The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)
Nuremberg, war crimes, crimes against humanity

The Trial of German Major War Criminals

Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
9th August to 21st August 1946

Two Hundred and Third Day: Wednesday, 14th August, 1946
(Part 3 of 6)

[SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE continues his cross examination of Max Juettner]

[Page 170]

Q. Did you not hear what I put to you, and can you not read your own report? This says: "At the time this report is written or in the previous weeks ..." that is, in June, 1941. It says they were guarding prisoners. I am asking you, where were they guarding prisoners?

A. You cannot take it to mean that about 21 SA groups were used to guard prisoners of war, but rather it says there that 21 groups have SA men -

THE PRESIDENT: The question was: Where did you say they were guarding prisoners? There is nothing about the number 21. Where was it that they were guarding prisoners?

A. In prisoner-of-war camps in the Reich area, where individual SA men were drafted into the Wehrmacht for a short term, for the purpose of guarding prisoners of war.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by the Reich area? Do you mean Germany as it was before the war began?

A. Yes. It is possible that there were also prisoner-of-war camps in West. Prussia and the Government General. However, that escapes my knowledge.

Q. And in the Baltic Provinces?

A. I know nothing about that.


Q. Well, we can refresh your memory in just a moment. Not to leave this document, if you will look at the next page -

THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass on to that.

[Page 171]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If your Lordship pleases.

THE PRESIDENT: The passage just before "B," perhaps you ought to put it to him.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I will do so, your Lordship.


Q. If you will look just before "B," you will see the words "Numerous SA leaders and sub-leaders were furnished to the German Labour Front for duty in the Todt Organization," is that right?

A. May I ask again, what page that is?

Q. It is about ten lines before the bit I put to you about the 21 groups guarding the camps. It says: "Numerous SA leaders and sub-leaders were furnished to the German Labour Front for duty in the Todt Organization."

A. We did give men to the Organization Todt for labour, but they resigned from the SA when they went.

Q. Were they looking for forced labour?

A. No, we gave them to the Organization Todt, and they were thereby withdrawn from the authority of the SA.

Q. Now, would you look at Page 6 of the original, and you will see a heading, "The pre-military training." Now, you see what is said there, and this is the second year of the war. This is the second paragraph, after dealing with the SA war defence groups: "This educational work is primarily to assist the fighting spirit, to retain and fortify the willingness to fight, and to harden the National Socialist communal idea in German men to become an uncompromising testimonial to their comradeship in arms." Then you give an account of the training, "including signals and target practice, instruction and practice in handling rifles, as well as shooting on the range and in the field, and furthermore, throwing hand-grenades, and so on."

Now, witness, you are very familiar with these complications. I suggest to you that that training which is set out in your third report in the second year of the war is exactly the same training as is set out in your reports in the Training Directives of 1934, 1938, and 1939. It is the same training as the SA had been giving to its membership for the last seven years almost word for word, is it not? Is that not exactly the same wording contained in all your training directives?

A. No, that is not true.

Q. All right.

A. Before the war -

Q. I will put the Training Directives in in due course. That is your answer, you say that is not the same. I suggest that that is a deliberate untruth, and that this report covers the same ground, using practically the same language as your Training Directives in 1934, 1938 and 1939.

Now, all that I want is that the Tribunal shall be able to test your veracity; do you still say that that report is not the same as the SA Training Directives in 1934, 1938 and 1939? Do you or do you not?

A. The important thing is how this service was managed and the service -

Q. I am not asking you how the service was handled. I am asking you on the contents of the Training Directives, and I am putting to you a perfectly clear question. Is not the training contained in this report, in the two years after the beginning of the war, exactly the same as the training laid down in the Training Directives of the years 1934, 1938 and 1939? Now, do you want to maintain your answer that it is not?

A. Before the war we did not conduct any pre-military or post-military training. During the war we did everything to strengthen the armed power of the German People. I cannot answer any differently about this. Consequently, I must arrive at a "no," for what is set down here is something different from what we did in practice before the war.

[Page 172]

Q. All right. That is your answer.

In time I shall put the Directives before the Tribunal and they shall judge them.

Now, turn over to Page 15 of the original.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is Page 127 of the book.


Q. Now, do you see the heading, "Work done by SA in regained territories"? You have got that, Page 15?

A. Yes.

Q. "Work done by the SA in regained territories. The two SA groups 'Vistula,' with headquarters at Danzig, and 'Warthe,' with headquarters at Posen, were formed in the East. The territory of Upper Silesia was assigned to Unit Silesia, the territory of Memel and Suwalki to the Baltic Provinces (Ostland) unit." I ask you to notice that "Ostland unit."

"Very soon the SA units formed a network of solid strong- points for the National Socialist movement. The Vistula unit comprised 15 Standarten with 501 companies (Sturmen), the Warthe unit 28 regiments (Standarten), counting 684 companies (Sturmen). In these regions also as in combat" - note these words - "also as in combat, the SA was the assault unit for the Party. It assisted in collecting German manpower, in strengthening it and bringing it into alignment according to National Socialist principles. In that respect it was often necessary to start by teaching the German language and then explaining the basic ideas of National Socialism. Many young racial Germans were trained as SA assistant leaders in SA schools. In these regions also the SA service, practically speaking, was directed towards strengthening the defensive forces. It was therefore necessary to overcome the inferiority complexes of the racial Germans, the result of Polish suppression, and to bring their external appearance and bearing into keeping with SA standards. Then only was it possible to begin the real military training. The work of the SA in the West was similar to that in the East. There it was possible in a short time to bring into the SA an important part of the male population through the recruiting of former German soldiers of the World War. The leaders of the 'Standarten' were predominantly Reich German SA leaders. The 'Sturmbanne' and 'Sturme' were practically without exception led by Alsatians who had received special training in a special SA school in the Reich. Reich German SA leaders and men stood at their side to advise and help."

Well, now I am going to ask you quite a lot about the East, but I will just leave the West with this one question. Did you mean by that paragraph that the SA was doing its best to help in the Germanisation of Alsace?

A. The SA built up its organization there and tried to train the men to acquire the decency and outward bearing and character in keeping with the SA. The question of Germanisation, etc., played no part in our work.

Q. I would like you to look at the procedure. "The Chief of Staff ... " that was Lutze in 1941, he was still alive then. "The Chief of Staff visited these territories in the East and West, and gained a clear insight into the service, not only in the main cities, but particularly in the small and smallest garrisons of the SA."

Did the Chief of Staff take his deputy with him on any one of these visits, that is, yourself?

A. I was with him once in the East, but not in the West.

Q. Perhaps you were fortunate that you went into the Eastern territory. Did you ever go to Vilna?

A. No.

Q. Let me see if you can help us from your immense knowledge of the SA, which you spoke of this morning. Did you know an SA officer called Hinkst, who was the staff commandant at Vilna?

A. What is the name?

[Page 173]

Q. Hinkst.

A. No, I do not know him.

Q. Just think. You say you do not remember him, the town commissioner at Vilna?

A. No.

Q. You remember at Vilna, the old barracks were taken over and were known as the SA Kaserne, the SA barracks. Did you know that?

A. I have never been in Vilna in my life, and I do not know who was working there from the SA or other offices, either.

Q. Did you know that one of the groups formed was in Vilna?

A. No.

Q. It was a very interesting group, but they did not have to do quite as big a job as the SA. However, they killed 10,000 Jews in the autumn of 1941? You say you never heard of that?

A. I did not understand that.

Q. What I am putting to you is that in September of 1941, 10,000 Jews were killed in Vilna and the people who rounded them up from the ghetto, the people who took them out to be killed, were the SA detachment in Vilna?

A. I deny that quite emphatically. The SA had nothing to do with these matters and the SA did not take part in them. We had no SA in Vilna.

Q. Then we will just have a look at this affidavit. Will you look at this affidavit?

THE PRESIDENT: Did you sign this document that was just put to you - this report?


SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Would you look at Document D-964, which is an affidavit by M. Szloma Got. My Lord, that is Exhibit GB 597. I am so sorry, my Lord, it is Page 55. I beg your Lordship's pardon.

This gentleman says:

"I am a Jew and lived in Vilna, Lithuania. During the German occupation I was in the Vilna ghetto. The administration of the Vilna ghetto was managed by the SA. The Town Commissioner of Vilna (Stadtkommissar) was an SA officer called Hinkst. The Landkommissar for Vilna was an SA officer called Wolf. The adviser on Jewish questions was an SA officer called Murer."
Do you remember an SA officer called Wolf or an SA officer called Hinkst in Lithuania?

THE WITNESS: I have never heard either the name Wolf or the name Hinkst and I emphatically deny that we had any SA group in Vilna.

DR. BOEHM: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. These charges which they are trying to put on the SA are all so tremendous and are so obviously unknown to the witness that I must request that this witness Gol be brought here and examined, in case they make use of this affidavit or its contents. If he is here in Nuremberg, he can be examined before the Court.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Mr. Gol is here and my friend can ask him any, questions that he would like. He can produce the actual articles taken from the dead bodies of the Jews who were shot.

THE PRESIDENT: Is this man here in Nuremberg?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, yes, he is in Nuremberg. Of these six affidavits, I have kept four, and that covers, I think, the principal allegations. I have kept Gol, Beig, Sigall and Kibart. The other two had to go to work which has been found for them and, my Lord, I felt, in view of what they have

[Page 174]

already suffered, it is not quite right to keep them all back. However, I kept four and I submit that the defence has ample opportunity for any cross-examination.

THE PRESIDENT: Are they all on the same topic?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, no. They deal with Vilna, Kaunas and Schaulen, my Lord, three places.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you propose to use or to read all of these affidavits now, or to use them for cross- examination?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I was proposing to put the main points of them in for cross-examination and show on what the affidavits are based. I did not mean to read them through. From these affidavits I have selected about three points to read.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Boehm.

DR. BOEHM: Before these affidavits are read, I should first like to ask that they be checked as to their authenticity.

THE PRESIDENT: We are considering your application at the moment, that the man should be called for cross-examination. Surely that is sufficient.

DR. BOEHM: No, only under the condition that this document, this affidavit, which was submitted here, is perfectly genuine and has been signed.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David has said that the man is here. You can ask the witness if it is true.

DR. BOEHM: I have no reason to introduce a witness, Mr. President, who has not deposed an affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: No one is suggesting that you should introduce him as your witness. Your application is the application which we are now considering, that is, that he should be brought here for cross-examination, but that does not make him your witness.

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I requested that he be examined under the condition that he has actually deposed an affidavit.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: The original affidavit is before the witness, and I am told it was sworn to before Major Wurmser. The actual statements, which the deponent made before he signed, are shown in the original copy.

DR. BOEHM: I am objecting for the reason that my document does not show that it was signed.

THE PRESIDENT: Give us the original. It really would be better, Dr. Boehm, if you would take the trouble to look at the original before you made objections of this sort.

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I did not make any accusations. I only asked you to ascertain whether it is signed, for there is no signature on my document.

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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.