They gave their life in the belief and for fighting for a just cause. They were patriots, and they did not commit any injustice or barbarous act. And event today, I admit having belonged to a decent Leadership Corps, and I will speak that even today.
Q Were you paid for this work? worked for pay. Only the Fuehrers of the so-called Untergruppen, the lower Gruppen In each Gau received a certain remuneration of perhaps Three Hundred marks a month. After 1933 a table of remunerations was established. In 1940 there was a small increase In ray. Who highest basic salary for an Obergruppenfuehrer was Twelve Hundred Marks a month. Beginning with the Scharfuehrer up to the Obersturmfuehrer inclusively, all SA leaders, with the exception of the auxiliary personnel, were honorary members of the entire Fuehrer Corps. Roughly, two percent were paid and that included those who hole this position as secondary.
Q What was the division of the SA Leadership Corps?
administration leaders, and SA sanitation leaders. The SA leaders comprised the leadership staff and they headed the units. The SA administration leaders concerned themselves with the budget, with money matters. Together with the leaders of the administration of the other formations and of the Party, they comprised a special leadership body and bad to follow the directives of the Reich Treasurer. The medical leaders were physicians and druggists; they were charged with the health of the SA. whatsoever on the leadership of the SA, and they had no right to have any. purposes, the so-called ZV leaders and honorary leaders, some of which are among the main defendants here.
Q Is not one of the main defendants an honorary leader?
A Yes, I believe several of thorn are. Honorary leaders were Messrs. Goering, Frank, Sauckel, von Schirach, Streicher, and, to my knowledge, perhaps Wess and Bormann. were not at all informed about the business affairs of the SA. They Lad neither the opportunity nor the authority to influence training, leadership, or use of the SA. They solely had the right to wear the SA uniform and, when it came to meetings and festivities, to march in the ranks of the SA leadership and take their positions there. Even Hermann Goering -- who in the year 1923 headed the SA temporarily, at a time when it comprised but a few thousand men did not have any influence on the SA after that time, nor did be even have the time to do that. His nomination as chief of the unit Feldherrnhalle was only a nominal honor. merit or members -- even feminine members -- of reigning houses received the same distinction.
13 AUG A LJG 21-2 Daniels Mr. Frank was made leader of the SA by the Staff Chief Lutze, for the General Government.
And that, as well, was and remained only an external honor, or rather, only a nominal one, because the leadership itself was carried out by a special leadership staff under Brigade Loader Pelz, and later Pluenemund. He did not receive any orders concerning the leadership of the SA in that region from the staff chief; orders like that went to the ZV leadership staff that I have mentioned, and that, in turn, was responsible far the higher SA leadership.
for special tasks of service, but only if they were ready to do so. They were consulting services, for example on legal and social questions.
Q Of what types of people in general was the SA comprised? first World war, that is, soldiers and young idealists who loved their country above all. The SA was not, as the witness Gisevius asserted, a criminal or gangster organization, or a mob of gangsters; rather, as Lewis Sinclair allegedly wrote, they were pure idealists. Many clergymen who carried out their office, many students of theology, belonged to the SA as active members or part-time members up until the very end. were criminal actions demanded of him, and that the SA never pursued criminal aims. members of the SA who came into conflict with existing laws? all parts of the Reich were interned, partial lists were kept and investigations were started with the result that it was not possible to judge generally about the SA. However, in this connection it was found that of the SA men interned, not even one percent -- That is, .65 percent -- had been punished as criminals before. As opposed to that, the Reich Bureau of Statistics gave out a figure of 1.67 of those who had been punished as criminals before. example, excesses and abuses were committed by members of the SA such as are asserted in the Indictment?
A These excesses cannot and should not be apologized for. They are excesses such as occur in every revolutionary movement, for example, such as the German revolution in 1918, or similar incidents in the past in other countries. These excesses were revolutionary actions committed by political fighters who were not satisfied.
Q Aren't there also other explanations for these excesses?
A You can list the whole serious of circumstances. One would not excuse such excesses, but perhaps right explain them. For example, point 1: police took especially strong measures, and one-sided measures, against the SA. The result was a distrust of the police. It happened in the year 1933 riots and civil war threatened in the interior of the country. It is quite understandable, even if you cannot excuse the fact, that to me would try to place themselves in the position of the police, which was considered unreliable, and would consider themselves called upon to protect the State, and in that way would let themselves be plunged into excesses.
Point 2: SA. Almost all other political parties participated in this campaign of hate. There were invitations for activities, posters with the slogan, "Beat the Fascists where you find them", "Down with the SA", chicaneries committed toward SA members at their places of work, oppression of the children of members at school, boycotts of businesses whose owners were SA members, attacks on individual SA men and on members of the Steel Helmet, and so on. For example, in my home district of Halle, at that time, 43 dead were mourned, members of the Steel Helmet and men.
able and so people thought they could square the old accounts as far as politic opponents were concerned after 1933. after '33 a mass overrunning to the SA took place. The investigation of the dece of the individual of course suffered perforce and, as can be proved, dark element and provocateurs sneaked in with the intention of damaging the reputation of the SA. The excesses, therefore, were not just the final note of the political conflict before 1933 but rather, in many cases, they were committed by just such provocateurs. The organization, as such, did not accrue any guilt. It kept its distance from the evil doers, and the leadership objected to these evil doings when they were advised of it. excesses as occurred in the year 1933? Minister for the Interior and his deputies, constantly worked together so that excesses like that could be prevented. Staff Chief Roehm selected people for to auxiliary and selected men from the SA for the Feldjaeger Corps, which was established in Prussia and which proved itself. Secondly, the SA leadership, in order to gain confidence, participated and worked in the cleaning of its own ran of provocateurs with the police and auxiliary police; mediocre people were at the same time removed from the SA. Anyone who was proved guilty of any excesses was punished. The SA leadership of its own accord further set up an SA Patrol Service so that the attitude of its men and the deportment of its men in the streets and in public life could be watched. And finally, it was always the main care of the SA leadership to have the many unemployed put to work, to have them taken away from the streets and put in commensurate professions, and for that person the numerous social measures of the SA leadership were directed toward the many institutions for professional reconversion, the many settlements and similar works. SA members, was that a large number? tained were infinitesmally small, and in addition to that, another point should not be forgotten.
In all of these excesses the SA was always accused, for at that time everyone in a brown shirt was characterized as an SA man, regardless of when her he was a member of the SA or not. Through that, perforce, in world opinion a distorted picture of the SA must have arisen; prejudices were bound to arise of course, to the detriment of the SA. The SA was blamed for many excesses where SA members were not participating at all. courts would be undertaken to squash excesses on the part of SA members? undertaken. In periods of general amnesty the SA leadership naturally demanded the pardoning of its own members. court tried to use influence on behalf of SA membership who had participated in the shooting of Jews. Do you know about this request?
A I do not know this request. Here in my internment I heard, about it however
Q And was your position in line with this request? that first of all the man who was responsible for this action be called to account.
Q Do you consider this attitude of the highest Party court correct?
A This demand is taken quite from my heart. It is to be regretted that the highest Party court could not make its will prevail. A demand that men who had she. others should go scot free and would, not be sentenced by regular courts is not to be justified under any conditions. SA at all? this in November of 1938, was that those who had, been found to be guilty be punish ed, not only on behalf of the SA but also through the regular courts. As far as the Staff Chief Lutze received knowledge of cases like that, to my knowledge, he tried to do the necessary thing. In the SA we had an agreement with the judicial authority ties that if an SA man committed a misdeed and was to be brought before a court, the SA leadership would be notified so that it could suspend this man from service at once and, as the case might be, could prohibit him from wearing the SA, uniform, and, in the last analysis, to punish him on its own initiative.
This principle was applied in the action of November, 1938 by Staff Chief Lutze.
Q What was the opinion and the attitude of the SA on the Jewish question? the life of the State, in economic and commercial matters, be commensurate with their minority in Germany and be limited in accord with that it acted on the basis of the Numerous Clausus.
Q And what was the reason for this demand or this attitude? in that after the War, 1919, a number of Jewish people emmigrated from Poland to Germany and entered into the economic and other spheres of life in an undesirab manner and by profiteering. It is well known through large judicial proceedings that these disintegrating influence caused ill-will and a movement contrary to in Even the Jews who had lived in Germany for a long time and societies of German citizens of the Jewish faith defined their positions against those forces and, in part, they took a very sharp position. From these facts you can understand the demand of the SA.
Q Did the SA incite active violence against the Jews?
A No, in no way. Staff Chiefs Roehm, Lutze, Scheppmann, at no time did they make the Jewish question the topic of their speeches or their directives; you can not talk of any incitment against them. The concept of a master race was never fostered in the SA; that would have been quite contrary to reason, for the SA received its replacements from all tracks. The extermination of a people because of its type Was never a cause for which the SA held any brief, and actions of violent against Jews was not favored by the SA. Quite the contrary. Then leadership always objected most strongly to actions of that kind.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps that will a convenient time to break off. How long do you think you are going to be with this witness?
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I believe I will need another hour to interrogate the witness, perhaps an hour and a half to examine him.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 14 August 1946, at 1000 hours.)
BY DR. BOEHM:
Q. Witness, yesterday we left off in your examination about the dealing with the Jewish question as related to the SA. Now I should like to ask you :What was the participation of members of the SA in actions against the Jews in November 1938 and how can you explain that ?
A. I beg to be able to call your attention to the fact that there seems to be a technical disturbance in my microphone.
Q. Can you hear now ?
A. Yes.
Q. In your testimony yesterday, we left off with the matter of the Jewish question within the SA and now I should like to ask you :"What was the participation of the members of the SA in November of 1938 and how was that to be explained ?
A. The participation of the members of the SA in this action, those were actions which could not be excused. They were isolated incidents and they were in complete contradiction to the directive of the leadership of Staff Chief Lutze. Lutze was in Munich in the old city hall (Rathaus). There, in connection with the speech made by Dr. Goebbels, he immediately called the chief of the administrative office, Obergruppenfuehrer Mappe and charged him to go to the Hotel Reinhof where a part of the SA leaders, who had been present, had gone; and he was to tell this SA leadership not to participate in any way in any action against the Jews whatsoever. Perhaps an hour afterwards, when he received word that the synogogue in Munich had been set on fire, Lutze, in my presence, told the SA leaders who were still in the large festival hall of the city hall in Munich -- he repeated this prohibition to them and said that this order was to be passed along to all units immediately.
This did take place and is confirmed by the fact that in many places no actions were carried through at all and numerous SA men know the contents of the order and can give their oath on it. members of the SA participated in the destruction of Jewish installations? uals let themselves be persuaded through agencies who without doubt, were under the influence of Dr. Goebbels. Indeed and in fact, compared with the strength of the SA, relatively few real members of the SA participated in this action , even though public opinion later blamed the SA for this action and here again, it turned out that everyone in a brown shirt was characterized as an SA man. The SA was in no way the bearer or the initiator of this action as may be seen as well from the fact that, as I learned from the press in the last few months, isolated places, such as in Bamberg, Stuttgart, and I believe, in Hof as well, people were sentenced who had destroyed synagogues and who had not belonged to the SA and the fact as well, that many SA men volunteered to protect Jewish installations against subversive elements. That may have created the opinion in public life that the SA had actually committed these misdeeds. In any event, Staff Chief Lutze, a few days later, gave voice to his indignation to Dr. Goebbels about the action itself, about the unjustified accusation against the SA and of the persuading of the SA men to misdeeds and he objected to this most strenuously. Soon after, he issued an order that in the future SA men would not put themselves at the disposal of other agencies for further action unless he himself had given the respective approval or permission. Staff Chief Lutze punished the guilty ones and as the case might have been, they were turned over to the regular courts for sentencing.
Luts defined his attitude about using SA membership politically? tasks or rather to demand from these tasks the following : Participation in Gau and Kreis roll calls ; the land for the use of the SA in cases of a catastrophic nature and then for propaganda purposes; for meetings for the collection of clothing and the winter help system. These were the demands which the political leadership put to the SA in the course of the year. Other demands of an illegal nature, as far as in order to elimate Dr. Goebbel's influence on the SA, Lutze issued this order.
Q. The prosecution in this trial, under the No. 1721-PS submitted a document; it is a report of Brigade No, 51 to the Group Kurpfalz. I should like to have this document shown to you and then I should like to ask you whether any investigations were taken in these matters.
A. After this action, we started investigations out of the sector Group Kurpfalz. Actions of that nature, evil deeds such as are reported in this document, were not reported to us, and I consider it quite out of the question that these matters which are reproduced here are in accord with the facts.
Q. Now I would like to put a series of questions to you which would have been superfluous if the witnesses Lucke and Fuss could have been interrogated in this court. Lucke is the person who made this report and Fuss is the one to whom it allegedly was sent.
Now, I should like to ask you: Are reports like that, with the orders contained in the report, customary in SA service channels?
A. In my entire activity as chief of the main office and as permanent deputy, I never observed that in reports of this kind such orders were repeateverbatim, and apart from that I should like to say that the leader of this group, who was Obergruppenfuehrer Fuss, at the time he allegedly transmitted this report was in Munich in the old city hall, and then in the Hotel Reinhof He received this prohibition from Staff Chief Lutze in the presence of Obergruppenhuehrer Mappe. He transmitted this prohibition to his group by telephone. When Fuss returned to Mannheim, as I know, he convinced himself of the fact that the transmission of this order had taken place and that, in accordance with it, SA men were furnished for the guarding of Jewish installations. SA leader by the name of Zimmerman, confirms that the Gruppenfuehrer was told to do exactly the opposite of that which is contained in this document as a group order, and that he furnished SA men as guarding units, and that he saw them guard Jewish installations. In the interment camps, men who belonged to this group, who headed units of this group, will testify to the fact that they never received an order like the one which allegedly was given.
Q. Was it customary in SA phraseology to say "Jewish synagogues"?
A. No, there was no expression like that. If you spoke of Jewish churche you said "synagogues". The concept "Jewish" was therefore included, just as when you speak of a mosque the concept "Mohammedan" is inseparable from it. In the same way, if you speak of synagogues, you do not say "Jewish sunagogue but you just say "synagogues".
Q. And in the order there is mention of an "Aryan population". Was it possible to have this phraseology used or was it customary, or is it true that that is divergent and does not apply?
A. If this order had been given, one would not have said "aside from houses which were inhabited by Aryan populations" byt one would have said "these houses which were inhabited by Germans or similar people". "Aryans" would not have been used in this connection.
Q. Does it sound probable or creidble to you that in the year 1938, at a time when the National Socialist power was consolidated 100 per cent, when mutiny and plundering was to be prevented, this phraseology would have been used?
A. This speaks quite truly against the authenticity of the report submitted here. Any incentive to mention anything like mutiny and plundering in this connection would be quite inexplicable. There is no reason for mentioning anything like that.
Q. Would it have been possible, or would it have been understandable that a group, with reference to on order from a brigade, would have sent the report of execution to the Brigadefuehrer?
A. That would have been quite senseless. The brigade would not send any order like that to itself.
Q. But in this report that is expressed, isn't that right?
A. Yes, and that would speak against the authenticity of this report which is here reproduced.
Q. And what would you gather from the way in which the order is set up
A. I conclude from it, to put it briefly, that this order was never given, and that he who invented it had no idea of the language used in commands by the SA.
Q. Was it customary and in accord with the transmission of order that orders were not given along official channels, but that matters were handled in the way set out, according to which the Standartenfuehrers were alerted, and they would have been instructed exactly, and that in this connection the beginning of the execution of the order would have been reported on?
A. Quite apart from the fact that a report of execution would, never have been given in the form in which I have it before me, it was customary with us that orders were transmitted through official channels. Then the execution began. At the beginning of the execution to have that emphasized or to have it reported on is quite out of the question, for each order needed on execution per se, and a report would have to be given if certain difficulties would arise out of the execution of the order.
Q. And what do you conclude from the entirety of this improbable and most likely untrue copy of the 11th of November 1938?
A. I believe I hare stated already that this document here in itself speaks against its authenticity, and that we are concerned with a forgery here. When I look at this document I must arrive at the conclusion that as far as time is concerned, the execution -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Could you give me the number of the document ?
DR. BOEHM: It is 1721-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you the I we have heard enough about it now? We have heard considerable argument that it is not authentic.
Dr. BOEHM: Mr. President, we are concerned with this matter, that if the two witnesses who would have been competent in this matter could have been brought here, they could have clarified the matter in such a way that there could be no doubt about this forgery, for it this report of execution were true and correct, the SA would have been incriminated tremendously therby.
THE PRESIDENT: I know that, but the witness has been telling us that for the last ten minutes. BY DR. BOEHM:
Q. In connection with the document 1721-PS, under the same number you will find a command given out by the highest SA leadership. An order which you signed was submitted, which says:
"In connection with the actions against the Jews arising from the public, valuable objects had to be safeguarded here and there by the offices of the Party and its branches for the protection of German public property. I order that such objects be turned over at once to the nearest office of the Secret State Police and receipts be given therefor.
"If, in connection with these actions, the offices of the Party and their branches should become aware or have been aware of thefts which unfortunately may have occurred, it is to be reported at once to the nearest Police Station. The some is to be done upon the appearance of suspicious objects.
"The offices of the police are to be aided to the fullest extent in accomplishing their assignment." which are mentioned here in were to be turned over to a certain place from which they were never to return to their legal owners.
Now, I should like to ask you: What was the origin of this order? How did it arise? Could one gather from the contents of this order, which emphasizes that the offices of the police in carrying out their assignment are to be aided as much as possible, that it was your intention not to have the Jewish property which had been stolen returned?
acquainted with this order which was just read to me. According to my memory, it dates to the 29th of November. At that time, on the 29th of November, I knew exactly that Adolf Hitler, above all, Hermann Goering, Rudolf Hess, and Lutze most severaly rejected this action of November, 1938. The order which bears my signature is not contested by me. It is a reproduction of a directive of the office of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, Rudolf Hess. Thereupon it is to be traced back to its source. Since I knew that Rudolph Hess was known as a truly legal person and banned this action to the utmost, I had to assume from his instructions that it was intended that stolen property be restored to its original owners, who ware the Jews. Any other assumption was quite out of the question for me. That this property was to be taken to the police, first of all, and to have them serve as trustees, was a matter which was quite natural, for in my eyes I considered the police the guardians of law and order, and I did not consider their office to keep or to steal the property of other people.
Q Now I should like to turn to a different pattern of questions. The witness Schellenberg has stated that in the years 1943 and 1944 the SA leadership took over not only the guardianship of concentration camps, but also of work camps and prisoner of war camps, and that they made every effort to do so. Will you please comment on that?
A May I ask what was the year again? of the Staff Chief. As before, in this time as well, I never endeavored to get into the hands of the SA the tasks which had been given to other agencies, and especially do I mean tasks of a police nature. Neither did I endeavor to take over tasks nor did I have negotiations of that nature carried out. Apart from that, in my internment after this accusation against the SA was made to me from the indictment, I discussed this matter with Mr. Schellenberg. Mr. Schellenberg told me that the reproduction of his testimony must rest on a misunderstanding. He had meant to say conversations of the SA with the Reichsfuehrer SS about questions of city and country guarding.
Conversations of that nature are not contested, not disputed, by me. They dealt with allocation of time in periods of service, so that on a legal basis members of the SA who were obliged to serve in the Stadt and Land Wacht would not get into any trouble through the fact that at the time SA service would take place. That was the reason for these conversations. And when the concentration camps were taken over by the Reichsfuehrer SS, the SA had no connection with the guarding of concentration camps, prisoner of war camps, and work camps, and I have received no knowledge to the effect that isolated SA men were obligated by law to carry out tasks of that nature. problems. complete freedom of choice. Staff Chief Roehm was a church member. Apart from that, as I remember, in the year 1934 they gave out instructions to the SA according to which he prohibited SA men in any way to hold a position or a view in church questions in conflict, for the reason that in that way the community of the SA could be disturbed, I personally was a church member, and I have always been a member. As the permanent deputy of the Staff Chief, I was a church member also. The greater bulk of the SA membership, the great majority, were church members. Many members of the SA -- that is, not just isolated members -- and this holds true up until the end -- were in church councils and were active in that position. This is a fact well known to us and something which we never tried to deny. Staff Chief Lutze issued an order about this, that any SA service was to be suspended during the time of church services. Christianity and tried to make that principle its own?
A I believe I can give you a complete "Yes." work of the SA. How can you justify the fact that the work of the SA did not serve as a preparation for war?
Those things which the SA did in the past can be judged correctly only with a view to the situation that applied at the time. It cannot be judged according to the situation which has arisen now, and according to the picture which has been gathered now because of the war. The situation which obtained in Germany at the time, if I am correctly informed, Your Lordship, has been described fully and at length in this courtroom. But I should like to emphasize that the German men of that day, because of the need which prevailed, had been run-down physically very, very much. They were hardly fit for service and hardly suitable even for work. The degree of their suitability and their character had reached an almost horrifying low level. It was the only endeavor of the SA to contribute to the fact that in Germany once more a strong and brave body of men would arise who in all states of the country would be willing and able to serve and be fit for service. In 1933 there threatened civil war and riots in Germany. Behind us we had the Polish riots. Because of its central position, Germany was dependent more on the safety of her boundaries and had to be more on the lookout. Finally, this country, which is poof in raw materials, was forced to try to circumvent natural catastrophes so that greater damages would be prevented. For that it needed a well trained, healthy body of men who were ready for military service. And to train those men, that was the task set for itself by the SA. how could you prove the fact that this belief of the SA in a peaceful development actually did apply?
A The SA truly did not want a war. Hundreds of thousands of former combat soldiers of the first World War were in the SA. These men know that war was an unholy sacrifice. They did not want war. For the sake of their country and also for the sake of their own existence they wanted, a peaceful development. In 1939 up until the August days, the end of August -- and I myself was here in Nuremberg in connection with the Reichsparteitag, the Party Rallies, and busy with arranging for the special festivities which were to take place -- we did not think of war. They were not enthusiastic about the war. Rather, they met it with indignation and were crestfallen. We always believed in peace, because of many historical events in the past, the naval agreement with England, agreements with Poland, trade agreements with other states, friendly relations with the south-eastern states of Europe, and above all, the events which had reconciled the peoples at the Olympic games in 1936.
For all of these reasons we believed in peace: because of the collaboration of the Front Soldiers' Organization of the European countries which was supported by the SA; because of the increasing expansion of the youth societies of the various states; because of the regular international workers' meetings at Hamburg; and we knew of the friendly courtesy visists from the great statesmen of other states which were paid to Adolf Hitler.
We knew of the publicity of prominent foreigners as to the Third Reich and finally it was the Munich agreement which we hailed with joy and with enthusiasm and which seemed, to assure peace.
Q Did the SA leadership have may influence on policy?
AAfter the death of Roehm not at all. The SA was not in any way suited to exert influence on policy. Neither the SA as an organization, nor its leadership was used or abused for war mongering purposes. That was quite out of the question Militarism or the glorifcation of military activities such as drilling and so forth or an excitement to war or anything similar was never approved by the SA and for that will speak the attitude of Roehm to the neighboring states and the attitude held by Lutze toward war in general.
Q Would the SA have has to follow an order as to war propaganda? SA did not know blind obedience. An instruction to carry on war propaganda never came to the SA from any source. Therefore, the SA neither in its instructing unit nor in its training units carried out propaganda for war. davit of Minister President Dr. Buerkner. This was placed in my mail box and since I shall have no other opportunity except here and no to define my attitude as to this affidavit, I should like to put a few questions to you dealing with these matters contained therein. was, the so-called on the so-called "Day" in Coburg, the SA dominated the streets with armed bands and attacked the peaceful population.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the affidavit in evidence?
DR. BOEHM: This affidavit was put in my mail box three days ago. I would have no reason to present this affidavit. Mr. President, but since it was -
THE PRESIDENT: I asked you a perfectly simple question. Cannot you give me an answer to it? I asked you if it was in evidence.
Dr. BOEHM: This document was not submitted as evidence, Mr. President, but I have no other possibility of defining my attitude toward this document if I do not take this opportunity.
THE PRESIDENT: Either you want to put it in evidence or you do not. If the Aug-14-M-RT-4-2 Karr document is not yet in evidence there is no need to go into it.