Among Party members it was forbidden to discuss the 30th of June 1934 at all. was participating, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Graf Holldorf. He was handed.
Since June 30, 1934, the SA had sunk to complete oblivion. After June 30, 1934, the SA was considered an unpleasant appendix. The SA was considered politically unreliable. Therefore, as shown by evidence given before the Commission, it was not charged any more with any tasks. The SA's destiny from that day on was nothing but the search for a task. Officially the SA was supposed to take in its hand the premilitary training and athletics. tasks. This attitude of the Party towards the SA became evidence in 1939, too. As Witness Juettner clearly stated, it was Bermann who sabotaged the decree of January 30, 1939, and who did not permit the carrying through of the premilitary training task of the SA. Witness Beck reported to us the preparation and the beginning of the premilitary and postmilitary training program. He also stated that this task of the SA was terminated. Only the events of the war brought the so-called War-SA-Wehrmannschaften. participate feverishly in the preparations of war. It is absolutely impossible that as the Prosecution claims 25,000 officers were trained in SA-schools. This claim was quite clearly refuted by the evidence given through the Witnesses Juettner and Bock. How unreliable the SA was in the eyes of Bermann shows the fact that the Volkssturm was not based on the SA.
We learn from submitted affidavit that the reason for this was the unreliability of the SA (General SA No. 67). The elimination of the SA is also demonstrated formally if they recollect that Worehm was Chief of Staff and Minister of the Reich, Lutze Chief of Staff and Reichsleiter, and Schepmann only Chief of Staff. ssion of the Wehrsport task of the SA. Nothing has been misunderstood more thoroughly than that. The SA has been described by the Prosecution as a semi-military organization of volunteers in spite of the fact that the tasks of the Armed Forces and the SA have been clearly separated. The misunderstanding resulted mainly from the fact that there is no adequate translation of the word "Wehr". Nevertheless that concept should be clarified; for the Prosecution itself submitted document 2471 PS. There it is said, "The SA, the carrier of the Wehrwille. The SA claims to be the carrier of the Wehrwille and of the Wehrkraft of the German people The stressing of these qualities might have led to misunderstandings abroad partly because foreign languages are unable to translate correctly the terms "Wehrwille" and 'Wehrkraft' but substitute for them the terms ' Kriegswille' or "Kriegskraft", while correctly 'Verteidigungswille' should be used. Because 'Sich wehren' is a linguistic deviation from Abwehr (Defense). The one who is defending himself in every case is the one who is attacked; and therefore, all allegations of military agressive intentions are perfectly lunatic. Ultimately the Wehrmacht is concentrated trained and conducted force of all men who are able to defend themselves. (Wehrfaehig). At no time the SA had to do anything with that technical military training given in the Wehrmacht. Therefore, the SA athletic badge has been misjudged by the prosecution. It is admitted that it was the purpose of the SA athletic badge to train into "Wehrhafte" citizens. Therefore, it is stated in the first document of February 15, 1935: "The new state demands a generation able to resist and a tough one." In the regulations concerning the execution of the document of March 18, 1937, the following is said :
"The combat training of the body is not a purpose in itself, but the means to strengthen the German men spiritually and physically, to increase their ability to perform and to make them employable and willing to be employed for the maintenance of the nations up into their high age." the Wehrmacht and the SA. The thought was that the SA would train German men to be a National-Socialist and political fighter, while the Wehrmacht would give him the character and technical training of the man bearing arms; it trains him for the defense of the country. However, it would be going too far to call the SA a military troop. At no time did the SA possess any military value. The SA was nothing but an association whose members counted millions and stepped the same step. It is true that from time to time there were conducted group games in the open but it was prohibited to use military situations as their basis. The SA man listened to an occasional lecture and, as it it usual in shooting clubs, once every fortnight they practiced with small calibre rifles. That does not permit us to consider the SA a troop, even if every storm should have had a maximum of five small calibre rifles, which, however, was not universally true. At no time did the SA have heavy arms or practice with them. The relationship of the SA to the Wehrmacht was corresponding. At no time was it recognized by the Whermacht. Rnak in the SA -- no matter how high-had not the slighest influence on rank in the Wehrmacht. On the contrary it often had the effect hindering promotion. Special training certificates of the SA, such as cavalry certificates, medical certificates, radio certificates were not recognized in the Wehrmacht. It is absolutely comical if we read in affidavits that SA men from engineer units were used in communications regiments and SA men from communications divisions were used in engineering units of the army. May I state in detail:
1) The SA uniform was the most unsuitable uniform imaginable for military purposes. In this connection I refer to the testimony of the witness Bock.
2) Aside from the small calibre rifles already mentioned, only dagger and pistol were permitted. Moreover, the dagger was introduced only after the year 1933. Only the Sturmfuehrers had pistols and only part of the Sturmfuehrers carried pistols, since only the customary conditions in Germany for the weapon certificate applied.
3) In the SA there were no means of transportation.
4) In the SA there was no storage ground of heavy weapons and no arsenal of hand firearms. Therefore, there could be no training with them/
5) The SA units did not correspond to the military units. The composition and activation was not carried out according to considerations of possible military employment with the exception of the "Standarte Feldherrnhalle", the SA man was not housed in permanent barracks. The competence of military service (military registry and military district) did not correspond with the assignments of the SA. A "Standarte" (Regiment) in the country, for instance, was split up in many small companies and platoons not fixed in number and not at all comparable to a military regiment.
6) Commands could not be passed on quickly.
7) Maneuvers of military units did not take place.
8) The SA special units did not have military tasks. They had no military equipment, no military value, and no military mission. The SA cavalry companies served the purpose of cavalry and driving sport. The en gineer companies served the purpose of emergency accident service. The signal companies had as their tasks the reading of signals with primitive old-fashioned methods without radio service. This was forbidden as can be seen from an affidavit. Moreover, they were working in the field of health service. They received their training in keeping with the Geneva Convention. (Testimony of Dock, Affidavit General SA-90)
9) The so-called Army units "Feldhernnhallel" were not subordinate to the supreme SA leadership as evidenced by the affidavit of the former Major-General Pape. (General SA-18) 10) The SA leadership was not chosen according to military consideration or ability.
(Testimony Book). The examination of the defendant von Schirach showed that the SA was unable to carry on military training.
During the war more than one draft of an agreement was submitted according to which the SA should turn over to the Hitler youth (HJ) persons for training of youth in the military efficiency schooling camps similar to the SS and the police. Documents of USA Exhibit 867 establish that the SA leadership did not grant this request. As reason for this the defendant von Schirach states that the SA was not capable of doing this. The concepts of "Wehrmannschaften" and "SA-Wehrmannschaften" were confused by the prosecution. In the occupied territories the Wehrmannschaften constituted a consolidation of loyal civilian authorities which were generally only concerned with administration, but it the rear areas should become endangered they were to be organized for their own defense. Furthermore, the term "Wehrmannschaften" in the occupied territories also signified local inhabitants such as Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians or White Ruthenians who also wanted to defend themselves against partisans. area which were to organize, above all, the SA men dismissed from military service of the Army in order to preserve their military efficiency. They were to be a certain substitute for the former veterans organizations. documents an article from the "SA Mann" from which it can be seen what is really to be understood by military training. Probably as a comparison to see whether the SA carried out military training it quotes those articles which deal with the training of the French, Russian, and Italian youth, but also that of the English Dominion youth, as well as that of the French youth. They indicate clearly that the supreme SA leadership did not carry on any such training. warfare was supposed to be a series of articles on the so-called Lebensraum, which the English Prosecution has meanwhile withdrawn, since this series of articles does not indicate what it contends. The articles quoted by the British prosecution on the colonial problem mention only a peaceful winning back of the colonies. As the proceedings before the Commission have shown, these articles showed no signs of any war-mongering spirit.
Therefore, the leap which the Prosecution makes in order to prove the bringing on of a war of agression by the SA is a leap into empty space. On the contrary, I have shown that the supreme SA leadership did everything possible to contribute to understanding among nations. This was shown clearly by the statements of the witness Oberlindober. I have also shown that at the Fuehrer schools of the SA only an ideological political training was given, but no military training. We see from affidavits that songs which might perhaps have indicated an aggressive tendency were prohibited by the supreme SA leadership. I have shown that individual SA men who tried to preach a war of vengeance were dismissed from the SA. Reich Party rally of 1939, which were contrary to possible war plans. We have also clarified this through the testimony of the witness Dr. Geyer, through the affidavits of Koch, and Zellenhoefer. Finally there came to our attention in the proceedings before the Commission an agreement between the SA and the Wehrmacht, which was to form a counter-balance to possible military aggressive tendencies on the part of Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels. (Affidavit General SA, No. 1.). throw political opponents with terroristic methods and thus make the way clear for an aggressive war is completely misleading. He who knows political conditions and looks at them without propaganda-clouded glasses wonders how one can arrive at such an opinion. The officially ascertained weapon depots of the KPD and the unequivocal attitude of the KPD speak an unmistakable language. (SA Document No. 287). What extent the political struggle of the KPD and the other leftist radical elements, which these, organizations carried into the streets, assumed, we can see from the testimony of the witness Bock before the Commission, who proved that the relief fund of the NSDAP had to be founded to care for the NSDAP-Victims resulting from the leftist radical terror. May I point out that it was the KPD that considered civil war, general strike, political mass strike necessary political fighting means, as indicated by the decision of the state court for the protection of the German republic, which I submitted the Tribunal in the Document Book (SA-Doc.
No. 286). That this political terrorism was carried on within the framework of world revolution, is also shown by a decision rendered by the State Tribunal for the protection of the German republic. This the witness Juettner indicated when he referred to the idea of a defensive Western pact directed against the endeavors to bring about a world revolution. It has been proved that this terrorism was, indeed, part of a world revolution. (SA-Document 286), in connection with which, according to their own admission, the Communist International and other agencies began revolutions in Finland, in Austria, in Hungary, in Bulgaria, and in Syria. It may well be said, without fear of exaggeration, that without the Marxists theory of the class struggle, and without the events which led up to it, the foundations would no doubt not have been created which required the protection of a spiritual movement by the SA. This is the view also adopted by the witness Gisevius, when he testifies: "The SA has its origin in that post-war period, where revolution either still was, or began again to be rampant in Germany. One might say that it was one of the last after-effects of the Spartakus upheavals in 1918. Red pressure produced Brown counter-pressure, and the latter's external expression is called after that: The SA. The Prosecution, for their part, have submitted unequivocal documents of the "SAMann" which, although it was not an official organ of the supreme SA-Leadership, it nevertheless contains in this case irrefutable proof showing that terrorism was no doubt practiced by the Communist Party. I do not propose to quote these articles in detail. I merely want to refer to Prosecution Document 3050-PS, which, by the way, reproduces articles from the "SA-Mann," in a distorted way, and torn from their context. (Compare evidence given by Klaehn and Beck before the Commission).
COLONEL POKROVSKY: My Lord, the attorney for the defense is trying to attribute to the prosecution, materials submitted as evidence which the prosecution never submitted. I object very definitely against such methods on the part of Dr. Boehm since such methods seem quite obviously meant to introduce falsehoods before this Tribunal. I plead with the Tribunal not to admit the the subsequent paragraph which in the Russian Translation appears on page 29.
It is the first paragraph. I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal, My Lord, to the circumstances that there we have a very clear introduction of a falsehood. It is quite true that the document there mentioned was submitted by the prosecution, but it consisted of a bunch of newspapers for a number of years. In terms of previous decisions of the Tribunal, he should have, if he wanted to refer to that document or to any part of it, followed the example of the other attorneys by referring only to the particular part that he wants to draw their attention to instead of referring to the document as a whole. This he did not do. He attributes to the prosecution submission of material which was submitted only as a part of the document. It is quite different from the document's context. For that reason, I object.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not quite understand your objection, I have a translation before me which says: "The Prosecution also introduced documents taken from the "Associated Press", as was proved at the meeting of the Commission". I understand that was submitted by the prosecution. Is that right?
COLONEL POKROWSKY: Document 3050 PS, on the basis of the text I have, con sists of a collection of newspapers for the years 1934 to 1939. Part of the material that has appeared in these newspapers has been submitted by the prosecution. It appears to me that if the defense wants to use materials out of that collection which the prosecution did not submit, but which did appear in the same newspaper, then he should make a very clear distinction.
THE PRESIDENT: At the outset the Tribunal laid down a rule to cover this very situation. It is always the same.
COLONEL POKROWSKY: The prosecution does remember that decision of the Tribunal, My Lord, but we interpreted it in the way I have described here. Our point of view is strengthened by all the preceding work of the defense. Usually up to now when the defense cited parts of a document which were not cited by the prosecution, the defense made it very clear that the part of the document was not used by the prosecution. Dr. Boehm has not done so, although all other attorneys for the defense made that distinction very clear.
DR. BOEHM: May I define my attitude, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: No. secution. He expressly states to what he is referring. I do not consider it improper.
COLONEL POKROWSKY: It seems to me, My Lord, that such utilization of a document on the part of the defense is not correct. It has not been followed by any of the other attorneys. For that reason I repeat once more, it seems to me he should have stated clearly that he is either citing or not citing parts used.
THE PRESIDENT: The part of the document to which he is referring is a part which was not referred to by the prosecution. So what you desire has been done. Very well.
COLONEL POKROWSKY: Quite correct, My Lord. You are quite right, My Lord, in that case. Thank you.
MR. PRESIDENT: Go no, Dr. Boehm.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, in my brief I have merely referred to that part of the document not submitted by me, but my the prosecution, 3050. To take individual articles out of its contents would be equivilent to the work of at least a whole day as the Commission hearings have proved. There are a number of individual articles contained in Document 3050. But as far as I am concerned, there was no cause whatsoever to give them numbers because I did not present them. I do not think I have committed on act here which it was my duty to commit not commit.
May I carry on?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Go on.
DR. BOEHM: The prosecution also introduced documents taken from the "Associated Press", as was proved at the meeting of the Commission, in which the political struggle is described in connection with World revolutionary tendencies. I merely want to recall here the article entitled "The Red Danger in the East", and the cartoon under the caption "Stalin wants world revolution, Budjenny is already smelling the roast". This article was introduced by the Prosecution. Finally, I want to draw the Tribunal's attention to the street fighting regulations issued by the Communist Party.
by the Supreme SA-Leadership, which prohibits weapons of any kind in the SA, and threatens to punish any infringement on this regulation with expulsion from the SA. I may also be allowed to refer, in this connection, to the evidence given by the witness, Dr. Kurt Wolf, who explained that this prohibition to carry arms was the reason why the number of victims among the SA people was so unproportionately high. The witness also said that the number of dead on the part of the National Socialist Party was higher than the corresponding figure of the Communist Party. He also explained that the members of the SA, unlike those belonging to the radical left, were invariably searched for arms by the responsible leaders. I am also refer in this connection to the affidavits given by Freund, Zoeberlein and Hahn. They represent the political situation as it really was, beyond any doubt. That before 1933, civil war was imminent, was clear from many of the testimonies. The excesses which actually occurred in 1933 find their explanation in this atmosphere of Civil War. This is also shown by the evidence of the former States Secretary Grauert. Herr Gisevius says about this period, as I explained in the SA Document 301, "looking back on these events, one may say without fear of making a mistake that this first phase of the revolution cost comparatively few victims". If we look at Document SA 302, he also admits that "fundamentally it was only a very small clique which rendered itself guilty of excesses." In his testimony before the Tribunal, he consequently excepted more than once the great mass of the SA. It was quite clear, also, from various testimonies that the Supreme SA Leadership intervened when over excesses were brought to their knowledge. That this was actually the case, is clearly shown by the matter concerning Vogel, and above all, by the testimony on the former police president Habenicht on the camp near Wuppertal. In close cooperation between Grauert and the Supreme SA Leadership, elements committing excesses were eliminated. Herr Diels who is a Prosecution witness limits the number of those concerned in Berlin, in his affidavit on the SA, to the signal detachments which had grown out of Ernst Group Staff.
On the other hand, we also know from the summary collection of affidavits that the notorious SA leader, who had the nickname "Schweinebacke", pig's check, was expelled from the SA for blackmailing a Jew, and sentenced to along term of imprisonment. The testimony given by Burgstaller and Juettner make it clear that the SA did not adopt an extremists attitude in the racial question; because otherwise, it would have been impossible for baptized Jews to be admitted to the SA in Berlin, and that Jews were baptized in the presence of uniformed SA men. The testimony given by Diels shows that the SA of Berlin was not anti-Semitic.
He emphasizes that anti-semitic propaganda was Dr. Goebbels' business. We have also Dr. Menge's testimony according to which Jewish businesses at Hanover were protected by SA detachments, the Jewish shopkeepers supplying the members of the SA in return with purchase coupons supplying the members of the SA in return with purchase coupons (Affidavit General SA No. 1). We furthermore see from the summary collection of affidavits that in other cities as well houses and businesses of Jewish citizens were protected by SA members from looting. The witness Juettner told us that the attitude adopted by the supreme SA leadership in this matter coincided with that of the well-known Jewish professor Karo who criticized the Eastern Jewry. These manifestations of hostility to Eastern Jewry are the consequences of the first World War, when innumerable Jews from Galicia infiltrated into Germany. most essential incriminating points for the SA. The alleged report of the leader of the Kurpfalz Brigade plays an important part in this connection. It results from the circumstances in which this alleged report on the execution of instructions (1721-PS) was made that the whole document can only be a fake, and a bad one at that. To prove this we mentioned the witnesses Lucke and Fust, who could not be transferred to Nurnberg in spite of the endeavors of the Secretary General extending over a period of several months, although the defense had indicated the camps where they are interned. In point of detail the following may be said: -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, that is an improper observation, or suggestion, for you to make. Every effort has been made by the Secretary General to obtain all the witnesses whose names have been given, and there is no evidence that the witnesses were in the camps that you are referring to.
DR. BOEHM: In point of detail the following may be said: -- and I am here defining my attitude toward Document 1721-PS:
1) It has never happened in the correspondence of the SA that a report on the execution of orders repeated the order in its substance;
2) The order of the Fuehrer of the Kurpfals Gruppe reads, according to the Prosecution, "By order of the Gruppenfuehrer". If an order had been given, it would have read:
"It is ordered", or "The Gruppe orders"; in no case, however, can it be "By order of the Gruppenfuehrer".
3) The expression "Jewish Synagogues" does not exist in German. Nor does this expression "Jewish Synagogues" exist in official party intercourse. The term "Jewish" is embraced in the word "Synagogue". The term "Aryan" in this connection is likewise out of place. If the order were authentic, then in contradistinction to "Jews" at this point it would have spoken of "German compatriots".
4) "Riots and looting are to be avoided", it continues. The conditions in Germany in 1938 were such that no one, and certainly no Fuehrer or a Gruppe or a Brigade, would have thought of such disturbances, much less of using these words in an order in this connection.
5) "Report on completion of a mission by 8:30 o'clock to the Brigade fuehrer or Local Office", it says in the ostensible order. the Brigade, which is receiving the order, but only to the Gruppe. Logically, it should have said "to the Gruppenfuehrer".
6) It is equally imprebable that the Fuehrer of the Brigade did not pass on the order or give orders to the Fuehrers of the Standarten on his own initiative, but only "Immediately informed the Standartenfuehrers and gave them exact information". existed in the SA.
7) It says in the report, "And execution was immediately begun." This formulation is also completely improbable. The Fuehrer of the Brigade reports in the preceding sentence that he immediately informed his Standartenfuehrers. It would then have been a matter of course, which no SA Fuehrer would have mentioned in his report on the completion of the mission, that the carrying through -- not the carrying out -- of the order was immediately begun. the document by alleging that the stamps on the Juettner letter (1721-PS) and on the report of the Gruppe (1721-PS) were identical. These two documents were presented under the same PS number. It was established, however, that the written notations were by different persons.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we break off?
(A recess was taken.)
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, Your Honors, I Just spoke of the points which were presented, to refute the generalness of the document 1721-PS. I continue. the Gruppenfuehrer of the Kurpfela Gruppe, Fust, and the member of the Gruppe staff Zimmerman, who was present at the the, which testify that such an order as the Prosecution contends was never given. If such an order was never given, then there can be no report on the completion of the mission. But it is, in addition, proved, on the basis of affidavits of the collective digest, that no order in the sense which the Prosecution contends was issued, to the Standarten of Brigade 50.
This we learn from the Standarten 115, 221, 186, 168 and 145. All these standards were part of Brigade 50. None of them received such ominous orders as the prosecution has claimed. By the evidence given by the former Obergruppenfuehrer Mappes, it has been proved that Lutze issued counter orders against the order of the 9th of November 1938 of Dr. Goebbels. Thus it has been proved that the Supreme SA leadership prohibited the participation in the undertaking started by Goebbels. It has been proved that without any doubt that counter order reached the following groups: East Prussia, Mitto, Hochland Hessen, Niedersachsen. (Affidavit General SS No. 71.) As shown by the testimony of Siebel, Lutze prohibited, as a consequence of the happenings of November 9, 1938, the carrying out of future orders of the political leadership. He issued that order because he realized that various SA Sturms or SA members had been abused at the occasion of November 9, 1938. (Affidavit SA No. 80). they render no tools for the sentencing of the SA as criminal. Since we have the counter order of Lutze, those events do not find themselves within the framework of the SA.
From the sworn evidence of Edgar Stelzner (Affidavit General SS No. 89), we learn that individual SA leaders detested those occurrences. By that, many SA units kept their records clean. There are whole districts in which nothing took place. that the following synagogues were protected by members of the SA: Bebra, Hoechstedt, Weilburg, Saubern, Grossumstadt, Bueckeburg. Furthermore, attempts to save the synagogues were made in Marburg, and in Giessen by SA members. It must be added that the largest part of the rural districts had neither synagogues nor Jews. In those districts no persecution of Jews was carried out. Therefore, the rural SA without further ado is to be excluded from this point of the indictment. It appears superfluous to me to emphasize that those excesses were rejected by the overwhelming majority of the SA members. from the differences we spoke about which the SA leadership had with the editors and the Eher Publishing House in regard to these articles in the "SA Mann" when it opposed them but lacked the power to prevail.
This position in regard to the Jewish question is completely clarified by the fact that in various grups the SA leadership had, expressly prohibited the "Stuermer." This was the case, for instance, in the group Nordmark (Evidence Klaehn, and Juettner). in regard to the church question. The evidence given by Generalvikars Dr. David, Pastor Burgstaller, and Konsistorialrates Dr. Rathke demonstrates that the prosecution charged the SA without justification with religious intolerance. The by far overwhelming majority of all SA members still belong to one of the Christian churches.
Protestant clergymen served within the ranks of the SA; for instance, the Bishop Sasse of Thuringia. From that, one may conclude that the SA leadership did not exert any pressure to have people leave the church. This fact is unmistakably proven by many affidavits. I may recall that Cardinal Count Galen was accompanied on his trips through the dioceses by SA members, and that in many territories an order had been issued prohibiting SA service during church times and in the neighborhood of churches. It is also a known fact that the SA held divine service in the field. In 1933 the SA furnished the guard of honor when the holy frock was exhibited in Trier (Testimony of Dr. Davis). In the cross examination of the witness Dr. Davis, the defense has proved that in the famous case in Freising when the sermon of Cardinal Faulhaber was to be monitored, the SA leadership initiated proceedings to punish these who were guilty of these excesses. camp guards or the police and assistant police troops, the prosecution mentions only a few cases. By that, the SA is excluded even through the indictment of the charges, of having had any connection with the large concentration camps of Auschwitz, Maidanek, Bolsen, Dachau and Buchenwald. In the case of Vogel the guilty person was punished. The misunderstanding created by the affidavit Schellenberg was cleared up by the affidavit of Gontermann (Affidavit General SA No.16). Shcellenberg in London confused the concentration camp and police service with the employment of the town and country guards.
policemen and auxiliary policement were employed for various purposes. They were taken from the ranks of the SA.
a) Because it was desirable to have a certain political proof of reliability:
b) Because among the many unemployed in the SA, there were to be found candidates for the profession of policeman or the work of auxiliary policeman.
As far as the respective SA members selected a new occupation; for instance, that of the policeman, these were only men who actually carried out that vocation. As far as they worked temporarily as auxiliary policemen, which was the case frequently when they served on probation before being definitely employed as policemen, they were not any longer subordinate to the SA but to the competent police office. At times they stillwore the SA uniform; but only because there were not enough uniforms; and therefore they were an arm band "Auxiliary Police." They received an identification card issued by the police, the Landrat, or other authorities. For the duration of such employment, they received furloughs from the SA by which the SA externally separated itself from them and deprived itself of the possibility of issuing orders to them. In tsuch cases the individual, therefore, never acted as SA man. The uniform which he kept wearing with the arm badn was the sole exclusively external connection with the SA, which cannot alone prove decisive. This adoption of the uniform of an organization for a purpose and service alien to the organization occurred frequently in the SA and other organizations; for example, as Wehrmacht affiliates or as Volkssturm. The arm band gave the uniform, or even civilian clothing according to recognized international law, the sole mark of the new service, deviating from the original purpose of the SA. police, and auxiliary police service, can deal only with such purely superficial matters, which can be unjustly charged against the SA only on the basis of the uniform. For the orders were issued, not by the SA leadership, but by the state. of Juettner by introducing documents which were to prove that the SA had participated, in the atrocities in the occupied territories and in the concentration camps and forced labor camps.
to set up SA units in the so-called Reichskommissariat Ostland; that is Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The Prosecution is confusing here the SA Gruppe Ostland which was set up in East Prussia with the later Reichskommissari Ostland. Moreover, the Prosecution has already charged another organization with the Schaulen, Kovno, and Vilna cases. District Commissars, Provincial Commissars, and officials of the Reichskommissariat Ostland were no more under the supreme SA leadership than the SA Obergruppenfuehrers, Killinger and Kasche who were engaged, as ministers. The defendant Ribbentrop has explained this clearly. The affidavit of the defendant Frank has solved the Ilkenau case in favor of the SA. so-called abuse of justice, which Sir David emphasized. It is not the affair of the SA but rather of the competent ministers. Hoehnstein. In reexamination it could be proved that this concentration camp was not a concentration camp for political opponents alone. Old political fighters were inmates of it. Moreover the affair of the Concentration Camp Hohenstein came to be prosecuted by the officials of the Ministry of Justice through information supplied by SA Obergruppenfuehrer Killinger, when he was still in charge of the SA Gruppe Sachsen. It is a curious thing to charge the SA with cases that they themselves reported for punishment. It is interesting in this connection that the Prosecution submitted an incomplete document in which theletters of Lutze and Hess are lacking, from which the SA defense might have been able to derive something favorable according to the information which it received. Prosecution obtained affidavits from former political opponents of the NSDAP. Among them are the affidavits of the Minister President Dr. Wilhelm Hoegner, and Advocate General Dr. Staff von Braunschweig. They were deposed on order of the military Government, as can be seen from the affidavit of Dr. Staff.
The two latter ones were submitted by the Defense. It has already been established before the Court that Dr. Hoegner was frequently mistaken. His description of the March on Coburg is completely wrong. witness Juettner and the affidavit of Zoeberlein (Affidavit General SA No.a):
A German Association, the "Schutz-und Trutzbund" Was obliged by the Town Administration to hold a closed session. The NSDAP stressed the right of freedom of assembly which was guaranted to all by the constitution. Therefore, a protective group went to Coburg. When leaving the railroad station, it was attacked on the street by members of Leftist organizations who were equipped with lead tubes, nails, wooden boards, etc. Above all, it has been proven, too, that the observations of Dr. Hoegner that the SA was trained by the Reichswehr were incorrect. The Munich Reichswehr General von Lessow frustrated the success of the Hitler Putsch. As Witness Juettner has testified, the collections of arms which had been opened with the permission of the Inter-allied Commission were opened to oil other organizations with the exception of the SA. It is equally wrong when it was contended that Ludendorff was chosen to unleash a national war against France at a time when Communist outbreaks were raging in Saxonia and when Ludendorff had already tried in 1921 to reach an understanding with France, which led around the end of 1923 to the so-called Foch Plan. When we consider the source of arms in Munich, Dr. Hoegner claimed that the SA had had a share in the persecution of the Jews while the witness of the prosecution, Diels, stressed that the SA was not anti-semitic. Dr. Hoegner puts himself also in contrast to Pastor Burgstaller who had emphasized the indifference of the SA in racial matters. Without any qualification, it can be admitted that excesses did occur when the "Munich Post" was occupied.
But such things occur during any revolution; we should only remember some of the things that happened between 1913 and 1920. davit of Dr. Staff, Braunschweig. There it is stated; the SA behaved in a manner which from the legal standpoint of a civilized nation must be called illegal, but it did not result in any excesses going beyond these illegal measures.
I submitted also an affidavit of Dr. Prioso as Number General SA 82. It shows that Dr. Prioso as a member of the Communist Party of Germany is active as an expert of the de-nazification court, and that he testified with the approval of the Minister for political clearances. His judgment says that the SA could not be considered a criminal organization in the sense of Article VI of the Charter. so-called uniform unit of the NSDAP *roke into pieces even more than it had been the case before that date. Part of the German populace entered the SA who had nothing to do with the aims and purposes of the SA. Communists were incorporated in large numbers. The collection of affidavits shows that this was also the case in other cities. It is also necessary in this connection to refer to the incorporation of all evangelical youth organizations in the Hitler Youth in 1933, which were later transferred to the SA, Generalviker Dr. David declared that this was also the case among many of the Catholic youth. The idea which loading personalities had in their minds when this transfer was made become clear from the quotation from the Akademischen Monatsblaetter of June 1933 (SA Document 317), which reads as follows: "Having recognized this it is up to us to take a hand in order to creat new and better things and to prevent the worst. In common honest work with all constructive forces of our nation, and with a sincere conviction. For this reason we want to place all our Catholic property of Christian conservative ideas and our Christian evolutionary forces into the new Germany to help in the formation and deepening of its spirit from our spirit."