How did you put such an enormous untruth in your report if what you ate telling the Tribunal is the truth today that you never started it at all ?
A. Neither did I tell the untruth in that report nor did I tell it now. I might say that report refers to a time of war. I think it does. Have I understood you correctly, does it refer to war time ? With the beginning of the war, the SA had done everything to increase Germany's armed forces. That was our duty. Much importance was attached to military physical training, that is to say, no longer to ordinary physical training, but military training designed for military ways: even that did not include weapon training. If the cleaning of rifles is mentioned, it means we demonstrated to out men with out small caliber weapons.
Q. The report includes radio training. The pre-military training include men over 18 years of age. Your Lordship has the documents to consider. My Lord, the next group of documents which I have asked your Lordship to consider relate to the fact that it was stated before the Commission that the "SA Mann", which is a part of the evidence of the prosecution was an unofficial publication with a circulation of 200,000.
That was said before the Commission at pages 212 and 213. If your Lordship will be good enough to look first at page 111 of Document Book 16 B, you will find Document Number 4010 PS whichwill be GB 613. It is page 117 of the German Book.
THE PRESIDENT: 111 of our book?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is page 111 of your book. That is a latter from the editor of "SA Mann" to the defendant Rosenberg. It asks him for an article to commemorate their five years of independent publication and 8 years of publication as a supplement to the "Volkischer Beobachter". In the middle of the second paragraph, your Lordship, you will find the sentence, "A subscriber's list of half a million clearly shows the importance of the 'SA Mann', whose educational influence has by far gone beyond the ranks of the SA." That was on the 13th of August, 1936. "In a few weeks, 'Der SA Mann' combat publication and official organ of Supreme SALeadership, will look back upon an existence of respectively 8 and 5 years." a letter from the Defendant Rosenberg's staff. "Reichsleiter Rosenberg confirmed, with his best thanks, receipt of your letter of August 13th a. c., and sends you inclosed the preface asked for." 115 of the German Document Book, there is a letter from the Editor again to the Defendant Rosenberg. Your Lordship will see on the letterhead this time "The Pressereferent of the Supreme command of the SA and Main Office of the Editor of the "Der SA Mann". This my Lord, is April 21, 1938. It is now ten years. There again they are asking Defendant Rosenberg for an article on the subject "Ideology and Combat paper" ("Weltanschauung und Kempfblatt") or something similar to it.
In the next paragraph they say, "I do hope, that you will be agreeable to our wish and I am convinced that especially a contribution from your pen will be greeted with particular enthusiasm by our 750,000 subscribers." few months after 1939, the total membership of the SA was 1,500,000, so "Der SA-Mann" went to one in every two.
15 Aug M LJG 5-1 Karr commendation of the Chief of Staff Lutze in the training direct D 918, of "The SA Man" and my and, as I told your Lordship, the articles appear in document 3050-PS, which is U.S. Exhibit 414. There is a long list of articles that are contained in that document of a military nature, anti-semitic nature, antichurch nature, all of which my friend Colonel Storey put to the Tribunal. I do not intend to go over it again. lordship to look at is one of the cases of the perversion of the course of justice in the interests of the SA. My Lord, it is document D-923, which your lordship will find on page 22 of the document book 16B; that becomes GB 615. quickly and if there are any points your Lordship, I will be very willing to deal in detail with it. My Lord, the German page is 22 also. 22. There are five sections which are recapitulated in the sicth. The first is a report or the Public Prosecution Provincial Court, Nurnberg-Purth to the Bavarian State Ministry of Justice, dated 21 august, 1933, regarding the boating to death of one Pflaumer by the Sa. Then, my Lord, there is a post-mortem report. There is a report from the Public Prosecution that the police were refusing to give evidence in the above cases. "This might endanger the well-being of the Reich." "The Police Directorate Nurnberg-Furth refuse permission to police officials to break official secrecy."
Number 5, rather niavely states in the last sentence:
"Police directorate refuse permission to police officials to break official secrecy for tie trial. They also need both accused that is the people who are accused of boating them to death to guarantee the security of the party rally."
15 Aug M LJG 5-2 Karr defendant Prank to the minister of State for the interior and, my Lord, it shows that the man Pflaumer was beaten up at the guardhouse in August 1933, a twenty-nine year old married mechanic and he was then brought to the main police station by the SA and died there. See.
"The Provisional Court doctor also reported that, according to his findings, Pflaumer was Destiny to death in a most cruel and torturing way with blunt objects." bastinado:
"The conclusion had to be drawn that the perpetrators did net cause the injuries to the ill-treated man in self-defense." doubt, which your Lordship will see on the evidence there was no doubt that these people were concerned. pressure against proceedings and, my Lord, there then comes a somewhat similar case in Section II. I do not want to complicate the matter. It is a separate case of three lows beaten up by the SS. Section III:
"The events described under I and II give me cause for great apprehension." brutality; that members of the SA -- in the middle of the next paragraph "still allow them selves to indulge in the inadmissible ill-treatment of opponents."
And then, at the beginning of the paragraph after that:
"The events show further that unfortunately attempts are still being made to interfere with the legal course of justice."
15 Aug M LJG 5-3 Karr Then, at the beginning of the next paragraph he says:
"Especially in the case of Pflaumer, I consider it an urgent necessity, in the interest of safeguarding the authority of the State and the good name of justice and the police, to avoid even the slightest appearance that the police are shielding this crime."
Then he suggests -- the last words on that page --:
"The misgivings of the chief of the political department of the Nurnberg-Furth Police Directorate, can, however, be taken into consideration by the exclusion of the public during the trial. The carrying out of a trial can further hardly be prevented by the refusal to allow testimony. For, in view of the confession of the accused Korn and Stark to date, together with the results of the judicial autopsy, the trial will have to be instituted against them and carried out under any circumstances." and the public prosecution are requesting the prime minister to bring up the matter for discussion at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers and to invite Roehm and Himmler. Then that is done and my Lord, there is then a significant inquiry on page 26 from Bormann, asking how the matter is going on and, my Lord, then on page 27, page 27 of the German version too, document 13 (it is one of the inserts on page 27) "The Public Prosecution Provincial Court Nurnberg-Furth report to Court of Appeal Public Prosecutor, Nurnberg, that the preliminary investigation ended on 19 March, 1934.
The Police Directorate, Nurnberg-Furth, intend to apply for the quashing of the criminal proceedings." my Lord, that is on pages 27 and 28. Then at the bottom of page 28, 28 in the German version, you will find a section "Certificate of Opinion." My Lord, that says:
15 Aug M LJG 5-4 Karr "On mature consideration, I assent to the suggestion of the Police Directorate.
"firstly it should be considered whether the proceedings could not be brought to an and the release of the accused from criminal proceedings. According to the result of the preliminary investigation alone, Korn ought to be accused in any case according to what is pensioned above, while only the accused Stark could be released from criminal proceedings. But therefore, an investigation or an extension of the investigation against the persons who took part in this matter ( accomplices, possible instigators and helpers) and finally also those who favored the culprits would, according to -- such and such a paragraph -- be occasioned.
" But if the proceedings were to be carried out in this manner, it would be unavoidable , even if the public is excluded from the actual trial, the public would get to know about the events. But this would seriously harm and shake the reputation of the SA, the Party, the police and even the National Socialist State." paragraph -
THE PRESIDENT: Before you deal with that, perhaps you ought to read the last paragraph but one on page 27, beginning at the second sentence in that paragraph, page 27, the last paragraph.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, is that the one beginning, "Therefore --"?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the second sentence, "As the police forces --."
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: "As the police forces available were far from sufficient, the SA Sturm for special use, which was stationed in Nurnberg in the old Samariter Wache at the Hallplatz No. 4, was appointed to assist the police in these tasks. In this guardhouse the necessary confrontations and 15 Aug LJG 5-5 Karr questionings of arrested Communists took place.
The leader of this Sturm SA Unit, was the then Sturmbannfuehrer (SA Major) Eugen Korn, 25 years old, unmarried, commercial employee in Nurnberg. His deputy--." and so on. German text.
"Lastly it may also be pointed out that this deed was committed relatively shortly after the coming into force of the amnesty decree of 2 August, 1933. If it had been committed before 26 July 1933, that is only three weeks earlier, it would have been amnestied like a number of other political excesses. As the deed did not originate in an ignoble motive but rather served the achievement of an exceedingly patriotic aim and the advance of the National Socialist State, the quashing of the proceedings, also in view of the above-mentioned relation of the time of the deed to the above-mentioned amnesty, does not seem incompatible with the orderly administration of criminal justice.
"For all these reasons it is suggested, in connection with the position of the police Directorate, that the proceedings on account of the bodily injuries resulting in the death of the mechanic Oskar Pflaumer, was well as on account of the actions of criminal participation and acts of favoring immediately connected with this, should be quashed." ant Frank in the next document on page 30 and on the top of page 31, as Reich Governor, von Epp says:
"I hereby quash the criminal proceedings." Public Prosecutor. your Lordhsip to it, in view of what we have heard about isolated acts unconnected with the SA leadership, that this man Korn was 15 Aug M LJG 5-6 Supreme SA leadership.
I hoped to be able to do it even shorter but there are two others which show this sane perversion of justice and therefore, I submit, are important. on page 51 and 52. That will be GB 616. My Lord, that is connected with the nine members of the SA who were charged with beating up the editor of the newspaper "The Lower Bavarian Peasant". My Lord, that was a Dr. Schloegl and My Lord, "The Lower Bavarian Peasant" I think was a Bavarian People's Party paper, a sort of Catholic Party paper. And my Lord, your Lordship will see that the proceedings are held to fall within the amnesty but, my Lord, it is interesting again to see that the declared motive and the connection with the leadership. My Lord, if your Lordship would look at the second paragraph for the reason for the decision of the Amtgerichtsrat, it says:
"There is no doubt, there were, that the deeds were committed for political reasons. They were committed also to ensure the success of the National Socialist State. It may be that the destruction of the furniture was intended to serve the purpose of a house-search, in which previously imbibed alcohol may have played a harmful part in the manner of carrying out that decision. ly however, by the ill-treatment, it was intended to restrain Dr. Schloegl from further political activity. No other motive for the deeds can be found."
"The Supreme SA leadership have also examined these questions. In their letter of 14/9/33, they announce that the SA men in question were bound to see and did see, in the possibility of Dr. Schloegl forcing his way into the National Socialist movement, a danger for the movement and thus for the nation 15 Aug M LJG 5-7 Karr itself.
Nor were the deed committed for the purpose of personal profit or other low motives. The supreme SA leadership state on this point that the deed and intention of the SA men were only aimed at the well-being of the National Socialist movement. The political reason and the parity of the intention is thus beyond doubt." is the supreme SA leadership.
your Lordship will find in Document Book 16-A, the smaller document book, pace 9. mentioned the question of the punishment of these members of the SA -- I think, My Lord, they run to some 30 or so -- that had been engaged in cruelties in the concentration camp of Hohenstein. My Lord, this is the report dealing with their punishment, and your Lordship will note --and this is, in my submission, interesting -- that it is dated the 5th of June 1935. My Lord, it concerns the penal proceedings against the merchant and SA leader Obersturmbannfuehrer Jaehnichen and 22 companions. I'm afraid I said 30; it is 23 -for inflicting bodily injury on duty in the protective custody camp of Hohenstein in Saxony.
This is a letter from Dr. Guertner to the defendant Hess. That is, it is a top level letter from the Ministry of Justice to the Deputy of the Fuehrer. My Lord, it is 784-PS. It becomes GB-616.
Dr. Guertner first of all sets out the sentences that were asked for by the Prosecutor. Then he sets out the sentences which were inflicted by the Supreme Court in Dresden.
My Lord, I ought to say this is page 9 of the English document; I think page 9 to 15 of the German, too. document, your Lordship will see that the Minister of Justice writes:
" After the proposal of the sentence, however, still before the announcement of the verdict, the chairman of the Criminal Division Number 12" -- that is, the judge -- "received the following letter from the Reich Governor (Reichstatthalter) of Saxony."
DR. BOEHM: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, but the document which I received neither has a page 9 nor a page 10. It only has, if anything, a page 30. I am therefore not in a position to follow the prosecutor's speech.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I see the paging is different on Dr. Boehm's copy. This is the letter from the Reich Governor:
"As I was informed, it is proposed to impose a punishment of 3 1/2 years of penal servitude upon the accused Standartenfuehrer Jaehnichen. Without wanting to interfere in the proceedings or intending to influence you as judge in any way before the verdict is announced, I should nevertheless like to once more call your attention to the fact that the circumstances, as they had been brought about by the revolution of 1933, and as they, without doubt, were still taking effect up to the beginning of 1934, cannot be overlooked when pronouncing sentence.
"A further point appears to me to be worth taking into consideration, namely the fact that one cannot accuse Jaehnichen of having a low character and that, above all, in Hohenstein the scum of humanity had to be attended to. In consideration of this fact I should like to leave it to you to consider whether the lapses call for such a severe degree of punishment" -- your Lordships will note the next words -- "or whether a pardon could not be considered.
"As Gauleiter of the NSDAP I consider it as my duty to call attention again to the unusual circumstances."
Now, my Lord, Dr. Guertner, the Minister of Justice, goes on, and this your Lordship may veil think is the most extraordinary and sinister part of it:
"Moreover, the information has come to hand that the two magistrates who functioned as judges in the principal trial, namely Regierungsamtmann Helbig and the merchant Pesler, had been expelled from the NSDAP after the announcement of the verdict. I do not know by whom this expulsion was ordered.
"Finally it has been put to the assistant prosecutor, Staatsanwalt Dr. Walther, who is a storm trooper, after the pronouncing of the verdict on his Obersturmbannfuehrer, that he should resign from the SA." extremely pertinent observations as to the impossibility of carrying on justice if this gees on. He says in the middle of that paragraph, the end of page 12 in the German version:
"That kind of procedure against lay judges after the verdict had been pronounced would naturally and necessarily arouse the feeling that when they are functioning as judges they are responsible to a certain office for their work. Hereby the judicial impartiality which is the foundation of every orderly administration of criminal law becomes null and void."
end of the paragraph he comes to the understandable conclusion:
"I would find myself obliged to consider the question whether in the face of such a state of affairs public prosecutors and judges could still be functionaries of the Party or members of the SA at all." English book, page 3 of the document, and page 13 of the German version, that there is a letter to the Chief of Staff of the SA of the NSDAP , with a copy of the following accusation enclosed. My Lord, that would be Lutze at that time because Roehm had been murdered before that date. The same points are put to the Chief of Staff of the NSDAP, and , My Lord, the matter then goes up to Hitler. My Lord, your Lordship will find the report that contains Hitler's decision on pages 13, 14 and 15 of the English version, and pages 16 to 33 of the German version. I think it starts on page 16. I hope Dr. Boehm will be able to find it.
My Lord, that is 785-PS. I am sorry, My Lord, I thought it was the same document. It is a different document. Your Lordship will see in the first paragraph a description of the crime:
"The mistreatment of inmates which has led to the sentencing of the accused was not carried out for any political purpose (to obtain a confession, to punish disciplinary infractions, etc.) or in response to previously suffered wrongs inflicted by Communists, but was merely malicious torture or expressions of sadistic brutality."
Then:
"A few cases of mistreatment occurred, however, where enemies of the State ware involved."
At the end of that paragraph:
"...the defendants not only attempted to wing confessions from the inmates, but that they had acted in sheer lust for torture."
"They acted in sheer lust for torture." This is a document coming from the Reich Chancellery, so your Lordship sees the criticism that was made in that quarter. But then, my Lord, it goes on to say at the end of the next paragraph about being motivated neither by political purposes nor by personal revenge. Then that is shown.
But, My Lord, at the top of page 14 it is stated:
"If, nevertheless, I suggest subsequently a further reduction of sentence based upon new evidence of some of the defendants, I can only justify my action because I believe that according to circumstances the defendants in one or the other case of mistreatment may have partly acted out of revolutionary motives."
I will repeat that:
".....may have partly acted out of revolutionary motives." is the appendix, Hitler's decision:
"Upon application of the Reich Minister of Justice " -- which was the preceding -- "I hereby grant in the case against Rudolf Jaehnichen and others for mistreatment of persons committed to protective custody in Hohenstein Concentration Camp, the following mitigation of sentences as enumerated in Column 6", and then roughly, my Lord, the sentence is reduced by either a third or a half in each case.
My Lord, I would just like to correct an exhibit number. The first document is U.S. Exhibit 732, and the second document 785-PS, will be GB-617. My Lord, I am again sorry; it is my mistake. It is US-733, the second document I am so sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better break off now.
(A recess was taken.)
SIR DAVID FYFE : I have finished with the submissioned documents. There are three more questions in crossexamination which I should like to put to the witness; and then I shall be finished with my cross examination. if you turn to Page 27, the Tribunal would like to know from the witness what the SA Sturm for Special Use was.
SIR DAVID FYFE : Your Lordship, I mention that because I told your lordship that the fact that Korn was on the staff of the Supreme SA Leadership was on 27, the last line of 26; and you'll see that the last line of 26 is :"Korn is at present in Munich on the staff of the Supreme SA Leadership." My Lord, then I'll ask the question. Stur, for Special Use, which was stationed in Nurnberg in the old Samariter Wache was; what task it carried out in assisting the police? use in various places, and in Nurnberg, too. The typical special task of this Sturm was to place themselves at disposal in case catastrophes. Furthermore, for police purposes when they were requested by the police and used by them as auxiliary police; also in fire extinguishing service; during the war in air raid service in Hamburg, for instance, and Westphalia. These were in general the tasks of the Sturm Bunders for special use. They were composed of men aho had an opportunity and who were suited for such tasks. who was on the staff of the Supreme SA Leadership, beat this Communist to death by using the bastinado on his feet. Was that one of the special uses which this Sturm indulged in when they were doing no work?
Was that the sort of thing, boating up Communists? Was that one of the special tasks? Was that a typical special task of this Sturm, to beat Communists in August 1933?
A No. That was never the task and if Korn did that he had to be punished.
Q You must hove known horn, didn't you? He was on the staff of the Supreme SA Leadership. didn't you? time; and this offense which has just been reported I know nothing of up until today. were deputy chief of staff of the SA? Are you really telling the Tribunal yon know nothing about the fact that one man From the staff of the Supreme Leadership had been engaged in this foul and brutal manner in Nurnberg, and you heard nothing about it? Is that your story? that I was deputy chief of staff only from 1939 on; up till then I was section chief and then chief of the Fuehrungsamt. were, that you said that you could give an account of the SA from 1933 onwards dealing with all relevant parts -- however, if that's your answer I'll leave it, I'll now take up another of your suggestions. Look at Document 1721-PS.
SIR DAVID FYFE : My Lord, that's the document that is in the original document book, My Lord, dealing with the events of November, 1938.
Q Now, Witness, I'm not going to argue with you; but I want you to point out certain things in the documents and then pass it to the Tribunal. You are not disputing that you wrote the document dated the 29th November, 1933, of which a copy in the first one in the bundle. That is the document dealing with the handing over of sews property, taken by the SA, to the Gestapo. Now, as understood you yesterday, you are not disputing that you did write that document, of which that is a copy? Is that so?
ment, and you will find on it the stamp of the SA Group Kurplatz. Do you see that?
Q And do you see in the stamp the letters "H", "W" and "O"? see "S D A", which is -- don't let's waste time -- ;"Zu den Akten" - "Put it in the File". Do you see the contraction, "ZDA"? saying is not authentic, and you will find on that the same stamp of the SA group Kurplatz, and the same letters, "H", "W" and "G". Do you see that? second document -- that is the document of the 11th -- the concentration "ZDA" in the same handwriting as on the first document? We you see that, at the to of the document, "ZDA"? that document, which is the report to the SA Group Electoral Palatinate, Kurplantz, dealing with a number of Standarten. Would you book under "Standarte 145"? Now, do you see that it says "Synagogue at Bensheim, Synagogue at Lorsch, Synagogue at Heppenheim Synagogue at Birkenau". Look at the next. Do you see that the next is the "Prayer House at Alsbach-Gebetshaus in Alsbach:, is it not?
A Which page, if I may ask?
Q It is in the list. It is the document of 11 November and it in a list.
It gives a series of Standarten, and the first is 115, and the next is 145. Do you see that? one -- I think it is Gebetshaus in Alsbach, he you see that? for the files of the telephone call by the Fuehrer of Brigade 50, Darmstadt, Brigadefuehrer Lucke. Do you see that? will see that it says, "The Synagogue in Bensheim destroyed by fire. The Synagogue in Lorsch near Bensheim destroyed by fire. The Synagogue in Heppenheim blown up. The Synagogue in Rimbach and Birkenau destroyed." Now, does it say the "Prayer Hall" -the word is "Die ethallc in Alsbach" -- destroyed? and a prayer hall, which is either called a "Gebetshaus" or a "Bethalle". Now the other pages contaon reports of different Standarten. to briny out these points free the witness, as he had challenged the document. point. You know that after these incidents of 9 and 10 November 1938, fourteen SA men were found guilty of killing Jews? Did you know that? Mens of various ranks in the SA were found guilty of killing. Wows? Do you accept that? The document is before the Tribunal of the Party Court, containing the decision. I do not wan to wast time is you will admit one thing I put to you. Do you admit that fourteen SA men were found guilty by the Party Court after 9 aid 10 November of killing Jews?
prisoner -- that the fourteen SA men are mentioned who are supposed to have shot Jews or had Jews Killed. whenever SA men were guilty of excesses, they were punished. Do you Know that all the SA men who had killed Jews ware left off, that the only SA men who were sent for punishment were those who had committed rape or theft, three of them who had committed race and theft? Do you know that all these fourteen SA officers were let off for this murder?
A I am convinced that they were punished by the SA. The punishment for the murder which is mentioned here was a matter for the popular courts. I could not know whether they were ounished there. before the Tribunal. The regular court let them off because they fell "Within the line of Party comrades who, motivated by the decent National Socialist attitude and initiative, had overshot the mark. " That is why the Party Court let them off, according to their own document. Now are you saying that the Party or the So punished people for ill-berating Jews when these 14 murderers of Jewish women and children and men were lot off because they were "motivated by the decent National Socialist spirits" are you saying that they were punished?
A Please show me this document. I consider it impossible that the Supreme SA leadership took this attitude. Supreme Court of the Party, composed of Gauleiters. Socialism, and that is what they did -- they recommended that these fourteen SA murderers should be let off. How did that square with your suggestion that murder was frowned upon?
A Please understand that the Supreme Party Court was a Reich institution of the Party and the SA had its own SA Court.
The SA leadership and the Chief of Staff as the Supreme SA Court had influence only on the SA Court, not on the Supreme Party Court. Court had let off these fourteen murerers in the SA after 1938? or from this document. fourteen officers of his own organization had committed cruel and bloody murders? That is what you tell this Tribunal? and is still convinced today that all excesses of the 8, 9 and 10 November, so far as they were committed by SA members the SA but by the regular courts. I know from the words of Chief of Staff Lutze that he insisted on that. I will not deny that one or another offence did not become known to him. You have represented Chief of Staff Roehm as beina a peace loving, church-going man. Is that the impression you want this Tribunal to have of the character of Chief of Staff Roehm -that he was a peace-loving, church-going man? understand, I said that Chief of Staff Roehm belonged to the church. He was not opposed to the church. He was peaceful. It has been shown, and I myself am a witness, that he told not only the SA Fuehrers but also representatives of foreign powers repeatedly -- that he emphasized the friendly relations which he endeavored to bring about.