dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
HERR BOEHM: That this political terrorism was carried on as a part of world revolution is also shown by a decision rendered by the State Court for the Protection of the German Republic This was also pointed out to us by the witness Juettner when he referred to the idea of a defensive Western Pact directed against, endeavors to bring about a world revolution (Document Number SA-286), in pursuance of which, by their own admission, the Communist International began revolutions, among other places, in Finland, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Syria. It can be said without any exaggeration that without the Marxist theory of class struggle, and without the events which led up to it, the causes would doubtless not have arisen which required the protection of a spiritual movement by means of the SA. The witness Gisevius also adopts this view when he declares: "The SA has its origin in that postwar period when revolution was either still in progress in Germany, or was just beginning again. One might say that it was one of the last outcroppings of the Spartakus upheavals in 1918. Red pressure produced Brown counterpressure, and from that time on the latter's external manifestation has been called the SA." The Prosecution, for their part, have submitted unequivocal documents of the SA-Mann , which was certainly not an official organ of the Supreme SA Leadership, but which in this case offers conclusive proof as to which side was responsible for the terrorism, and that was undoubtedly the Communist Party. I do not propose to quote in detail the articles which contain this proof. I merely want to refer to Prosecution Document 3050-PS, in which, by the way, articles from the SA-Mann were reproduced by the Prosecution in a distorted way and torn from their context (Compare the testimony of Klaehn and Bock before the Commission).
COL. POKROVSKY: My Lord, counsel for the defense is trying to attribute to the Prosecution material submitted as evidence which the Prosecution have never submitted. I very definitely object to such methods on the part of Dr. Boehm, since such methods seem quite obviously intended to introduce Fascist slander and libellous Fascist inventions before this Tribunal. I am asking the Tribunal to deny the reading of the subsequent paragraph of counsel's speech, which in the Russian translation appears on Page 29. It is the first paragraph. I would like to draw the attention of, the Tribunal, My Lord, to the fact that we have there a very clear alteration of the real state of affairs. It is quite true that Document 3050-PS was submitted by the Prosecution, but it consisted of a bundle of unofficial newspapers Der SA-Mann for a number of years. In terms of previous decisions of the Tribunal, if counsel wanted to refer to any part of that document, he should have followed the example of the other attorneys by putting in the particular part of the document which he wanted to quote in his speech. This he did not do. Thus, the allegation that the Prosecution submitted material which the Prosecution did not intend to put in is incorrect, and in my opinion counsel has no reason at all to refer to what he is referring to in the first paragraph on Page 29 of his speech.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not quite understand, your objection. I have got a translation before me which says: "The Prosecution also presented documents derived from the Associated Press , as has been proved at the session of the Commission." I understand that was submitted by the Prosecution. Is that right?
COL. POKROVSKY: My Lord, Document 3050-PS, to my knowledge, consists of a collection of newspapers Der SA-Mann for the years 1934 to 1939. Some parts of the text contained in these newspapers have, in fact, been quoted by the Prosecution. But my opinion is that if counsel wanted to. use part of the material which was not quoted, although it did appear in the same document, 3050-PS, then he ought to have done that at the time he was submitting his evidence, or else he ought not to have done it at all. That is the way we interpret this question, My Lord. It concerns the quotations from the newspaper Der SA-Mann .
THE PRESIDENT: But have not the Tribunal laid it down, at the outset, that the defendants could refer to any other part of the documents which was contained in the document of which part was put in by the Prosecution? Is not that all he does, referring to some other pages of the documents which have been put in by the Prosecution? At the outset the Tribunal laid down a rule to cover this very situation. It is always the same.
COL. POKROVSKY: The Prosecution do remember that decision of the Tribunal, My Lord, but we interpreted it in the way I have described. It seemed to us, and our point of view was strengthened by all the previous procedure followed by the Defense, that counsel have to put in those parts of a document which have already been submitted, but not quoted, by the Prosecution and which counsel would like to use as evidence. Dr. Boehm has not done so.
HERR BOEHM: May I define my attitude, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: No. Colonel Pokrovsky, he does not expressly say it was used by the Prosecution. He expressly states to what he is referring. I do not consider it improper, referring to any other part of the document in that way.
COL. POKROVSKY: It seems to me, My Lord, that such utilization of a document on the part of the Defense is not correct, and this for the reasons I have already stated to the Tribunal I would like to repeat once more, it seems to me that he ought to have produced these parts of Document Number 3050-PS at the time he was submitting his evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: The part of the document to which he is referring is a part which was not referred to by the Prosecution. So what you desire has been done. Very well.
COL. POKROVSKY: That is it, My Lord. You are quite right. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Boehm
HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, in my plea I merely supported my argument with the document which was not submitted by me, but by the Prosecution, 3050-PS. To pick out the individual articles here would amount to, the work of at least a whole day, as was also the case in the Commission hearings. It is true that there are many individual articles included in Document 3050-PS. But as far as I am concerned, there was no occasion whatsoever for me to give their numbers because I did not present them. And therefore I do not think I have done anything wrong here. May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
HERR BOEHM: The Prosecution have also introduced documents which originated with the Associated Press , as was proved at the meeting of the Commission, in which the political struggle is viewed in connection with world-revolutionary tendencies. I only recall the article entitled "The Red Danger in the East," and the cartoon with the caption, "Stalin wants world revolution, Budjenny has already smelled the roast," which was likewise introduced by the Prosecution. Finally, the Defense would like to draw attention to the street fighting order issued by the KPD. Moreover, I refer to the general order issued by the Supreme SA Leadership, which states that weapons of any kind are forbidden in the SA, and that violations of this regulation will be punished with expulsion from the SA. Furthermore, I might refer to the testimony of the witness Dr. Kurt Wolf, who stated that this prohibition against carrying arms resulted in a disproportionately high number of victims among the SA men. The witness confirmed that the number of dead on the side of the National Socialist Party was higher than on the side of the KPD. He also gave the explanation that the members of the SA, unlike the radical elements of the Left, were always searched for arms by their responsible leader. I also refer to the affidavits by Freund, Zoeberlein, and Hahn. They represent the political situation as it really was, beyond any doubt. The testimony repeatedly revealed that before 1933 we stood on the verge of civil war. The excesses which actually occurred in 1933 are to be explained by this civil war psychosis. This is also shown by the testimony of former State Secretary Grauert. Herr Gisevius says the following about this period, as I have explained in Document SA-301: "Looking back on these events, one may say without hesitation that this first phase of the revolution claimed comparatively few victims." If we look at Document SA-302.
HERR BOEHM: he also adds that "by and large, it was only a very-small clique which rendered itself guilty of excesses." In his testimony before the Tribunal, he repeatedly makes an exception in the case of the majority of the SA. It was also perfectly clear from the testimony that the Supreme SA Leadership intervened whenever excesses were brought to their knowledge. That this was actually the case is shown by the Vogel affair, and above all, by the testimony of former Police Chief Habenicht about the camp near Wuppertal. In close co-operation between Grauert and the Supreme SA Leadership elements committing excesses were eliminated. In his affidavit on the SA, Herr Diels, who serves as an incriminating witness for the Prosecution, limits the circle involved in Berlin to the signals sections which had grown out of Ernst's Group Staff. On the other hand, we also know from the summarized collection of affidavits that the notorius SA leader who had the nickname "Schweinebacke" (hog jowl) was expelled from the SA for blackmailing a Jew, and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. The testimony of Burgstaller and Juettner make it clear that the SA did not adopt an extremist attitude in the racial question; because otherwise it would have been impossible for baptized Jews to be admitted to the SA in Berlin and for baptisms of Jews to take place in the presence of uniformed SA men. The testimony given by Diels shows that the SA in Berlin was not anti-Semitic. He expressly emphasizes that anti-Semitic propaganda had been Dr. Goebbels' business. We have also the testimony of Dr. Menge, who stated that Jewish businesses in Hanover were protected by SA detachments, in return for which the Jewish shopkeepers supplied the members of the SA with purchase coupons (Affidavit Number General SA-1). Furthermore, we see from the collective affidavits that houses and businesses of Jewish citizens in other cities too were protected by SA members from looting.
HERR BOEHM: From the testimony of the witness Juettner we see that the attitude adopted by the Supreme SA Leadership in this matter coincided with that of the well-known Jewish professor Karo, who adopts a hostile attitude toward Eastern Jewry. These manifestations of hostility to Eastern Jewry are the after effects of the first World War, when innumerable Jews came to Germany from Galicia. The events on the occasion of 9 November 1938 are among the most seriously incriminating points charged against the SA. The alleged report of the leader of the Kurpfalz Brigade plays an important part in this connection. It appears from the entire circumstances surrounding this alleged report on action taken (1721-PS) that it can only be an unskilful forgery. In proof of this I named the witnesses Lucke and Fust, who in spite of efforts by the Secretary General extending over a period of months could not be transferred to Nuernberg, although the: Defense had indicated the camps where they are interned.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, that is an improper observation, or suggestion, for you to make. Every effort has been made by the Secretary General to obtain all the witnesses whose names have been given, and there is no evidence that those witnesses were in the camps that you are referring to. Now you may go on.
HERR BOEHM: The following may be said in detail-I am here commenting on Document 1721-PS: (1) In the correspondence of the SA it has never happened that in the case of report on action taken the order given was repeated in substance; (2) The order of the leader of the Kurpfalz Group reads, according to the Prosecution, that is, this document: "By order of the Gruppenfuehrer If an order had been given, it would have read: "It is ordered," or "The Group orders"; in no case, however, would it say, "By order of the Gruppenfuehrer." (3) The expression "Jewish Synagogues" does not exist in German. This expression "Jewish Synagogues" is also foreign to official party communications. The term "Jewish" is already implied in the word "Synagogue." The term "Aryan" in this connection is likewise out of place. If the order were authentic, then in contra-distinction to "Jews" at this point it would have spoken of "German compatriots." (4) "Riots and looting are to be avoided," it continues. Conditions in Germany in 1938 were such that no one, and certainly no leader of a Group or a Brigade, would have thought of such disturbances, much less have used these words in this connection in an order. (5) "Report on action taken to be made by 8:30 o'clock to the Brigadefuehrer or local office," it says further in this alleged order. In no case does the Group order a report on action taken to be made to the Brigade which is receiving the order, but only to the Group. Logically, it should have said "to the Gruppenfuehrer." (6) It is equally improbable that the leader of the Brigade did not pass on the order, that is, give orders to the leaders of the Standarten on his own initiative, but only "informed the Standartenfuehrer immediately and gave them exact information." Fanciful reports such as this on action taken never existed in the SA. (7) It says in the report, "... and immediately began to carry out orders." This formula is also completely devoid of probability. The leader of the Brigade reports in the preceding sentence that he immediately informed his Standartenfuehrer.
HERR BOEHM: It would then have been a matter of course, which no SA leader would have mentioned in his report on action taken, that the carrying out of the order ,vas immediately begun. In the examination of the witness Juettner the Prosecution endeavored to' clear the document by alleging that the stamps on the Juettner letter (1721-PS) and on the report of the Group (1721-PS) were identical. These two documents were submitted under the same PS number. It was established, however, that the written notations were made by different persons.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we break off? [ A recess was taken .]
HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, Your Honors, I just spoke of the points which were presented to refute the genuineness of Document 1721-PS. I continue. This alone would not be conclusive if I did not have the affidavit of the Gruppenfuehrer of the Kurpfalz Group, Fust, and a member of the Group Staff, Zimmermann, who was present at the time, who testify that such an order as the one alleged by the Prosecution was never given. If such an order was never given, then there can be no report on action taken. But it was also proved by virtue of the affidavits of the collective summarization that no order of the kind charged by the Prosecution was issued to the Standarten of Brigade 50. This we learn from Standarten 115, 221, 126, 168, and 145. All these Standarten were part of Brigade 50. None of these Standarten received any such incriminating order as the Prosecution has alleged. Furthermore, it was proved by the testimony of the former Obergruppenfuehrer Mappes that Lutze countermanded Dr. Goebbels' order of 9 November 1938. Therefore, it was proved that the Supreme SA Leadership forbade participation in Goebbels' operation. It has been proved that this counterorder definitely reached the following groups: East Prussia, Center, Highland, Hesse, Lower Saxony (Affidavit Number General SA-90). Lutze's reaction when he learned of the events of 9 November 1938 has likewise been proved by an affidavit (General SA-71). As shown by the testimony of Siebel, Lutze ordered, as a consequence of the happenings of 9 November 1938, that in future orders of the Political Leadership were not to be carried out. He issued that order because he realized that various SA companies or SA members had been misused on the occasion of 9 November 1938 (Affidavit Number SA-80). If excesses occurred in which members of the SA participated, this still does not provide the Prosecution with grounds to condemn the SA as criminal. Since it has been proved that Lutze issued a counterorder, those events lie outside the organic body of the SA.
HERR BOEHM: From the sworn evidence of Edgar Stelzner (Affidavit Number General SA-89), we see how individual SA leaders repudiated these occurrences. In this way many SA units kept their records clean. There are whole districts in which nothing occurred. In the statistical collective summarization of the affidavits, I have shown that the following synagogues were protected from destruction by members of the SA: Bebra, Hoechstedt, Waldburg, Saubern, Grossumstadt, Bueckeburg. Further attempts to save synagogues were made in Marburg and Giessen by SA members. Moreover, the majority of the rural districts had no synagogues or Jews whatsoever. Absolutely no persecutions of Jews took place in these districts. The rural SA is thereby immediately excluded from this point of the Indictment. It would appear superfluous for me to point out that these excesses were repudiated by the overwhelming majority of SA members. How the SA Leadership regarded the Jewish question may be learned from the differences, already discussed, which the SA Leadership had with the editors and the Eher Publishing House because of those articles in the SA-Mann which it repudiated, although it lacked the power to make its views prevail. Its position with regard to the Jewish question is made completely clear by the fact that in various groups the Stuermer was expressly banned by the SA Leadership. This was the case for instance in the Nordmark Group (testimony of Klaehn and Juettner). The position adopted by the Supreme SA Leadership in regard to the Church question is quite unequivocal. The testimony of the Vicar General, Dr. David, Pastor Burgstaller, and Consistorial Councillor Dr. Rathke show that the Prosecution charged the SA with religious intolerance without justification. By far the overwhelming majority of all SA members still belong to one of the Christian Churches today. Protestant clergymen served in the ranks of the SA, for instance, Bishop Sasse of Thuringia, from which it appears that the SA Leadership did not exert any pressure to force people to leave the Church.
HERR BOEHM: This fact is clearly proved by many affidavits. I recall that Cardinal Count Galen was accompanied by SA members on his trips through the diocese, and that in many districts an order had been issued against scheduling SA training during church services and in the vicinity of churches. It is also a known fact that the SA held divine services in the field. In 1933 the SA furnished the guard of honor when the Holy Robe was exhibited in Treves (Testimony of Dr. David). In cross-examination of the witness Dr. David, the Defense proved that in the famous case in Freising, when the sermon of Cardinal Faulhaber was reported on, the SA Leadership initiated proceedings to punish those who were guilty of such excessive authority. In regard to the activity of the SA in connection with the guarding of concentration camps and their employment for police and auxiliary police duties, the Prosecution mention only a few cases. The SA is thereby excluded, even according to the Indictment, from the charges concerning the large concentration camps of Auschwitz, Maidanek, Belsen, Dachau, and Buchenwald. In the Vogel case the guilty persons were punished. The misunderstanding created by the Schellenberg affidavit was cleared up by the affidavit of Gontermann (Affidavit Number General SA-16). Schellenberg in London confused the concentration camp and police service with service in the municipal and rural guards. It is true that after 30 January 1933 a number of policemen and auxiliary policemen were employed for various purposes in certain provinces. They were taken in part from the ranks of the SA, (a) because it was desirable to have some proof of political reliability; (b) because among the many unemployed in the SA there were recruits for the profession of policemen or for auxiliary police work. When SA members selected as a new occupation, for instance, that of policeman, these were men who actually worked at this vocation.
HERR BOEHM: To the extent that they were temporarily employed as auxiliary policemen, which was frequently done as a probation period before being definitely employed as policemen, they were no longer subordinate to the SA but to the competent police authority. They occasionally still wore the SA uniform for a while, but only because there was a shortage of uniforms, and in such cases they wore an armband marked "Auxiliary Police." They received an appropriate identification card issued by the Police, the Landrat, or other authorities. The SA placed them on leave status for the duration of service of this kind, so that outwardly, too, they were separated from the SA and the latter was deprived of any opportunity of influencing them. In such cases, therefore, the individual concerned never acted as an SA-man. The uniform, which he often still kept for a while with the armband, was his sole and merely outward connection with the SA, and cannot alone decide the issue. This adoption of the uniform of an organization for a purpose and service alien to the organization occurred frequently in the SA and other organizations; for example, as Wehrmacht attendants or Volkssturm members. According to recognized principles of international law, the armband gave the uniform, or even a civilian suit, the sole stamp of the new service, which deviated from the original meaning of the SA. The individual charges raised against the SA in connection with concentration camp, police, and auxiliary police service can deal only with such purely superficial matters as are unjustly charged against the SA only on the basis of the uniform. The commanding agency was not the SA Leadership, but the State. The Prosecution tried to refute this argument in the cross-examination of Juettner by introducing documents which were supposed to prove that the SA had participated in the atrocities in the occupied territories, and in the concentration camps and forced labor camps. They did not succeed in this.