you, Herr
Juettner: Were not the same conditions in existence when you
made your report on the 21 groups of SA men who were
assigned to guard prisoners?

THE PRESIDENT: That again, Dr. Boehm, he has already said.
He said that all activities referred to in this report, in
so far as they were by SA men, were not under SA men or SA
units.

DR. BOEHM: Very well.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 1000 hours, 16th August, 1946.)

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.