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

The Trial of German Major War Criminals

Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
29th July to 8th August 1946

One Hundred and Ninetieth Day: Tuesday, 30th July, 1946
(Part 3 of 11)

[GENERAL RUDENKO continues.]

[Page 71]

The defence spoke about humanity. We know that the concepts of civilization and humanity, democracy and humanity, peace and humanity-are inseparable. But we, the champions of civilization, democracy and peace - we positively reject insensible humanity which is considerate to the murderers and indifferent to their victims. Counsel for Kaltenbrunner also spoke here of love for mankind. In connection with Kaltenbrunner's name and actions, all mention of love for mankind sounds like blasphemy.

Your Lordship, your Honours, my statement concludes the case for the Prosecution. Speaking here on behalf of the peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, I consider all the charges against the defendants as fully proven.

And in the name of the sincere love of mankind which inspires the peoples who consented to the greatest sacrifices in order to save the world, freedom and culture, in memory of the millions of innocent human beings slaughtered by a gang of murderers, who are now before the Court of progressive mankind - in the name of the happiness and the peaceful labour of future generations, I appeal to the Tribunal to sentence all the defendants without exception to the supreme penalty.

Such a verdict will be greeted with satisfaction by all progressive mankind.

THE PRESIDENT: Now we will deal with the applications for witnesses and, documents by the counsel for the SA.

MR. BARRINGTON: May it please the Tribunal, there were initially seven applications for witnesses for the SA: four of the General SA; two for the Stahlhelm, and one for the SA Reiter Corps (Riding Corps) - Since then there has been an eighth application for a witness for the Stahlhelm which, I understand, is to be a substitution for the other two for the Stahlhelm. That would reduce the total number of witnesses applied for for the SA to six.

All those originally applied for have already been heard by the Commission, but the one recently applied for, by the name of Gruss, has not been so heard, and if the Tribunal approve of that witness, it would involve his being heard by the Commission now.

I apprehend that the Tribunal will have the recommendation of the Commission before them when they are deciding this. In the circumstances, the prosecution only desire to say that they have no objection to these applications.

THE PRESIDENT: That means no objection to any of them?

MR. BARRINGTON: No objection to any of them, on the understanding, my Lord, that Gruss is applied for in substitution for the other two Stahlhelm witnesses, Waldenfels and Hauffe.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Boehm.

DR. BOEHM: I have applied for the witnesses Juettner, Bock, Klachn, Schaeffer, Van den Borch and Primeere, Waldenfels and Hauffe, to be heard as witnesses for the SA.

The witness Hauffe was applied for because it was not possible to bring one witness to Nuremberg who had been allowed; that was the witness Gruss.

Concerning the witness Gruss, I should like to apply for him to be questioned before the Commission so that he can also be heard before the Tribunal. Gruss could only be called a few days ago, although my application to hear him had already been made in the month of May, and a search had to be made for him for two months. He is an important witness for the Stahlhelm in the SA, and because of his position in the Stahlhelm he knows about conditions throughout Germany, particularly for the period after 1935. But as I can only make the application for the witness to be heard here after he has been before the Commission, I beg that it be granted that this witness be heard by the Commission. I will not, however, renounce the witness Waldenfels on that account so that the situation will be that for the SA not six but seven witnesses are to be heard, as had been provided for originally.

[Page 72]

THE PRESIDENT: Well, what would be the names? What will be the names?

DR. BOEHM: Juettner, Bock, Klaehn, Schaeffer, Van den Borch, Waldenfels, and Gruss.

But I should like to ask, Mr. President, since I do not as yet know the extent of the testimony of the witness Gruss, to be permitted to choose between the two witnesses Gruss and Hauffe. That is, after the witness Gruss has been heard by the Commission, I should like to be permitted to decide whether, besides the witness Waldenfels, I shall want to apply for the witness Hauffe or the witness Gruss for questioning.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you wish to say, Dr. Boehm?

DR. BOEHM: In connection with the witnesses, yes, Mr. President, but I should like to speak in connection with the document book for the SA, if I may be permitted.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Barrington, do you wish to say anything more about the application which Dr. Boehm now has, which is for seven, and not for six?

MR. BARRINGTON: Well, the prosecution are of the opinion that one witness for the Stahlhelm would be enough, but your Lordship will, of course, have the Commission's recommendation on that. They will have been heard. On the question of the choice between Gruss and Hauffe after Gruss has been heard, there would be no objection to that, of course.

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, may I say that the Stahlhelm within the SA comprised about one-fourth of the members of the SA. There were about one million people who had transferred from the Stahlhelm into the SA. And I believe that it would be in the interest of many that the evidence be confirmed by two witnesses before this Court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that matter. Now will you deal with the documents?

MR. BARRINGT0N: Would it be convenient to your Lordship if I started on the documents?


MR. BARRINGTON: Agreement has been reached on the Document Books with the exception of one group of five documents, to which the prosecution object.

Before dealing with that group, I ought to mention to the Tribunal that among the other documents which were agreed to be excluded there were a considerable number of photographs of members of the SA Reiter Corps in civilian clothes. The great majority of those photographs were excluded. A few have been included. But I just want to say this, that these photographs were intended to show that the object of the Reiter Corps was purely that of sporting activities, while the prosecution admits that the object of the Reiter Corps included sporting activities, it says that was not their only object.

As regards the group of five documents, I think I can take that quite briefly. I have prepared a short summary, which I think the Tribunal have at the back of that sheaf of papers.


MR. BARRINGTON: These five documents are all extracts from writings by English writers and publicists during the period, I think, 1936 to 1939, and they all represent, in my submission, the unofficial opinions and arguments of those writers. Your Lordship can see roughly what they are about.

The first one, SA 236, is by Mr. Dawson, in The Nineteenth Century, to the effect that Hitler's policy to the statesmen of Europe is for peace and not war, and that Hitler has saved Germany from chaos and collapse, that he does the same to Europe by his peace proposals.

[Page 73]

And then SA 237, by Dr. A. J. McDonald, from the book Why I believe in Hitler's Germany and the Third Reich, says, "Perhaps the best guarantee for the stability of Hitler's regime is his own moral purity and that which he has imposed on Germany. He has tackled the problem of youth," and so on.

SA 242 is an extract from Das Archiv quoting Professor Comell Evans and Professor Dawson again. "Hitler's withdrawal from Locamo and the occupation of the Rhineland was a good thing." "Hitler's peace proposals are very valuable." "The Versailles Treaty was unjust," and so forth.

And SA 246, another extract from the The Nineteenth Century illustrates "Germans marching into parts of their own country," and maintains that this is justified.

And SA 247, an extract from a book by A. P. Lorry, The Case for Germany which says, "The complaint that Germany applies force is wrong, and the attack on Austria cannot be called an attack."

Now, my Lord, in so far as those extracts are intended to prove facts, they clearly do not prove any direct evidence of facts, but are purely conclusions of fact, and as such they prejudge the issues which are for the Tribunal to decide.

If on the other hand, as is possible, they are intended to show that these writings led the SA to believe that the Nazi regime was a thing to be admired or was well thought of abroad, I only need to say two things: first, these were unofficial writings; secondly, there is no evidence to show that they were even read by the SA. There is no evidence in any case that they influenced the SA at all, if they were read. That is all I can say.


DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, originally I did not intend to discuss the contents to the extent to which the representative of the prosecution has done it now. I should not like to be accused of trying to make National Socialist propaganda. But we are confronted here with short quotations from English and American writings which cause no difficulties in translating, and from which I did not intend to read anything here in Court. Neither do I intend to read the contents of these documents during my presentation of evidence, but I wanted at least to have the opportunity to refer to them during my final argument.

These quotations have appeared in German newspapers. They also appeared in collections as, for example, in Das Archiv. Thus they were accessible to the German public and became quite well known. It is not as if these excerpts were only translated now, and were not previously known to anybody in Germany. They appeared in the Volkische Beobachter and in Das Archiv, and every German could read them and acquaint himself with them.

Without regard to the importance of the writers themselves or the people who made those statements in their own country, these statements are important for the Germans because the authors were men who expressed their opinions in leading foreign countries on German problems of actuality. I would regret very much if the Court could not decide that I may be permitted to enter them into my document book. They present very little work for translation. They are not extensive and there are no obstacles connected with them.

THE PRESIDENT: Have all the documents been translated?

DR. BOEHM: I do not think they have already been translated. A considerable number were requested.

THE PRESIDENT: Are they very long?

DR. BOEHM: These five are not very long. The greater part are extracts.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not mean the five. I mean the other things.

MR. BARRINGT0N: They vary, but for the most part they are short extracts.

[Page 74]

DR. BOEHM: In my document book only a few documents have been translated entirely, only excerpts which I shall refer to for support during my presentation of evidence and during my final argument. Therefore the translation of the entire document book will create very little work, and these documents which I shall also have translated certainly will not present any difficulties.

THE PRESrDENT: Is there anything further you wish to say, Dr. Boehm?

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, unfortunately I have to make another application, which I would rather not have made, but circumstances are such that it has to be put in. I request that the witnesses Fuss, Lucke, Waldenfels, von Alvensleben, Dr. Geyer, and Dr. Meder should also be heard before the Commission. I have already made applications for these witnesses, for the witness Fuss on 25th April; for the witness Lucke, on 7th May; for the witness Waldenfels on 21St May; for the witness von Alvensleben, on 20th May; for the witness Dr. Geyer, on 25th April; and for the witness Dr. Meder, on 25th April of this year.

These are important witnesses. To give only one example, the questioning of the witnesses Fuss and Lucke would mean a rebuttal of one of the most important documents in this trial. That is Document 1721, in which it is charged that the Brigadefuehrer of Brigade 50 had reported to the Gruppenfuehrer the burning down of about thirty-eight synagogues.

The other witnesses, whose evidence, in order to shorten proceedings, I will not discuss now, and whom Colonel Neave has permitted me to question, have not yet arrived either. I believe I heard yesterday that possibly Dr. Geyer arrived a few days ago. The subjects of evidence are important, and the length of time for the questioning before the Commission will be very short. I cannot possibly forgo these witnesses whom I have repeatedly requested. These witnesses must be heard, and I believe that they can be brought here in time so that it would be possible to hear them during the presentation of evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: How many is it you are asking for?

DR. BOEHM: Seven witnesses who are to be heard by the Commission -- no, six witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT: How many have you already had heard before the Commission? I am told it is sixteen; is that right?

DR. BOEHM: Sixteen? I could not give the exact number just yet, but I am prepared to find out at once.

THE PRESIDENT: And how many have been brought to Nuremberg for the purpose of being questioned by you?

DR. BOEHM: The witnesses who have come to Nuremberg to be heard here were primarily the wrong witnesses. A number of witnesses had to come two or three times until we got the right one, as for instance the witness Wolff.

THE PRESIDENT: I asked how many.

DR. BOEHM: Altogether, all the witnesses who have come only to give an affidavit, or just the witnesses who were heard by the Commission?

THE PRESIDENT: How many witnesses have been brought? How many persons have been brought to Nuremberg for the purpose of being questioned?

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I believe there is a matter which has to be cleared up. Witnesses have been brought here in order to be questioned by the Commission or by the Tribunal. But witnesses have also been brought here merely to make an affidavit about a particular subject that appeared important, witnesses who would not necessarily have to be heard before the Commission or the Tribunal. These witnesses have been sent back after they had signed an affidavit.

[Page 75]

THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you how many. How many? Cannot you answer?

DR. BOEHM: Altogether? I would like to know whether the question is designed to mean the people who have been heard by the Commission, or all the witnesses who came here.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, out of the people who have come here, some of them have been examined before the Commission and others have made affidavits, and possibly there may be others who have done neither. I want to know how many in all.

DR. BOEHM: I believe sixteen. I cannot give the exact figure because I did not question all of them. I would like permission to determine the exact number after the recess.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

(A recess was taken.)

[ 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.