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.
DR. BOEHM: No, I only wanted to ask a few questions based on this document and I want to put these questions -
THE PRESIDENT: You cannot do that until you have put the document in evident If you want to put it is evidence then you must put it in evidence. If you do mo want to then -- just listen to me. You can deal with it in re-examination. If the document is put in in cross-examination you can deal with it then. Otherwise, if you want to put it in evidence now subject to its admissibility, you can do it and take the responsibility for it.
Dr. BOEHM: Mr. President, that would be true if, in cross-examination, that affidavit would be submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is not submitted we shall not look at it, we shall not know anything about it.
Dr. BOEHM: Mr. President, I gather from that that if this affidavit is not submitted in cross-examination that it may not be submitted afterwards either, The of course, the procedure is quite clear. Then I do not now need to deal with it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. At any rate, if there was an application the Prosecution to submit the affidavit in rebuttal you would have an opportunity of answering to it after that, in these circumstances.
DR. BOEHM: Then I should like to ask the Tribunal to permi me to call the witness whom I had in mind so that he can define his position ad so that I might interrogate him.
THE PRESIDENT: No, either you put it in evidence your self now or else you wait for re-examination.
Sir David, I do not know what all this is about. Dr. Boer does not seem to know what the position is.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: My Lord, it may be-- I did no quite catch the name of the deponent, but it may be that, this is one of the affidavits with regard to which I applied to the Tribunal a day or two ago and I war going to put them in after the defense documents in general rebuttal. one of those I mentioned to the Tribunal a few days ago.
Aug-14-M-RT-4-3 Karr
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you can put it in on cross-examination, can you not
SIR DAVID MAXWEIL FYFFE: My Lord, I can quite easily.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that not be the most convenient course? Then Dr. Boehm can re-examine upon it. He has had an opportunity, apparently, of looking at it
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: Yes, My Lord, I will do that.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, the thing I wanted to avoid was the situation what would have arisen if the document had been submitted after the testimony of my last witness so that I would not have had an opportunity of refuting the document BY DR. BOEHM:
Q Mr. Witness, now I should like to put my final question to you.
Did the political aims of the SA have a criminal character? aims, all those things did not at any time have any fear of the light of day. I SA leadership aid not pursue any criminal aims and did not know of the criminal aims of any other agencies. to its defamation as a criminal organization. The SA, Your Lordship, had many followers, in the Reich, that is the former Reich and beyond its boundaries as The SA had opponents as well.
Some of these opponents raised their voices an out of hate or disapproval created prejudices against the SA, not what was true but merely based on prejudice, which as is well known, has brought many a human as a cropper before history. two and a half decades belonged to the SA would, be stamped as criminals.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
THE WITNESS: Mr. President, for these five to six million men and for the several millions of families of these members I can, with a straight gaze and un oath, state that never did the SA have a criminal character. fact that which you have done you stand behind bravely, come what may, what the danger may be and that you are not afraid of anything, not even heath. The only thing you should, fear is shame and by shame I mean if you try to wiggle out of ye responsibility in that you and your own life or if you become untruthful. In that connection, Your Lordship, my conscience is clear.
ness of the SA, I can meet the highest judge.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the withes
THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution desire to cross examine? BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: against the people of the occupied territory? Atrocities? territories occupied by Germany?
Q That is a perfectly simple question. You have made your speeches. Now answer "yes" or "no" to the question that the SA had anything to do with the atrocities against the people of the occupied territories.
A I am of the intention to give a time answer; therefore, I will have to -
Q Can't you answer "yes" or "no"?
THE PRESIDENT: You can explain afterwards, you know. If you answer "yes" or "no", you can then give your explanation. countries.
Q I see. Well, now, I want you to look at your report on the SA during the war, which the Lord Tribunal will find in document book 16-D at page 113.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is number 4011 PS, and will bee Exhibit GB 596.
Q (Continuing): Now, witness, just before you look at that, do you remember saying before the Commission: "At the beginning of the war with Pola the SA Group Sudeten carried out transports of prisoners of war into the camps Other SA Groups in the East may have been used for similar purposes later on. The SA Leaders and the SA as an organization had nothing to do with this question." Do you remember saying that? Page 336 of the transcript. One of your groups carried out transports of prisoners of war into camps and other SA Groups may have been used for similar purposes. Do you remember saying the to the Commissioner? If you would take your mind from the document and just address it to the point as to whether you said that before the Commission, it would help.
Do you remember saying that before the Commission? dispute today, that the SA Group Sudeten on the instructions of the Wehrmacht transported prisoners of war in the Polish campaign; but, Mr. Prosecutor, you asked me about the treatment of the population in the occupied country.
Q I got your answer to that. We must take it by stages. You admit you said that before the Commission, that the "SA Groups carried out transports of prisoners of war into camps. Other SA Groups in the East may have been used for similar purposes." Do you remember saying that? I am only putting in the record what you said. You admit you said it?
Q Right. Now, let's look at your report. This is a report made by you on the 23 of June 1941 and you see that after a general paragraph -- My Lord, if you'd turn to Page 116, it is page 4 of the original document -- and Witness, if you'd go on to the heading "Section 4 A". You see -- "The SA-men who have remained, in the communications zone primarily care for the maintenance of the SA-organization. All units, even the smallest ones are alive, and the men willingly sacrifice their spare time for duty in the party. This includes assistance to the political leaders in the educational and orientation tasks, propaganda and counter-propaganda, preparations for meetings, control of the population in the frontier areas." Is that correct, what you wrote in 1941?
A It is true exactly for the Hinterland as the home country. It is not occupied areas.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Turn to Page 117 of the English version, My Lord. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q I think it is page 123, Witness, of your version. Have you got 123: It is page 5 of the original. It is the next page, Page 5. You see under "C" "The duty achievements of the SA, which deal with direct support of the armed forces and which benefit the power of German arms, have developed in all directions. At the time this report is written and/or in the previous weeks the following were employed;" Then, the second of those -- "21 groups of SA-men for guarding prisoners."
Where were the 21 groups guarding prisoners? months. You see, you say that, that is, at the time the report is written, in the previous few weeks, where were they guarding the prisoners then? the beginning and everything is enumerated, even the Party things done by the
Q Didn't you hear what I put to yen, and can't you read your own report This says; "At the time this report is written or in the previous weeks --" that is, in June, 1941. It says they were guarding prisoners. I am asking you, where were they guarding prisoners?
A You can't quite look at it that way. Perhaps the 21 SA-groups were used for the guarding of prisoners of war. It says among the 21 groups of SA
THE PRESIDENT: The question was. Where did you Say they were guarding prisoners. There is nothing about the number 21. Where was it that they were guarding prisoners? and they were given to the Wehrmacht for the supervision of -
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by the Reich area? Do you mean Germany as it was before the war again?
A Yes. It is possible that in West Prussia, or the Government General prisoner-of-war camps did exist, but that is beyond my knowledge.
Q And in the Baltic Provinces?
Q Well, we can a fresh your memory in just a moment. Not to leave this document, if you will look at the next page, on page -
THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass onto that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Your Lordship, pleases.
THE PRESIDENT: The passage just before "5", perhaps you ought to put it to him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I am ready for it, Your Lordship.
BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q If you will look just before "B", you will see the words "Numerous SA-leaders and sub-leaders were furnished to the German Labor Front for duty in the Todt organization", is that right?
A What page is that, please? guarding the camps. It says: "Numerous SA-leaders and sub-leaders were furnished to the German Labor Front for duty in the Todt organization."
Q Were they looking for forced labor? withdrawn from the authority of the SA. heading, "The premilitary training." Now, you see what is said there, and this is the second year of the war. This is the second paragraph, after the dealing with the SA war defense groups: "This educational work is primarily to assist the fighting spirit, to retain and fortify the willingness to fight, and to harden the National-Socialist communal idea in German men to become an uncompromising testimonial to the comradeship in arms." Then you give an account of the training, including "signals and target practice, instruction and practice in handling of rifles, as well as shooting at the range and in the field, and furthermore the throwing of hand-grenades, and so on."
Now, Witness, you are very familiar with those complications. I suggest to you that that training which is set out in your third report in the second year of the war is exactly the same training as is set out in your reports in the Training Directives of 1943, 1938, and 1939. It is the same training as the SA had been giving to its membership for the last 7 years almost word for word, isn't it? Isn't that exactly the sane words contained in all your training directives?
Q I Will put the training directives in in due course. That is your answer, you say that is not the same. I suggest that that is a deliberate untruth, and that this report covers the same ground, using practically the same language as your reports in 1934, '38 -- your Training Directives in '34, '38 and '39. your voracity, do you still say that that report is not the same as the SA Training Directives in '34, '38, and '39? Do you or do you not?
Q I am not asking you how the service was handled. I am asking you on the contents of the Training Directives, and I am putting to you a perfectly clear question. Isn't the training contained in this report, in the two years after the beginning of the war, exactly the same as the training lead down to the Training Directives of the years '34, '38, and '39? Now, do you want to maintain your answer that it isn't? During the war we did everything so as the defense power of the German people be strengthened. Anything else I cannot tell you. Therefore, I must arrive at a "no". What is set down here is something different from what we did before the war. judge them. Now, turn over to page 15 of the original.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is page 127 of the book. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q Now, do you see the heading, "Work done by SA in regained territories"? You got that, page 15?
Q "Work done by the SA in regained territories. The two SA groups 'Vistule', with headquarters at Danzig, and 'War the' with headquarters at Posen were formed in the East. The territory of Upper-Silesia was assigned to unit Silesia, the territory of Hemel and Suwalki to the Baltic Provinces, (Ostland) unit."
I ask you to notice that "Ostland unit".
"Very soon the SA units formed a network of solid strong-points for the National-Socialist movement. The Vistula unit comprises 15 Standarten with 50 companies (Stuermen) the War the unit 26 (Standarten), counting 684 companies (Stuermen). In these regions also as in combat, --" note these words -- "als as in combat, the SA was the assault-unit for the Party. It assists in collecting German manpower, in strengthening it and bringing it into alignment according to National-Socialist principles. In that respect it was often necessary to start by teaching the German language and then explaining the basic ideas of National Socialism. Many young racial Germans were trained as SA assistant leaders in SA schools. In these regions also the SA service. practically sneaking, 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 external appearance and bearing into keeping with SA standards. Then only was it possible to begin the real military training. The work of the SA in the West it also similar to that in the East. There it was possible in a short time to bring into the SA an important part of the male population through the recruiting of former German soldiers of the World War. The leaders of the 'Standarten' are predominantly Reich German SA-leaders. The 'Sturmbanne' and 'Stuerme' are practically without exception led by Alsatians who have received special training in a special SA school in the Reich. Reich German SA-leaders and men stand at their side to advise and help." leave the West with this one question.
I am going to ask you quite a lot about the east, however, I will leave the west with this one question. Did you mean by that paragraph that the SA was doing its best to help in the Germanization of Alsace? and good character, but other teachings played no role in our territory.
Q I would like you to look at the procedure. The chief of staff, that was Lutze in 1941. He was still alive then. In the next paragraph, it states, "The Chief of Staff visited these territories in the East and "West, besides numerous inspections is other parts of the Reich, just as the period of this report and gained a clear insight into the service, not only in the main cities, but particularly in the small and smallest garrisons of the SA." these visits, that is, yourself? Did you ever go to Vilna? SA, which you spoke of this morning. Did you know an SA officer called Hinkst, who was the staff commandant at Vilna?
A What is the name?
Q Just think. You say you don't remember him at Vilna?
A No, I don't know him. known as the SA Kaserne, the SA Barracks. Did you know that? active in Vilna, whether it was the SA or some other agency. ing group in Vilna, but they did not have to do quite as big a job as the SA, however, they killed 10,000 Jews in the autumn of 1941? You say you never heard of that?