dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
HERR BOEHM: It was clearly established that the Supreme SA Leadership was forbidden to set up SA units in the so-called Reichskommissariat Ostland, that is, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Here the Prosecution is confusing the SA Gruppe Ostland, which was set up in East Prussia, with the later Reichskommissariat Ostland. Moreover, the Prosecution have already charged another organization with the Schaulen, Kovno, and Vilna cases. District commissioners, provincial commissioners, and officials of the Reichskommissariat Ostland were no more under the Supreme SA Leadership than the SA Obergruppenfuehrer Killinger and Kasche, who were active as ministers. The Defendant Ribbentrop has explained this clearly. The affidavit of the Defendant Frank has solved the Ilkenau case in favor of the SA. A special role in the cross-examination of Juettner was played by the so-called abuse of justice, which Sir David emphasized. It has nothing to do with the SA, but rather with the competent ministers. The case of Hohenstein Concentration Camp was also brought up. In re-exainination it was possible to prove that this concentration camp was not a concentration camp for political opponents alone. Old Nazis were interned there. Moreover, the affair of the Hohenstein Concentration Camp became the subject of prosecution by the officials of the Ministry of Justice because of information supplied by SA Obergruppenfuehrer Killinger, when he was still in charge of the SA Gruppe Sachsen. It is something of a novelty to charge the SA with cases which they themselves reported for punishment. In this connection it is an interesting fact that the Prosecution submitted an incomplete document which does not contain the letters of Lutze and Hess. From this document the SA Defense, according to the information which it had received, might have been able to derive only favorable material. In order to be able to prove the criminal character of the SA, the Prosecution obtained affidavits from former political opponents of the NSDAP. Among them are the affidavits of Minister President Dr.
HERR BOEHM: Wilhelm Hoegner, and Advocate General Dr. Staff of Brunswick. They were given upon orders of Military Government, as appears from the affidavit of Dr. Staff. The two latter ones were submitted by the Defense. It has already been established before the Court that Dr. Hoegner was frequently mistaken. His description of the march on Coburg is completely wrong. In reality, things happened in the following way, as testified by witness Juettner, and the affidavit of Zoeberlein (Affidavit Number General SA-21): A certain German association, the "Schutz- und Trutzbund," was compelled by the municipal authorities at that time to hold a closed session. The NSDAP stressed the right of freedom of assembly as guaranteed to all by the Constitution. Therefore, a protection squad proceeded to Coburg. Upon leaving the railroad station, it was attacked in the street by members of the Leftist organization, who. were armed with lead pipes, spiked wooden staves, and the like. Above all, it was also proved that the observations of Dr. Hoegner, that in Bavaria the SA was trained by the Reichswehr, cannot be correct. It was the Munich Reichswehr General, Von Lossow, who caused the collapse of the Hitler Putsch. As the witness Juettner testified, the arsenals which had been opened by permission of the Interallied Commission were available to all organizations except the SA. It is equally wrong to allege that Ludendorff was selected to unleash a national war against France at a time when Communist revolts were raging in Saxony and when Ludendorff had already made efforts in 1921 to reach an understanding with France, which at the end of 1923 led to the so-called Foch Plan. When we consider that there were arsenals belonging to Leftist organizations in the Munich trade union house, then the occupation of the trade union house takes on a totally different aspect. Dr. Hoegner asserts that the SA had a share in the persecution of the Jews, whereas the Prosecution witness, Diels, emphasized that the SA was not anti-Semitic. Dr.
HERR BOEHM: Hoegner also places himself in contradiction to Pastor Burgstaller, who had particularly emphasized the indifference of the SA in racial matters. It can definitely be admitted that excesses did occur when the Munich Post Office was occupied. But such things occur during any revolution; we might only recall some of the things that happened between 1918 and 1920. How the situation actually was, seen objectively, is shown by the affidavit of Dr. Staff, Brunswick. There it says: "The SA behaved in a manner which-, regarded from the legal standpoint of a civilized nation, must be called illegal, but it did not result in any excesses going beyond these measures which were illegal in themselves." I also submitted an affidavit of Dr. Priese as Number General SA-82. It shows that Dr. Priese as a member of the Communist Party of Germany is active as an expert on the Denazification boards, and that he gave this affidavit with the approval of the Minister for Political Clearance. His opinion is to the effect that the SA cannot be considered a criminal organization within the meaning of Article 6 of the Charter. Through the mass enrollment of members in the SA after 30 January 1933 the so-called uniform whole of the NSDAP broke apart even more than had been the case before that date. Elements of the German population entered the SA, whose aims and aspirations had nothing to do with the goals of the SA. The affidavit of Diels shows that in the Berlin SA Communists were admitted in large numbers. The collective summarization reveals that this was also the case in other cities. In this connection I must also refer to the incorporation of all the Protestant Youth Associations into the Hitler Youth in 1933, which were then transferred to the SA. Vicar General Dr. David declared that this was also the case among many of the Catholic youth.
HERR BOEHM: The aims which the leading personalities had in mind when this transfer was made becomes clear from the quotation from the Akademische Monatsblaetter of June 1933 (Document SA-317), which reads as follows: "Realizing this, it is up to us to take a hand with sincere conviction in common honest work with all constructive forces of our nation, in order to create new and better things and to prevent the worst. For this reason let us instil our Catholic wealth of Christian conservative ideas and Christian evolutionary forces in the new Germany, to help in the formation and deepening of its spirit with our spirit." If the SA were to be convicted, this declaration of criminality would also affect these men, who were not concerned with the spirit of the National Socialist Party, and some of whom were to act as a brake against the radical elements in the Movement. The largest number of men joined when the Stahlhelm. was ordered to be transferred to the SA in 1933 and 1934. The original so-called "Traditions-SA" had had only 300,000 members, as was stated some time ago. The Stahlhelm, on the other hand, comprised more than one million members, most of whom differed considerably from the SA men of the period of struggle, both as regards their general attitude and their outlook on life. In the Court sessions of 28 February to 2 March 1946, the Prosecution moved to except, among others, the SA-Reserve from the declaration of criminality. By an order of the Supreme SA Leadership (Hitler) dated 6 November 1933 the SA-Reserve 1 was formed of members of the Stahlhelm, between 36 to 45 years of age. The SA-Reserve was subsequently placed under the command of the SA-Gruppenfuehrer in accordance with a directive issued by the same authority on 25 January 1934, and was thereby transferred to the SA under the designation SA-Reserve 1 (Exhibits Numbers 13 and 17 of the Document Book Stahlhelm-SA). Part of the SA-Reserve 1 remained in existence up to the end of the war and has thus been excluded from the declaration of criminality.
HERR BOEHM: A further part of this SA-Reserve 1 was attached as small reserve groups to active SA companies in the course of the last few years. The remainder was gradually incorporated in the active SA after 1934. Such reorganizations were carried out in accordance with lists, or by virtue of specially issued orders. The reason for these transfers were partly due to technical considerations such as local combinations, especially during the war, when SA Stuerme shrank in size because of inductions into the Armed Forces. In many cases these reorganizations were also made in order to facilitate better control within the SA. It would thus be unfair and incomprehensible to treat this latter group differently from the former, to make chance decide the fate of the members of the Stahlhelm. who remained in the SA up to the end of the war. The members of the Stahlhelm transferred into the SA by order of Hitler in 1933 and 1934 were transferred to the SA as a body. For that reason alone, according to the ruling of the Tribunal of 13 March 1946 under 6(a) 2 and 6(b), they cannot be declared criminal. With reference to this I draw your attention to the plea of my colleague, Attorney Klefisch, on 15 August 1946. It is explained there that those persons who entered an organization involuntarily belong to the class of innocent followers who may be assumed not to have desired to support the aims and activities of the organization. Therefore, an accusation of guilt cannot apply to them, even if it had been possible for them to resign immediately. The transfer took place as follows: on 27 April 1933 the entire Stahlhelm was placed under Hitler's orders by the leader of the organization, Seldte. On 21 June 1933 the Junior Stahlhelm, and on 4 July 1933 the entire Stahlhelm, were subordinated to the Supreme SA Leadership by Hitler's own orders. According to the decree of 4 July 1933 the Jungstahlhelm. and the sports units, later called Wehrstahlhelm, that is, Stahlhelrn members up to the age of 35 years, were included in the active SA (Exhibits 1, 6, 7).
HERR BOEHM: The transfer of the original Stahlhelm, that is, members of the ages of 36 to 45 years, was effected, as mentioned before, on 25 January 1934. This transfer and inclusion, both in the case of the Wehrstahlhelm and the original Stahlhelm took place without the members being asked, partly by transferring the membership lists to the SA. This is proved by the affidavits which I have submitted, and the testimony of Von Waldenfels, Hauffe, and Gruss. The decrees issued by Hitler after 1 December 1933 (Law Regarding the Unity of State and Party), are without doubt to be regarded as legal decrees. The preceding orders and instructions have, practically speaking, a similar character and were sanctioned by the law of 1 December 1933, as well as by later decrees and executive orders. The transfer of the Stahlhelm did not take place without friction. In the case of many members coercion was apparent. Many elements. in the organization did not agree with the subordination of the Stahlhelm or with the co-operation of the Stahlhelm. in the seizure of power. Duesterburg who must be regarded as the head of the opposition to Seldte's policy, objected in particular. This attitude resulted in his arrest, as well as in the numerous arrests of Stahlhelm members which were made by the Gestapo in the spring of 1933, especially in Brunswick. Members of the Stahlhelm who did not obey the order for transfer were forced into service by State agencies and occasionally punished. (Affidavit 1, Figures 3, 2, as well as testimony of Hauffe and Von Waldenfels.) Just as the SA fell apart because of the events before and after 1933 through the influx of people with the most widely different aims, so this also happened in the case of the Stahlhelm. because of the events of the year 1933, which had such serious and dreadful consequences for the German people. The Stahlhelm disintegrated.
HERR BOEHM: For some of its members it had appeared of importance that at the time of the transfer they had been expressly assured of a certain amount of independence under their own leaders and with their old uniforms, as well as of further connection with the Stahlhelmbund. This is shown by nearly all documents, affidavits, and testimonies. When these assurances were not put into practice the opposition group's resistance against Seldte increased. On the part of the National Socialist leaders of the State this group was considered politically unreliable and reactionary. This is also confirmed by affidavits and the testimony of witnesses, and especially emphasized by the newspaper reports submitted, which represent only a small portion of many similar reports. (Evidence: Exhibits 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55.) The National Socialist paper Rheinfront for 27 July 1933 stated: "The Stahlhelm was never National Socialist at heart." In another paper of 30 July 1935 it said: "It is certain that the Stahlhelm was always to be found with the opponents of the Movement." Another newspaper of 8 August 1935 described the Stahlhelm as "a hotbed of hostile and reactionary forces." It should be noted that the majority of the members of the Stahlhelm transferred to the SA remained members of the Stahlhelmbund or the later so-called Stahlhelm. Veterans' League. According to the decrees of 14 July 1933 and 27 January 1934 (Exhibits Numbers 8 and 18) Stahlhelmer transferred to the SA were expressly permitted this dual membership. In conclusion, your attention is drawn to Exhibit Number 21. According to this the Press Department of the Supreme SA Leadership announced on 25 April 1934: "Members of the former Stahlhelmbund who have already been incorporated into SA-Reserve I are not at present permitted to resign from SA-Reserve L" A large number of the members of the Stahlhelm represented a body within the SA, united by common ideals, who regarded the events of the time with the greatest distrust. Opposed to them was a group of Stahlhelm.
HERR BOEHM: members and former Stahlhelm. leaders, headed by Labor Minister Seldte, who approved the national revolution and provided the SA with 60 high SA leaders, but who naturally condemned abuses and excesses of authority in the severest possible manner. Spokesmen from either of those Stahlhelm groups have been heard before this Tribunal, namely, the witnesses Gruss and Juettner. One of these witnesses came from the very heart of the SA, the other was not an SA member. One of them, as a Stahlhelm leader, acknowledges his membership in the SA, which he knows intimately, while the other remains outside the SA and is opposed to it. The latter is the exponent of that wing of the Stahlhelm which toyed with ideas of opposition until the end of the Third Reich. It can be said without doubt that the Stahlhelm represents an element of opposition to the so-called "Old Fighters" of the SA. The above-mentioned exhibits, affidavits, and testimonies are irrefutable proof of this. Upon joining the SA the Stahlhelm. members brought with them their own Stahlhelm ideology, which differs in essential points from National Socialism. Politically speaking, the majority of them rejected the totalitarian claims of any political party, and also the Fuehrer principle. As before, they remained in constant touch with their old Bund which, until its dissolution in 1935, continued to exist under the name of the NSDFB (Stahlhelm). Even after it was dissolved they formed strong, close-knit groups among themselves and held comradely meetings almost all over Germany. In many of those groups the hope of a political revolution continued to live for a long time. As in other parts of the SA, former opponents of National Socialism, particularly Marxists, found a reception in the ranks of the Stahlhelm. Thus in Brunswick, for example, the Reichsbanner joined the Stahlhelm. (D-947). The insufficient camouflaging of the activities of the Reichsbanner resulted in its being dissolved. The members transferred from the Stahlhelm.
HERR BOEHM: to the SA, likewise the SA members, repudiated all crimes such as those mentioned in Article 6 As ex-servicemen they repudiated war, particularly aggressive war The repudiation of Himmler's race policy is clearly demonstrated by the nomination of the Deputy Leader Duesterberg as candidate for the office of Reich President in the election of 1932, and by the extraordinary popularity which Duesterberg enjoyed with all Stahlhelmer. Nearly all the affidavits and evidence show how far removed the Stahlhelm was from crimes against humanity. In connection with the incorporation of the Stahlhelm it must be taken into consideration that it took place at a time when there were internal disputes and weakening in the SA, when the work of the SA had already been completed through the seizure of power, and not at the time when Hugenberg, Schacht, and Hitler were forming the so-called Harzburg Front. The completion of this enrolment in the SA took place at a time when the SA was totally without significance. May I finally remark, with reference to the subject of the Stahlhelm, that by virtue of coercion, that is, by an order, about 500,000 members of the Wehrstahlhelm and about 500,000 members of the Kernstahlhelm were transferred. There remained a further half million Stahlhelm members over 45 years of age, who did not join the SA at all because an order for this transfer was lacking. Only in very few districts, indeed, were these older age groups also transferred to the SA because of the infringement of orders by subordinate SA authorities. Another group occupying a special position in the SA is the Mounted SA (Reiter-SA). The testimony has very clearly shown that during the entire period of its existence, the Mounted SA possessed a far-reaching organizational independence. The aims, duties, and activities of the Mounted SA were not political, but limited to equestrian sports and the care and breeding of horses.
HERR BOEHM: In the course of detailed testimony before the Commission, the Prosecution did not succeed in proving that the Mounted SA had participated in any crimes against peace or humanity. In view of the clear evidence in favor of the Mounted SA, I shall limit myself to presenting the essential points to the Tribunal in summarized form. The charge that the SA co-operated in the seizure of power by the NSDAP does not in any way concern the Mounted SA, because the Mounted SA was not formed until after the seizure of power. The Mounted SA did not grow out of Adolf Hitler's storm troops, but out of the hundreds of so-called rural riding associations which existed all over Germany until 1933 as entirely unpolitical sport and breeding associations. The incorporation of these rural riding associations into the SA after the seizure of power as part of the so-called "co-ordination" (Gleichschaltung) did not take place voluntarily. It was carried out by official decree against the inward opposition of most members of these associations. This official decree was the result of negotiations between the chief of the rural riding associations and the Chief of Staff of the SA, Roehm, which were initiated by the Reich Ministry of the Interior in the summer of 1933. Those riding associations which resisted the decree were threatened with dissolution, which, if they still refused, was carried out. Since those associations constituted an agricultural necessity, most of the associations obeyed the decree under the pressure of circumstances. Even after the incorporation of the Mounted SA into the SA it retained its independent character as an organization until the very end. The former riding associations which now called themselves SA Mounted Companies (Reiterstuerme), were headed by the Reich Inspector for Riding and Driving (Reit- und Fahrwesen), Litzmann, in Berlin. With respect to the size and composition of the Mounted SA, the testimony has shown that it had approximately 200,000 members, of whom 80 to 90 percent were horse-owning farmers.
HERR BOEHM: After the seizure of power, the Mounted SA was joined by the riding clubs then established in many cities, which up to then had likewise led an entirely unpolitical existence devoted only to sports. The activity of the Mounted SA was in keeping with its sporting and breeding tasks. Training consisted in riding and driving and tuition in matters pertaining to horses. The leading activity of the urban units was the organization of hunts and tournaments, just as is done by riding clubs everywhere in the world. As a rule they did not ride in uniform but in civilian clothes. The wives and children of the members took part in the riding. In rural areas their activity war mainly limited to instructing the farmers about all important matters concerning horses, especially driving and the treatment of sick horses. For these reasons, the members of the Mounted SA everywhere in Germany considered themselves primarily as horsemen, not as SA men. The Mounted SA deliberately refrained from giving any political support. It neither disseminated any political propaganda nor gave any political training. It never was a political fighting unit. The decisive factor in the selection and promotion of leaders in the Mounted SA was not political activism, but solely riding ability and unblemished character. The testimony has clearly shown that the Mounted SA in no way participated in any crimes against humanity. Neither did it ever co-operate in the excesses against the Churches, the Jews, the trade unions, foreign laborers, or prisoners of war. On the contrary, members of the Mounted SA frequently intervened in favor of persons who were politically persecuted. As the presentation of evidence has shown, any anti-Semitic attitude was completely alien to the Mounted SA. The NS Riding Corps was always well disposed toward the Church.
HERR BOEHM: It is a significant fact that a non-Aryan, Fuldauer, as is shown by his affidavit (SA-20), was a cofounder of the NS Riding Corps at Wiehl in the Rhineland, and that he was a leading member of the Mounted SA there for a fairly long time after the seizure of power. Since the Mounted SA stood aloof from the Party, in many areas of Germany it even became a haven for the politically persecuted. Numerous Freemasons and non-Aryans were members of the Mounted SA, and tried to cover themselves by pointing out their membership in a National Socialist organization. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the NSDAP, as has been shown by the presentation of evidence, regarded the NS Riding Corps with the utmost suspicion. Members of the Mounted SA were refused membership in the NSDAP because their activity in the Mounted SA did not give proof of their political reliability. Moreover, the presentation of evidence has clearly shown that the Mounted SA did not participate in a crime against peace. According to the claims of the Prosecution, Hitler is supposed to have given the Mounted SA the task of selecting the horsemen among the new generation for the German Armed Forces. Here the Prosecution based its case mainly on certain propaganda articles by an unknown author which appeared in the periodical Der SA-Fuehrer . All the witnesses who have testified concerning the Mounted SA have reported that the contents of these editorials were in open contradiction to actual conditions. It has been repeatedly established in this Trial that the Party Leadership permitted itself to be guided solely by propagandistic viewpoints. The Prosecution have not succeeded in adducing a single actual case where the Mounted SA, in more than 10 years of existence, ever planned or ordered any activity which could be regarded as a preparation for, or support of, a war of aggression. The highest officer of the German cavalry in the time prior to the outbreak of World War II, the well-known Generaloberst Guderian, has taken an unequivocal stand on this question.