dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He states: "I have already expressed that in some instances pressure was exercised by organizations outside the SA, for instance, in the case of students and in the case of Finance Schools." But in answer to the question: "There was nothing which compelled a student to join the SA if he disapproved of what the SA stood for?" he said: "I share that opinion." I add, the Tribunal will observe that on the points of which I quote in the evidence of Juettner, there is corroboration in writing of that evidence. The fact is as he explained: where organizations were amalgamated with the SA "the vast majority of men were proud of the SA and proud to serve in the SA." If further evidence were wanted of the voluntary nature of this organization, both in theory and in practice, it is to be found in the steps which were taken by the SA leadership itself to reduce its members after the large influx that had taken place in 1933 and 1934 by the incorporation of such organizations as the Stahlhelm and Reiterkorps, and by the large numbers of candidates that flocked to every Party organization after the Nazi seizure of power. From 4,500,000 in 1934, the membership of the SA had dropped to 1,500,000 at the outbreak of war in 1939. Juettner explained the causes of this reduction. It was due partly to the Kyffhaeuserbund, another old soldiers' organization, being excluded from the SA. But it was due also to the introduction of examinations for their members, failure to pass which resulted in dismissal, and to the fact that those who, I quote, "for reasons of their occupation were unable to do service and accordingly did not cheerfully continue to serve us in the SA," were also dismissed. Such a weeding out and reduction in numbers from 4 1/2 to 1 1/2 millions in 5 years is hardly compatible with the story of the whole of the German youth, the whole of the German civil service and of the population generally being compelled to become members of this organization.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is submitted that this is conclusive evidence of the voluntary nature of this organization. How can it be maintained that all civil servants, whose total number the witness Boley gave as 3 million, a million Stahlhelm members, 100,000 students, 200,000 Reiterkorps members, and others besides, were all compelled to join the SA, when the total membership of that organization in 1939 was only 1,500,000? It may well be that upon a small unwilling minority pressure was brought to bear; that the consequences of refusal would have been serious. But this issue is to be decided upon recognized and established principles of law. Even were it not so, could we feel sympathy for these people? Did they show sympathy for the thousands of their fellow-countrymen that were taken to the horrors of the concentration camps? Did they sympathize with the thousands of Jews that were slandered and persecuted unceasingly over the years? You will remember, however, that when certain questions in connection with the organizations were argued before you in February, I stated on behalf of the Prosecution that we did not seek a declaration of criminality against certain sections of the SA. We excluded (1) All wearers of the SA Party badge who were not strictly members of the SA. (2) Members of the SA Wehrmannschaften who were not otherwise members of the SA. You may well think, having heard the evidence that you have of the crimes committed by the Wehrmannschaften in Poland and in the Eastern territories, that that branch of the SA ought not to be excluded. Nevertheless, we feel that many members of the units which were involved in those atrocities were also members of the SA proper, and We therefore respectfully submit that our original statement can properly stand. (3) Members of the SA Reserve who at no time served in any other formation of the organization. (4) The National Socialist League for Disabled Veterans.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It has been reiterated time and again that the Prosecution are anxious to obtain a declaration of criminality only against those who bear a major responsibility for the crimes that have been committed. In view of this and in view of the evidence that has been presented to you since February, we desire respectfully to recommend certain additional exclusions from among the general membership of the organization. First, the total strength of the SA in 1934 was given you by Juettner as 4 1/2 million. That figure included 1,500,000 members of the Kyffhaeuserbund. Shortly after the amalgamation of that organization with the SA in 1933 the two were again separated. We respectfully recommend the exclusion of all those members of the Kyffhaeuserbund who did not retain their membership of the SA after that separation. Secondly, we believe that we are also justified in asking for the exclusion of certain sections of the Stahlhelm. So that you may understand the grounds for this recommendation, it may be of assistance if I briefly remind you of the structure and history of that organization. It was composed of: (1) The Scharnhorst, which was the Stahlhelm youth organization for boys under 14, with a strength of about 500,000. (2) The Wehrstahlhelm, which included the Jungstahlhelm (boys from 14-24 years of age) and the Stahlhelm sports formations (men from 24-35 years of age). The total strength of the Wehrstahlhelm was 500,000. 3) The Kernstahlhelm which consisted of men between 36-45 years of age. Its strength has been given as 450,000. The total strength of the Stahlhelm was therefore approximately 1 1/2 million men and boys. In 1933 the Stahlhelm. was placed under the control of the Nazi Party. The Scharnhorst was transferred to the Hitler Jugend, the Wehrstahlhelm to the SA proper, and the Kernstahlhelm to the SA Reserve. Since we have already excluded the SA Reserve, we are left to consider only that part of the Stahlhelm which was incorporated into the SA proper--500,000 members of the Wehrstahlhelm.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You have evidence both from witnesses and from documents contained in the Defense Document Book that many of these 500,000 Stahlhelm members were opposed to their transfer to the SA, and to the policies and aim of the SA and the Nazi Party. Many, including the witness Von Waldenfels, refused to join the SA. It is a possible hypothesis that many more, although opposed to the policies of the SA, were prepared to join in view of the assurance that was given to them that they would retain their independent character, identity, and leaders in the same way as did the Reiterkorps, and that they would never be called actively to associate themselves with the SA proper. On the other hand, there can be no doubt whatsoever that many wholeheartedly joined the SA, and participated to the fullest extent in its criminal activities. Juettner himself is an example, and he declared that he was by no means alone. You will remember his evidence: "Numerous SA men came to me in the first few months who had formerly belonged to the Stahlhelm; like myself they felt regret that their fine old organization was no longer in existence. But together with me they hailed the fact that they were now permitted to participate in this large community of the SA." Speaking of his own district he said: "Really, after 1935, the nucleus of the SA was my old Steel Helmet organization; therefore many Steel Helmet men remained in the SA." To exclude the whole of the Stahlhelm would entail the exclusion of men like Juettner and many other Stahlhelm members who were to form the nucleus of the SA. We believe that a just and practical distinction may be drawn between these two classes. In July and August of 1935 the assurance which had been held out to the Stahlhelm, that they would retain their independent status side by side with their membership of the SA was broken. The organization of the Stahlhelm was finally dissolved; their uniforms, their meetings, and all their previous activities were prohibited.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: From that time the Stahlhelm, members who remained in the SA were indistinguishable from the rest of that body. They had joined the SA in 1933, knowing, as one of their own witnesses has declared, the criminal nature of the policies and activities of the SA. Now in 1935 they could have had no illusion that by remaining members they would be expected to support that policy and participate in these activities. None who remained members after that date can absolve themselves from a major responsibility for the crimes committed by the SA and by the Nazi Government, of which the SA was one of the essential bulwarks. We therefore respectfully recommend for your consideration whether all those members of the Stahlhelm who resigned or were ejected from the SA prior to 31 December 1935 might also be excluded. We submit that. those who remained are rightly included in the criminal organization of the SA. You will appreciate the effect of these exclusions upon the number of SA members involved in these proceedings. The exclusion of the 1,500,000 Kyffhaeuserbund and 500,000 Kernstahlhelm alone reduces Juettner's total to 2 1/2 million, and that takes no account of the other exclusions which the Prosecution have suggested. Lastly, I would say a word about the Reiterkorps. I have already submitted that there is no legal basis for suggesting that their membership was involuntary. The Prosecution recognizes, however, that in so far as the Reiterkorps retained its separate organization of riding clubs, its own identity, and its own leaders, you may find that it is in a somewhat special position when you are considering the criminal responsibility of the SA. It is of course open to the Tribunal to give effect to that special position of the Reiterkorps if it so desires. You will remember that its membership totalled 200,000. Upon one further point which has been raised by the Defense I ought, perhaps, to say a word.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It has been urged that the weekly paper Der SA-Mann , upon which the Prosecution have drawn for a small part of their evidence against this organization, is inaccurate and does not truly represent either the policy or the activities of the SA. You have heard the evidence for and against this proposition. I need only remind you that the paper was published by the official Nazi publishing house, the Eher Company, which published also Mein Kampf , the Organization Books, the orders and decrees of the Nazi Government, and all other official Nazi publications.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, before you pass from the subject of numbers, does the figure which you gave of 2 1/2 million allow for replacements?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord; the same applies with regard to replacements. We submit that it would have to bear against that the very heavy number of deaths which had occurred during the years of the war. You have only got to figure a period of 5 years after the outbreak of the war. During that period, the 4 1/2 million were reduced to 1,500,000. After that, the replacements, we submit, would be offset by deaths during the war. Your Lordship will also appreciate that what we are trying to do is to take the original figure--Juettner's original figure of 4 1/2 million. We submit that that is reduced to 2 1/2 million. If you accede to our suggestion with regard to the Kyffhaeuserbund and the Kernstahlhelm alone, that would reduce it to 2 1/2 million. You then have to take into account our suggested exclusion of the Stahlhelm. members who left before the end of 1935, and then, of course, we leave the question of the Reiterkorps to the Tribunal; but after you have done that, after you have arrived at a figure which may be somewhere about 2 million, the fact is that that figure was reduced in the 5 years to 1,500,000 according to Juettner's evidence. I was dealing with the SA-Mann and I continue: it carries under its title the description "The official organ of the Supreme SA Leadership." Its editor, writing to the Defendant Rosenberg, describes it without contradiction as the "combat publication and official organ of the Supreme SA Leadership," with a circulation of 750,000 (4009-PS, GB-614). Lutze himself recommends it in his annual training directive for 1939 as one of the official, I quote, "aids to the preparation and carrying out of training." I submit to you that in the face of that evidence the testimony of witnesses for the Defense upon this matter ought not to be accepted. I invite you to consider the whole of the literature you have seen in connection with this organization. It is all the same all about war, about lawless violence, about racial hatred.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is not one word on the ordinary matters of decent living, of the interests and activities and the ways of life of ordinary, decent, civilized, peaceful citizens--the things which fill great portions of the newspapers and literature of decent, law-abiding, peaceful countries. Compare, the literature of the SA with that of any organization or society in any other country in Europe. The SA, the organization which prided itself upon its responsibility of educating and training the manhood of Germany, spoke only of militarism, of arrogance, of bullying and hatred. What need for this if their purpose was what they say? I turn to consider very briefly the evidence upon which we base our submission that this organization was criminal. The aims of the SA were the aims of the Nazi Party itself. Training in the SA is described in the Organization Book as--I quote: "Education and training according to the doctrines and aims of the Fuehrer as they are set forth in Mein Kampf and in the Party Program for all, phases of our lives and our National Socialist ideology..." (2354-PS, USA-323). Lutze, Chief of the SA, speaking to the Diplomatic Corps and foreign press in 1936 told them: "When I state in the beginning that the obligations of the SA are those of the Party, and vice versa , I only mean that the SA considers the Party Program its own as well.... The SA cannot be independent of the National Socialist Movement but can only exist as a part of it. In the framework of the Party the SA are its protective troops, its fighting shock troops, to which belong the most active members of the Movement, politically speaking. The tasks of the SA are those of the Party, and vice versa . They are therefore of an internal political nature" (2471-PS, USA-413). In the interests of time I do not propose to dwell upon the evidence of how this organization performed its role as "the protective troops" and "the fighting shock troops" of the Party. All this may well be said already to be a matter of historical fact.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In the words of the Indictment, the SA was developed by the Nazi conspirators, before their accession to power, into a vast private army, and utilized for the purpose of creating disorder and terrorizing and eliminating opponents. It is said that the violent and criminal activity of its members, if indeed any such activity existed at all, was purely defensive--forced upon it in order to protect its members and their Party leaders from the violence of the Communist and other political parties. It is for you to judge the value of that evidence. In doing so, you will have it in mind that all the documentary evidence upon this question, which is being submitted to you in the Defense document book, is of Nazi origin and authorship. You may think that that description of the SA as a defensive organization is wholly inconsistent with the evidence you had from the witness Severing, from Gisevius, and in the affidavit you have had from the American Consul, Geist. My Lord, I set out part of the evidence. Again I don't propose to read it to the Tribunal today. I remind you of what Severing told you about the rowdy battalions and arrogance, and I ask the Tribunal to look at the last word of the quotation, at the top of Page 52: "The observation of the so-called armed organizations during the years of my office was one of my most important tasks. The toughest organization of all these turned out to be the SA. They were the rowdy battalion, and with the arrogance with which they sang their songs they forced themselves into the streets. They cleared the streets for themselves where there was no opposition for them.... Wherever the SA could exercise their terror unhindered they acted in such a manner. "Those were not ordinary little fights between political antagonists during election fights. That was organized terror." The Stahlhelm witness, Gruss, confirmed the evidence that Severing gave.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: "I believe," he said, "that, on the whole, Severing describes it correctly." It is my submission that the evidence of SA criminality during the years 1933 and 1934, from the coming into power of the Nazi Government until the Roehm purge, is well established and may be dealt with shortly. The same violence, the same disregard for the law and for the rights and privileges of all but themselves, continued. It is sufficient to remind you of what Gisevius said--and again, My Lord, I remind you that is the statement of Gisevius about the use of the SA auxiliary police, about private prisons, about arrests; and again, if I may quote the last sentence of that quotation: "The SA organized huge raids. The SA searched houses, the SA confiscated property, the SA cross-examined people. The SA put people into jail. In short, the SA appointed themselves auxiliary police and paid no attention to any of the customs from the period of the liberal system. ...Woe to anyone who got into their clutches! From this time dates the bunker, that dreaded private prison, of which every SA storm troop had to have at least one. Taking away became the inalienable right of the SA....The efficiency of a Standartenfuehrer was measured by the number of arrests he bad made and the good reputation of an SA man was based on the effectiveness with which he 'educated' his prisoners.... "Brawls could no longer be staged in the fight for power, yet the fight went on; only the blows were now struck in the full enjoyment of power." Gisevius went on to describe in more detail the illegal arrests of political opponents by members of the SA, the prisons they established and the treatment meted out to their victims. He said: "It was the bestiality tolerated during the first months that later encouraged the sadistic murders in the concentration camps." Having heard Schaefer, first Commandant of Oranienburg, cross-examined, have you the slightest doubt that atrocities were committed by SA men in that camp?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You have the evidence of the witness Joel that the SA established a concentration camp at Wuppertal on the initiative of the local SA commander. At Hohnstein and at Bredow also SA guards were torturing and murdering their prisoners (787-PS, USA-421). You will remember the letter written in June 1935 from the Ministry of Justice to Hitler himself: "In the camp serious mistreatment of the prisoners has been going on at least since the summer of 1933. The prisoners were not only, as in the protective custody camp at Bredow near Stettin, beaten into a state of unconsciousness for no reason with whips and other tools, but were also tortured in other ways..." (787-PS, USA-421). Comment is unnecessary, except to emphasize that sadism and illegal arrests of this kind were being practised and carried out by SA men throughout the Reich. I quote: "Within 6 weeks of the Nazis' coming to power in January 1933 the German newspapers were quoting official sources for the statement that 18,000 Communists had been imprisoned, whilst 10,000 prisoners in the jails of Prussia included many Socialists and intellectuals" (D-911, GB-512). Sollman, Social Democrat member of the Reichstag, was taken to the Brown House in Cologne to be "tortured, beaten and kicked for several hours" (3321-PS, USA-422). In Nuremberg a man called Pflaumer was beaten on the soles of his feet until he died (D-923, GB-615). In Munich the former editor of the newspaper The Lower Bavarian Peasant , Dr. Alois Schloegl, had his house wrecked and was himself ill-treated (D-906, GB-616). These are only a few of the incidents of this kind which the Prime Minister of Bavaria describes when he says, I quote: "Of their total number throughout Germany there can be no count" (D-930, GB-617). This was no political revolution. This was no self-protection from Communist opposition. These men were the servants of the Government with the sure knowledge that all Government agencies--the press, the law, and the Police--were under orders to condone and to assist.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They ran no risks; their victims had no court nor protection to which they could appeal. This was nothing but sheer sadism, criminal brutality, encouraged by the Party and the SA leadership. You have the evidence of Geist, the American Consul: "I personally can verify that the Police had been instructed not to interfere.... These officers told me that they and all the other police officers had received definite instructions not to interfere with the SA, the SS, or the Hitler Youth" (1759-PS, USA-420). Defendant Goering, speaking on 3 March 1933, described the role that the SA were to perform from then on. He declared that the Communists would be suppressed by the brown shirts. The Police would not be used as in a bourgeois democracy; I quote: "I do not have to give justice; my aim is only to destroy and exterminate, nothing else.... The struggle to the death in which my fist will grasp your necks I shall lead with those down there--those are the brown shirts" (1856-PS, USA-437). Let me deal in rather greater detail -with the activities of the SA during those years, after 1934. It has been suggested that following the Roehm purge the SA diminished both in numbers and in importance and that the criminal activities of its members ceased. That its numbers were reduced is unquestionable--I have indicated the evidence of the reasons why. That it waned in importance is also true to the extent that official favor was bestowed more and more upon the SS for reasons that are well known. Nevertheless, the SA, both in the eyes of its own leaders, its members, and of the Nazi Party authorities, remained politically and militarily an important and vital force. By June 1934 the political opponents of the Nazi Party had been suppressed or incarcerated. Little wonder that we have less evidence of those incidents of "mastery of the streets" which filled the history of Germany during previous years.