dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But the aims of the organization remained the same--fanatical support of the policy of the Nazi Government, the suppression of such opposition as remained, particularly the Churches and the Jews. And in addition intensive preparation for aggressive war. Already the SA and the SS had been employed in the action to dissolve the trade unions. The Church and the Jews remained an ever present problem. I have already referred to the Nazi Party's policy of suppression of all Church influence, but I would remind you of the part the SA was playing in this fight during the years after 1934. You remember the incident in Freising church in February 1935, when the Kreisleiterin instructed all her Nazi women to accompany SA storm troopers to attend the service in Freising church. It was SA men who arranged for the bells to ring during the Cardinal's service. It was SA men who afterwards led Hans Hiedl out into a field at night and beat him unmercifully for his resentment at the interference with the service, and I set out Hans Hiedl's account of the story (1507-PS, GB-535). "The leader took a handkerchief from his pocket and tied it over my mouth. He then pressed me to the ground and held me while the two others started beating me. They gave me about 15 to 20 heavy blows from the seat down to the ankle of the left foot. The gag became loose and I screamed loudly. They then let go of me and helped me up. I was given strict instructions not to tell anybody about this incident if I wanted to keep my business. They then gave me a kick and told me 'Now run home in a trot, you black brother.'" Are you impressed with the defense that that was only an isolated incident? When you consider the evidence of wholesale and widespread acts of violence which had characterized the SA in the eyes of all Germany and the world during the years of Nazi struggle, can you doubt that similar incidents were taking place throughout Germany in 1935 and afterwards, whenever the occasion presented itself? Does the very nature of an organization such as this change within a few months?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the nature and aims of the SA had changed, why should the SA-Mann have been publishing articles in 1937 and 1938 decrying the Church in such articles as: "My dear Franciscans" "The Black Balance--Political Catholicism" "The Church wants to dictate to the State" "Unmasked Political Catholicism" Finally, "Does the Vatican want War?" (3050-PS, USA-414). If the violent manners of the SA had been converted during these years, why should the official organ of its Supreme Leadership have been recounting stories of its early battles? Their titles tell their tale: "We subdue the Red Terror" "Nightly street battles on the Czech border" "The SA breaks the Red Terror" "Bloody Sunday in Berlin" (3050-PS, USA-414) and that description of "9 November 1923 in Nuremberg" when, during the height of the disturbances, someone shouted, "The Jewish place will be stormed! Out with the Jews!" (3050-PS, USA-414). The part the SA played in the ever-increasing persecution of the Jews dissolves any doubt there may be of the continuing criminality of that organization during the years after 1934. Of the boycott in April 1933 Goebbels had written in his biography: "1 April 1933: All Jewish stores are closed. At their entrances SA sentries are standing" (2409-PS, USA-262). It was only an example of how tbroughout all Germany the SA provided the Nazi Government with a means of putting its policy into effect. The instructions issued by the Defendant Streicher and his committee had directed: "The SA and the SS are instructed to warn the population by means of pickets from entering Jewish enterprises once the boycott has started" (3389-PS, USA-566). You have the evidence of Kurt Schmitt, Minister of Economics and member of the Reich Cabinet until January 1935: "... I have to say that the SA gained a more and more disastrous influence as a destructive element in economic and Jewish matters..." (4058-PS, USA-922).
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You have the evidence of their own witness, Freiherr von Waldenfels, who was asked: "Did the SA take an active part in the persecution of the Jews after 1934?" and answered: "As far as I have been told stories--yes. I myself saw the looting of shops in Munich, but whether that was done by order or whether it originated with individuals I cannot say." He tried to minimize the significance of the SA after 1934, but his evidence was quite clear. "Question: 'In their less important role did they continue the policy and practice that they had been carrying out before, the persecution of the Jews?' "Answer: 'There is no doubt.'" Goebbels, speaking to the SA in October 1935, reminded them that they were the "strongest arm of the Movement" and that the Nazi Government was an "anti-Jewish Government" (3211-PS, USA-419). if the active persecution of the Jews was not a continuing role of the SA, after 1934, why should Lutze, Chief of Staff of the SA, speaking to the Diplomatic Corps and deputies of the foreign press in January 1936, have had to explain away the title with which the foreign press so often branded the SA--"The bearer of a barbaric and uncivilized race struggle"? (2471-PS, USA-413). Why should all these articles have been appearing in the SA-Mann almost monthly during-the years 1935-1939 in wording so similar to that favoured by Der Stuermer ? The titles are sufficient to indicate their nature. I only draw attention to three: "Murder, the Jewish Slogan"; "Jewish World Revolution in the U.S.A."; "Gravediggers of World-Culture" (3050-PS, USA-414). And if the members of the SA were not in fact continuously and actively persecuting the Jews after 1934, how is it possible to account for the part they played in the demonstrations of November 1938? You will remember the instructions received by the SA 50th Brigade at Darmstadt in the early morning of 10 November: "On the order of the Gruppenfuehrer all the Jewish synagogues within the 50th Brigade are to be blown up or set on fire immediately....
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The action is to be carried out in civilian clothes" (1721-PS, USA-425). You will remember also the reports of the different SA Fuehrer to the SA Group Headquarters of the Electoral Palatinate--in the area of the 50th Brigade, 35 synagogues blown up, destroyed by fire, or wrecked; in Mannheim, 21 synagogues, churches, or meeting houses; in the area of Standarte 174 of 151st Brigade, all the synagogues destroyed and Jews taken into protective custody; in the area of Standarte 250, 11 synagogues destroyed, all shop windows of Jewish stores broken, the Rabbi and several prominent Jews taken into protective custody by the Gestapo "for their own safety," the "infamous Rabbi Neuburger," who was known because of his foreign connections, taken into protective custody "at the instigation of the SA," together with all male Jews from various villages; in the area of Standarte 17, two synagogues completely burnt down and several Jewish stores demolished; and the report from the 51st Brigade--"Completion of the matter of the synagogues. Everything has been carried out up to Roehlsheim." Then, My Lord, I give some further details and I ask Your Lordship to leave the next paragraph and go on to the last paragraph on that page, where I say: Those events in the Mannheim district cannot have been, as the Defense would have you believe, an exception to the policy of the SA Leadership and to the general behavior of SA members in the rest of Germany. Altogether 267 synagogues were destroyed that night. We can properly ask: Why should the 50th, 51st, and 151st Brigades alone have received instructions to destroy all synagogues? Why should Juettner himself have issued to, all SA units the orders from Hess that all offices of the Party and its branches which had safeguarded valuable property were to hand it over to the nearest office of the Gestapo? We ask you to say that that evidence is in itself conclusive.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Nevertheless you have in addition the report of the proceedings of the Supreme Party Court in connection with the murders of Jews which took place during those demonstrations. Fifteen SA men committed murder. They did so all over Germany: in East Prussia, in Dessau, in Hanover, in Bremen, in Saxony, and in Munich. Were they, too, all isolated incidents? Goering's biographer wrote of the SA in 1937: "The present reorganization of the Security Police is hardly noticed by the public. Their ranks are strengthened by the SA, the most reliable instrument of the Movement" (3252-PS, USA-424). Hardly could any organization have received a more damning testimony. I pass to the preparation for war and wartime activities Immediately after the Nazi Party came to power the SA became the embryo army with which the Nazis commenced their preparation for aggressive war. Geist, the American Consul, tells you: "Particularly through the years 1933 and 1934 hordes of storm troopers and SA were much in evidence practising military exercises. They were being converted into a military organization. I frequently encountered, the storm troopers deployed in fields and forests engaged in military technical exercises. This was all part of a general plan to prepare Germany's manpower for war" (1759-PS, USA-240). Geist's assumption is confirmed by Lutze himself, writing in 1939: "But already in 1920, at the founding of the SA, the Fuehrer established the extensive mission of this SA.... The SA shall be the bearer of the military thought of a free people. In the same sense the Fuehrer said in his book Mein Kampf : 'Give the German nation 6 million perfectly trained bodies in sport, all fanatically inspired with the love of the Fatherland and trained to the highest intensive spirit, and a National Socialist State will, if necessary, have created an army out of them in less than two years.' "The men never forget the mission of the Fuehrer to require the military training of the German man and to reconstruct the military spirit in the German people" (3215-PS, USA-426).
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What use is it for SA witnesses to come now and tell this Tribunal that "The SA did not have any military character and did not desire to have it.... The SA always preserved the nonmilitary character of its training program." There is abundant other evidence of the military character and purpose of the SA and of its intensive training and preparation for war. Dr. Ernst Bayer, writing on the orders of the Supreme SA Headquarters in 1938, yet again describes the aims of the SA: "The SA was commissioned to obtain an increase and preservation of a warlike power and a warlike spirit in the German people" (2168-PS, USA-411). As early as May 1933, Von Reichenau. suggested that the Supreme Command of the SA should be represented on the Reich Defense Council, and I add that there was a pencil note showing that that has already been done (2822-PS, GB-205). A regular officer was appointed to the SA to assist them in "military" training. "For the purpose of camouflage... he was to wear SA uniform" (2823-PS, USA-429). We know the form which the training took from 1933 until 1939 from the training directives and other documents--some issued by Lutze himself--shooting, grenade throwing, judging distance, map-reading, and marching (2820-PS, USA-427; 1849-PS and GB-610; 2401-PS, USA-430; D-918, GB-594). We know also that as early as July 1933 the SA had formed specialized units such as signals and motorized companies and separate air wings. The SA Command was anxiously stressing the need for secrecy in the case of any publications, I quote, "which might give other countries an opening to construe German infringement of the terms of the Versailles Treaty" (D-44, USA-428). The publication of pictures "enabling other countries to prove the alleged formation of technical troop units" was forbidden. It is hardly necessary again to quote Dr.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Ernst Bayer to see the purpose of these technical units, but I quote him: "There originates in these technical units of the SA a trained crew whose capabilities and knowledge are not the last things of extraordinary value in the service for defense of the country" (2168-PS, USA-411). Similarly he wrote of the Reiter Corps: "...At present the SA each year is able to furnish many thousands of young trained cavalrymen to our Wehrmacht" (2168-PS, USA-411). Can we doubt that every member of the SA knew to what end all this was leading when the Chief of Staff himself was saying publicly that the training principle of the SA was "always the spiritual, moral, and physical culture of militarization of the whole German nation"? (3050-PS, USA-414). In March 1934 permanent liaison had been established between the SA and the Reich Defense Ministry in connection with all "A" tasks. Juettner has explained what these "A" tasks were -- "training and border protection." Did border protection mean preparations for the military seizure of the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia? In that same month of 1934, the SA were in fact forming in the Rhineland an armed staff with a heavy machine gun company (D-951, GB-607). Early in 1934 the SA were also making plans--I quote: "...to have the Austrian formations in Bavaria march into Austria around 8 or 9 February. Then a military dictatorship would be proclaimed" (4013-PS, GB-608). The account of the part the SA played in the abortive Dollfuss Putsch is before you. When the time eventually came for the Anschluss, SA units were among the first to enter Austria (3050-PS, USA-414).
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David--
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship-- [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.] Afternoon Session
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I continue with the military activities of the SA, with the last sentence on Page 62. In Czechoslovakia the SA provided the chief support for the Sudeten Free Corps. In October 1938, a few weeks after the Munich crisis, the OKW liaison officer with the Free Corps reported: "Supplies had been organized by the SA, ...arms supplied by the Austrian SA. With magnificent camaraderie and unselfishness, the SA Leadership had looked after the Free Corps materially. Equipping and feeding remained in the care of the NSDAP and the SA." My Lord, I add, to remind the Tribunal that in the appendix to that document there will be found a list of the prisoners, the booty taken by the Free Corps, and the casualties inflicted by them in what was a time of peace. This support to the Free Corps was certainly included in "border control," as Juettner himself admitted. The crimes of the SA did not end with the outbreak of war. Again I quote from the witness Juettner: "At the beginning of the war with Poland the SA Group Sudeten carried out transports of prisoners of war into the camp. Other SA groups in the East may have been used for similar purposes. Later on the SA Leadership and the SA as an organization had nothing to do with this question." When you consider the evidence you have heard of the appalling conditions in which these prisoners from the East were transported into their camps, are you satisfied that that task of guarding transports was as innocent as it appears? Juettner has also left us a report, dated June 1941, describing the activity of the SA in the war. In the communication zones its members gave assistance to the Political Leaders in their tasks of education and orientation. 21 groups of SA men were being used for guarding prisoners. The organization of the SA groups in Danzig, Posen, Silesia, and the Baltic provinces is described in these words: "In these regions also, as before in the fight for power, the SA was the assault unit of the Party....
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In these regions also SA service, practically speaking, is 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 appearance and bearing into keeping with SA standards" (4911-PS, GB-596). How sinister these innocent words become in view of all the evidence of what was, taking place in these eastern and Baltic provinces. The administration of the ghetto of Vilna was in the hands of the SA and its inmates were guarded by SA guards. Some of these Jews were made to live enchained in deep pits where the SA "...fastened chains round both ankles and round the waist; they weighed 2 kilos each and we could only take small steps when wearing them. We wore them permanently for 6 months. The SA said that if any man removed the chains he would be hanged" (D-964, GB-597). Their work consisted of digging up mass graves: "We dug up altogether 80,000 bodies .... Amongst those I dug up I found my own brother" (D-964, GB-597). At Vilna, too, SA guards were forcing the Jews to extract the gold from, the teeth of their dead brothers with prongs, washing it in benzine and packing it into, 8 kilogram boxes which the SA officer in charge personally took away.
HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, I believe that the statements which were just made refer to Affidavit D-964, the submission of which by the Prosecution was rejected by the Court. It is Affidavit GB-597. The whole affidavit is reproduced in print here on Page 64, and the contents of the statements just made have been taken from this affidavit, the submission of which is not approved.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I respectfully disagree with Dr. Boehm I have the affidavit in front of me, D-964, which has the exhibit number GB-597. Paragraph 7 reads: "Our work consisted in digging up mass graves, removing the bodies and burning them."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. But, Sir David, what Dr. Boehm was saying is that we rejected the affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, not this affidavit. I distinctly remember reading it. It has an exhibit number. I selected one affidavit dealing with each kind, and this one of Szloma Gol was the affidavit I selected with regard to Vilna.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, what ground do you have for saying that it was rejected? If it was rejected, you must have some reasons for thinking so? Where is the transcript? Do you have the transcript with you?
HERR BOEHM: I am of the opinion that this affidavit was among those affidavits the submission of which the Court rejected. At the moment I cannot look into this, but I shall be glad to do so after the session, in order to make sure that this is correct. I believe that this affidavit belonged to the affidavits which were rejected on account of the conclusion of the submission of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: This was not one of the 11 affidavits which were rejected?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord. Your Lordship will, remember that I had about a half dozen Jewish witnesses from the Baltic provinces, and the Tribunal said that I could call three, and that they were to be available for cross-examination by Dr. Boehm The deponent of this affidavit, Szloma Gol, was one of the three that I selected, and I put in this affidavit, which received the Exhibit Number GB-597. My Lord, that is the recollection of myself, of Colonel Griffith-Jones and of Major Barrington, who were helping me at the time. And the fact that it has an exhibit number is prima facie evidence that the Tribunal accepted it.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better go on. If Dr. Boehm can produce evidence that it was rejected, it will be stricken from your speech and will be disregarded.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Very well, My Lord. The ghetto of Schaulen; south of Riga, was in charge of the SA. 700 to 800 men were there, recognizable by their brown uniforms and swastika armlets. "In August 1941 the SA surrounded the whole ghetto and numbers of them went into the houses and took out women, children, and old men and put them into lorries and drove them away. I saw all this myself. It was done exclusively by SA. I saw them take children by the hair and throw  them into the lorries. I did not see what happened to them but a Lithuanian told me afterwards that they had been driven 20 kms. away and shot. He said he had seen the SA make them undress and shoot them with automatic pistols" (D-969, GB-600). The SA guarded the ghetto of Kaunas where 10,500 Jews were shot in the dreadful "action" of 28 October 1941. So also did they guard the labor camps of Sakrau, Mechtal, Markstedt, Klettendorf, Langenbielau, Faulbrueck, Reichenbach, and Annaberg in Upper Silesia, where Poles, Frenchmen, Belgians, Dutch, and Greeks slaved and died through ill-treatment and malnutrition and where "the methods of the SA by no means lagged behind those of the SS." There can be no doubt of the veracity of these Jews who underwent those years of nightmare in the ghettos and labor camps in the East. Not only are the conditions they describe confirmed again and again from other sources and from the Germans' own documents, but even the identification of a particular SA man they mention is corroborated. Leib Kibart gave you the name of the district commissioner in whose courtyard the Jews from the Schaulen ghetto were daily cursed and beaten by their SA guards. He told you he was called Gewecke and that he was a member of the SA. We have the signature of Gewecke on one of his own letters dated 8 September 1941, complaining that the SS were interfering in his arrangements for the "orderly confiscation of Jewish property." The letter-heading on that document is "The Regional Kommissar in Schaulen." Nor was it only in guarding duties that the SA were employed.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They were forming Einsatzkommandos of their own, and units of the SA were sharing in the bloody work of annihilating the partisans. The Regional Commander of the Security Police and SD in Krakow, in writing to the Defendant Frank, tells of the work of a special SA Einsatzkommando which was formed for the purpose of collecting workers from the civilian population. The Generalkommissar for White Ruthenia reported in June 1943 that, "By order of the Chief of Band Combating, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Von dem Bach, units of the Wehrmannschaften have also participated in the operation. SA Standartenfuehrer Kunze was in command of the Wehrmannschaften" (R-135, USA-289). That action to which the Generalkommissar referred was the terrible operation "Cottbus," which you will remember and of which the Generalkommissar reported "the political effect upon the peaceful population is simply dreadful in view of the many shootings of women and children." The SA had been organized in the Government General in 1941. Speaking in December 1943, the Defendant Frank said: "When 2 1/2 years ago I gave orders for the SA to be formed, I was guided by a thought which today fills me more emphatically than ever. I strove to ensure... that an emergency reserve of absolutely unshakable National Socialists should, under all circumstances, exist in the Government General. It is quite clear that this emergency reserve of pronounced National Socialist fighters can only be the SA.... Here as an SA comrade with my SA comrades I can, within the framework of the SA, truly cultivate what has to do with the 'Volk' in a way which I cannot do in the political field, where I have to take numerous things into account and have top have a whip in my hand without interruption, like a lion-tamer in a lion's cage, in order to keep the bandits in check. That is a point of view which a Gauleiter in the Reich never need take into account....