Every witness that has been called by the Defense has denied all knowledge of or participation in the mistreatment of foreign laborers; but what is such evidence worth when you consider the documents which have been presented? The treatment of Polish agricultural workers, for whose care the Bauernfuehrers on the staffs of the Gau, Kreis and Ortsgruppenleiters were particularly responsible can be seen from the instructions issued to the Kreisbauernschaften in Karlsruhe in March 1941. They were instructions which were issued as a result of negotiations between the State Peasant Association of Baden, and the Higher SS and Police Officer in Stuttgart, and they were received with "great satisfaction". The Polish laborer was no longer to have any right to complain. He was prohibited transport, entertainment and religious worship; he was forbidden to change his employment; there were to be no time limits to his working hours. I quote:
"Every employer has the right to give corporal punishment towards farm workers of Polish nationality.
....The employer may not be held accountable in any such case by an official agency.
Farm workers of of the home and they can be quartered in stables, etc.
No remorse whatever should restrict such action."
Can it really be possible that instructions of that nature were issued in Karlsruhe and nowhere else? Is it possible that while the Poles in Baden were being treated like animals, in the next door Gau they were being accepted as members of the family? This is the evidence of the witness Mohr called on behalf of the Bauernfuehrers before the Commission. I quote:
"In practically all cases, I think with very few exceptions, the foreign laborer was accepted in the farmer's family unit.
He ate with the family and moved around in the circle of the farmer's family."
workers was in the hands of the DAF Political Leaders. Sauckel had decreed in March 1942:
"The food supply for the industrial workers in transit within the Reich is the duty of the DAF ..... The care for the foreign workers employed in the Reich Trill be carried out.
..by the DAF in the case of non-farm laborers.
....All camps with foreign non-agrarian workers, regardless and controls of the execution of these orders."
workers of Essen barely existed. Once again I ask: is it possible that the Gauleiters, Kreisleiters, Ortsgruppenleiters, Zell and Blockleiters and the Political Leaders of the DAF in Essen were unaware of these conditions when the hutments in which the workers lived and the punishment cells in which they were confined and tortured are situated, as the photographs show, in the very grounds of the Krupp foundries and workshops; with the works railway running within a few feet of their doors; and with the Krupp cranes stretching almost above their roofs? were exceptional and due only to the chaos caused by Allied bombing. But it is not so. Before the bombing of Essen had started, the Office Chief of Krupps Locomotive Construction Works was complaining that "the people came in the morning without bread and tools.
During both for bread, pitifully pointing out their hunger."
manager is charged with the work of his workers in the following paragraphs, and I ask your Lordship to pass on to the top of page 29, and just look at the last two sentences of the quotation, which is typical of all I have said. The last two sentences of that paragraph:
"Side people are a liability to us and not a help to production. To this remark Herr Prior stated that if one was worth nothing then another was, that the Bolsheviks were soulless people and if 100,000 of then died another 100,000 would replace them." only to Essen. In Karen 1943 Goebbels found it necessary to hold a conference on the question of increasing production. The minutes of that conference report:
"The hitherto prevailing treatment of the Eastern workers has led not only to diminished production but has most disadvantageously influenced the political orientation of the people in conquered Eastern Territories and has resulted in the well known difficulties for our troops .... The treatment of foreigners which, until new, was Markedly different for subjects of Western and Eastern Countries, will be put on a uniform basis as much as possible, particularly the living standards of the Eastern workers will be raised." Party Chancellery from which the Corps of Political Leaders received their orders. Its representative -- I quote:- "pointed out the controversies which are already appearing and which would result for the German population if more freedom were granted for the foreigners." notwithstanding the fears his representative had expressed at the meeting in March, on the 5th May 1943 Bormann issued from the Party Chancellery a memorandum to all Reichsleiters, Gauleiters, Verbandefuehrers, Kreisleiters and Orsgruppenleiters. They were instructed that the treatment of foreign labou rers should become more humane although at the sane it was "demanded by members of the German race that they observe the difference between themselves and foreign nationals as a patriotic duty..... Injustices, insults, trickery, mistreatment, etc. must be discontinued. Punishment by boating is forbidden. witnesses for the defence has told? Does it not show more clearly perhaps than any other document the savage brutality with which the Political Leaders of the National Socialist party were encouraging the people of Germany.
Is it not almost beyond our comprehension that in these days of enlightenment in a great and civilized country orders should have been necessary from the Government to its political leaders to discontinue the mistreatment of men and women that they had deported into slavery? Is it not inconceivable that it should have been necessary to forbid their political leaders and their employers to beat the men and women working for then? Now to the next paragraph. issued by the Gaustabsamtsleiter issued from Strasbourg in the Gau BadenAlsace. Foreign women workers induced to sexual intercourse by Germans were to be taken temporarily into protective custody and then sent to another place of work. "In other cases the foreign female worker will be sent to a concentration camp for women." Their children, if they were racially satisfactory and hereditarily healthy, were to be seized from them immediately after birth to "go to homos for foreign children to be looked after by the National Socialist Welfare organization." evidence we already have of the callous brutality which was proscribed by the I arty for the treatment of foreign workers. But it is an important document because it shows how many branches of the political Leaders were involved in this trafficking in slaves. Kreisleiters and the Kreisobmann of the German Labour front were to report cases of pregnancy. In fact, as one might expect, it was the Ortsgruppenleiters that made the necessary enquiries. As well as the DAF and NSV (labor welfare) the order was circulated to the Gau Propaganda loiter, the Gau Press leiter, the Gauamtsleiters for Racial Policy, for National Health, for peasantry, for National Welfare, for questions of race, the Gau Political Leader of the National Socialist Women's Organization and to similar staff officers on the Kreisleiters' staff. It is perhaps worth noting the action --or as it might more accurately be described, the lack of action -- which the National Socialist Welfare Organization took -
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, could you tell us what the word "Kreisobmann" means?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: It is representative of the Labor Front of the Kreisleiter Staff, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: "As far as I can find out up to now", reports the Kreisleiter of Villigen,"there have been about 21 pregnancies, of these 4 abortions are said to have been carried out, during which 2 of the women died. Of the remaining 17 births, 5 were still born. Welfare by the NSV has not taken place anywhere." with the Security Police and the SD and the Reich Commissar for the consolidation of the German race, another institution over which Himmler reigned supreme.
On this subject it would almost be enough to say: It is admitted by Dr. Servatius that the political Leaders knew that the majority of the workers were forced. It is admitted that they supervised the condition of that labour. Thereafter res ipsa loquitur. on which the murder of sick and aged persons was carried out. That "action" commenced some time in the Summer of 1940, but long before then in pursuance of their racial policy the Nazi Government were taking steps to improve the German race. One document we have dated January 1937 is illuminating upon the part the Political Leaders were expected to take. It is a letter from the Gauleiter of Southern Westfalen setting out Hess's decree of the 14th of January 1937: Here is the quotation:
"The question whether the person is an imbecile cannot be ascertained solely by carrying out an intelligence test but requires detailed evaluation of the whole personality of the human being. This review shall not only take into consideration the knowledge and intellectualabilities of the imbecile but also his ethical, moral and political attitude. A number of civil service doctors have, up to date, attached little importance to the reviewing of the personality as a whole. They have, up to new, hardly ever called for or used information regarding the political conduct of the supposed patient. Now that the Party, by virtue of the decree of the Reich and Prussian Minister of the Interior, is consulted in the proceedings, on matters of hereditary diseases against Party members, it is the task of all Gauleiters to ascertain that the law regarding hereditary health willin fact be used in the sense in which it was designed.
....He must investigate whether the person about to be sterilized has achieved very outstanding merits for the National Socialist movement. If the Gauleiter reaches this conviction and feels that he must use his influence to prevent the sterilization, he will report to this department." that might be put, abuses which might wellprove a convenient weapon for the Nazi Party. That letter from A Gauleiter went to all Gauamtsleiters, Gau Inspectors and Kreisleiters in his Gau. From the fact that it is stated that the Department for National Health was to carry out preparations for cases to be put before the Gauleiter, it is clear that the Amtsleiters for that Department of National Health were also closely involved. became general knowledge within a few months of its commencement.
By July 1940 Bishop Worm was writing to Frick. In August he was writing to the Minister of Justice. In September having attained no satisfaction he was writing again both to Frick and to the Minister of Justice. Tribunal was addressed on that by the Attorney General, and the facts were called to their attention by my good friend Colonel Griffith-Jones.
May I summarize what the pages contain in the interest of time? My Lord, the remainder of pages 32 and 33 show the church opposition to euthanasia and the Party support, and the addition at the foot of Pages 33, and from there Pages 33-a and 34, with the question of whether euthanasia is a war crime, and show the evidence that it was deliberately used in order to organize the population for war and restrict the number of useless mouths in the country during the war. intervening pages on Page 35, Line 6. My Lord, I just want to show how it is related to the lower groups of the political leaders which we are considering. My Lord, that is after dealing with the various reports and objections to the murder of 270,000 persons on this excuse of euthanasia. Line 6, I go on. The Kreisleiter from Lauf wrote to the Gaustabsamtsleiter:
"The doctor also informed me that it was well known that the Commission consisted of one SS doctor and several subordinate doctors, that the patients were not even examined and that they only pronounced the verdict in accordance with the medical history noted down." Reich Minister of the Interior under what decree they had been killed. The defendant Frick's office passed the matter on to the Gaustabsamtsleiter in Nuremburg. I quotes:
"I request that you investigate whether Kehr is politically reliable, especially whether she does not have Church connections. In case this should be so, for my part there are no misgivings if you give Kehr the desired information orally."
The Gaustabsamtsleiter passed that letter on to the Kreisleiter. The Kreisleiter passed it on to the Ortsgruppenleiter, who reported -- I quote:
"that one can inform Mrs Kehr. She is calm and circumspect".
In February 1941 the Ortsgruppenleiter of Absburg reported on the "wildest scenes imaginable" which had occurred in his village when the local sanatorium had been cleared of patients.
You may think his attitude was typical of the great mass of Political Leaders: I quote:
"These incidents during this action, which is after all necessary, are to be condemned all the more because even Party members themselves did not shrink from joining in the lamentations of the other weeping spectators. It is oven said that these poor victims -- as they are regarded by the clergy and the religious inhabitants of Absburg -- were taken to the Catholic Church for confession and communion shortly before their departure. It seems absolutely ridiculous to want to take away by an oral confession the possible sins of people some of whom completely lack all mental power". Leaders share the views of that Ortsgruppenleiter as to the absurdity of any oral confession. mention that in addition to the Gaustabsamtleiters, the Kreisleiters and Ortsgruppenleiters, the Gauorganizationleiter also becomes involved. The Leadership Corps was up to the elbows in this bloody business.
treatment of Prisoners of war. In September 1941 Bormann circulated to Gauleiters and Kreisleiters the regulations of the OKW for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war. From the receipt stamp of that document it appears that the Gau Trainingleiter was the official on the Gau staff chiefly concerned with these matters. You remember the directives contained in those regulations. They were based on the fact that "Bolshevism is the deadly enemy of Nazi Germany... The Bolshevist soldier has therefore lost all claim to treatment as an honourable opponent in accordance with the Geneva Convention... the feeling of pride and superiority of the German soldier ordered to guard Soviet prisoners of war must at all times be visible even in public. The order for ruthless and energetic action must be given at the slightest indication of insubordination especially in the case of Bolshevist fanatics... With Soviet prisoners of war it is already necessary, for reasons of discipline, that the use of arms should be severe." prisoners of war in the P.W. camps in order to discover and eliminate their leader and intelligentsia. These orders circulated to Gauleiters and Kriesleiters explain the purpose and the method of work of those special purpose units and state:
"The Armed Forces must rid themselves of all those elements among the prisons of war which must be considered as the driving force of Bolshevism. The special conditions of the Eastern campaign demand special measures which can be carried out on their own responsiblity free from bureaucratic and administrative influence. Russian prisoners of war were being murdered. instructions. Bormann writing to all Reichleiters, Gauleiters, Verbaendefuehrers and Kriesleiters in September 1944 emphasized: "The co-operation of the Psrty in the commitment of prisoners of war is inevitable, Therefore the officers assigned to the prisoner of war system have been instructed to co-operate most closely with the Hoheitstrager; the commanders at the prisoner of war camps have to detail immediately liason officers to the Kreisleiters, thus the opportunity will be afforded the Hoheitstragers to alleviate existing difficulties locally, to exercise influence on the behaviour of the guard units and better to assimilate the committmen of the prisoners of war to the political and economic demands."
plant owners "again and again politically and ideologically" and this was to be done in co-operation with the DAF. prisoners of war employed by Krupp. The Political Leaders were as callous of their prisoner of war slaves when they died as they had been while they lived. Gauleiter and Kriesleiters received from Bormann Frick's instructions for the burial of Soviet prisoners of war. Tarred paper was to make do for coffins, no burial ceremonies or decorations of the graves were to be allowed, costs were to be kept as low as possible and the "transfer and burial is to be carried out unobtrusively; if a number of corpses have to be disposed of the burial will be carried out ina communal grave." Nazi Government and its political leaders? They mattered just as much or just as little as any recognized form of somple decency or honour. tives for behaviour in case of landings of enemy plants or parachutists. You will remember the order "Likewise enemy parachutists are immediately to be arrested or made harmless". In view of less ambiguous orders which were to follow and of the extraordinary precautions to maintain secrecy in respect of that order, can you now doubt what that somewhat ambiguous phrase was intended to convoy? You remember that it was to be diseminated orally only to Kreisleiters, Ortsgruppenleiters, Zell- and Blockleiters. Transmittal of the order by official orders, poster, press or radio was prohibited and amongst the other security precautions it was declared to be a state secret document. You will remember also that in addition to all the Hoheitstragers being informed, the order went to the Reich Orgnization Directorate the Reich Propaganda Directorate and the Reich Student Leadership offices which each bad their own representaive included in the Amtsleiter of the Gau, Kreis and Ortsgruppen staffs, and that it went also to SS Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, would that be a. good time to break off?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken.)
to interfere in clashes between Germans and terror flyers. Gauleiters were to be informed verbally. was not bearable to use German police to protect murderers. The next day Bormann directed all Gauleiters, Vorhandefuehrers, Kreisleiters and Ortsgruppenleiters that several instances had occurred in which aircraft crews who had bailed out or had made forced landings had been lynched on the spot by the incensed populace.
"No police measures or criminal proceedings were invoked against the German civilians who participated in these incidents". that letter, to have captured a Gauleiter's order taking advantage of the invitation that Bormann had extended. In February 1945 the Gauleiter for Westfalen-South expressly directed his Kreisleiters to encourage the lynching of Allied airmen:
"Fighter bomber pilots" he wrote "who are shot down are on principle not to be protected against the indignation of the people. I expect from all police offices that they will refuse to lend their protection to these gangster types".
You will have soon Gauleiter Hoffmann's evidence before your Commissioners upon this matter and you will pay such attention to it as you think it deserves. Leaders by reminding you of the evidence of two witnesses called in defence of the organization, one Eberstein whom you yourselves heard give evidence for the SS and the other Wahl, a Gauleiter who testified before your commissioners. concentration camps -- they had nothing to do with them, that they knew nothing of what was happening inside them. But what did the witness Eberstein tell you? I quote from his evidence:
"In the beginning of March, 1945, the Gauleiter and Reichs Defense Kommissar Giesler in Munich ordered me to come to him, and demanded that I should influence the Kommandant of Dachau to the effect that when the American troops approached the prisoners -- there were 25,000 people there at the time -were to be shot.
I refused this demand with indignation, and I pointed out that I could not give any orders to the Kommandant, whereupon Giesler said to me that he, as Reichs Defense Kommissar, would see to it that the came would be bombed by our own forces. I told him that I considered it impossible that any German air force commander would be willing to do this. Then Giesler said he would see to it that something would be put into the soup of the prisoners. That is, he threatened to poison them. From my own initiative I sent an inquiry to the inspector of the concentration camp by teletype and asked for a decision from Himmler as to what was to be done with the prisoners in case the American troops approached. Shortly thereafter the news came that the camps were to be surrendered to the enemy. I showed that to Giesler. He was quite indignant because I had frustrated his plans".
And lastly the witness Wahl, Gauleiter of Schwaben gave this evidence:
"Q. Witness, I was asking you about the conversation which you had with your wife on the question whether or not you should resign your position as Gauleiter. Isn't the implication to be drawn from that conversation this:that you were ashamed of what other Gauleiters were doing and that all around you saw things going on which you disapproved and wanted to disassocaite yourself from?
"A. Yes.
"Q. That is true, isn't it?
"A. Yes, that is true."
And in answer to another question he said:
"I want to stress the point that it is not my task and not my wish here to justify all the Gaus. In the Gauleiters there were maniacs and bloodthirsty feels as everywhere else." a word upon the question of voluntary membership. Counsel for the SA has has argued that membership was not voluntary; it is said that great pressure was brought to bear upon the German people to make them join one or other of the Nazi Party organizations and that, in the case of certain sections of the SA, not only was pressure brought to bear but membership was enforced by decree.
On the evidence to which. I shall draw your attention you may well think that it, as in certain cases there undoubtedly was, pressure exerted upon individuals to join the Party, and in some cases, perhaps, to join this particular organization, the consequences of refusal as they have been pictured by the Defense are very much exaggerated. It is submitted that even if you accept without qualification the evidence of some of those witnesses as to particular cases of compulsion, the evidence which you have as to the Organization as a whole is perfectly clear: the membership was from the first until the last voluntary: never was there at any time compulsion recognisable in law as such, either physical or as a result of legal decrees. the English Law on compulsion. I do not want to go over it. It takes the rest of pages 41 and 42, and the cases are summarized in the footnotes. If I might, my Lord, I should like to continue at the top of page 43.
Let me shortly discuss the evidence upon this point. The general service regulations for the SA published in 1933 laid it down that "He who cannot or will not subordinate himself is not suited to the SA andhas to withdraw."
The Organization Book of 1940 states: "Service with the SA is and remains voluntary.....As in recruitment for the SA no advantages may be promised and no pressure whatever may be exercissd. The SA man should have the possibility to withdraw."
The witness Juettner agreed with that statement as correct. He was asked: "Did it always remain a fundamental principle of the SA that membership should be voluntary?" And answered: "That was always the principle adhered to by the leadership." He was asked again: "If a man no longer agreed with the SA views, was he expected to withdraw?"; and answered: "Numerous men left the SA for a variety of reasons." Reiterkorps be said to constitute compulsion, physical or by decree. It is true that the original riding organizations were arbitarily amalgamated into the SA, but as the witness Walle, called on behalf of this branch of the SA, himself admitted: "Membership in the SA was voluntary in 1933 and this did not change....A man could resign from the Reiterkorps but he had to give up his sport inasmuch as the riding installations were no longer at his disposal."
"The Riders Association", he said "submitted to the process of coordination because it enabled them to continue their athletic activity." activities of the SA were more obviously criminal to all the people of Germany than at any other time. How then can the loss of "sporting activities" constitute compulsion and afford an excuse for membership? Is the risk of the loss of horse and stable to be regarded as legal justification for participation in murder? and the Stahlhelm, although those organizations may have been amalgamated with the SA by legal decree, there is no evidence before you that the decrees contained one word which might be construed as compulsion upon individual members to take up membership in the SA.
that the evidence that Juettner gave before the Commission is clearer still. Let me quote from the transcript of his evidence:
Q. "There was nothing, was there, to stop a member of the Stahlhelm withdrawing from the SA when the two organizations were combined in 1933?"
A. "As far as I was concerned in my district no member of the Stahlhelm who did not desire to do so would have been compelled to join the SA."
Q "And that goes generally for the whole of Germany, does it not?"
A. "It is reported that there were instances in which members of the Stahlhelm agreed to transfer only because it was ordered."
Q "But there is no instance where a man was forced to join or continue his membership?"
A "No, sir." servants if they refused to join -- refused to join not the SA, be it noted, but any Party organization. But the witness Boley, who himself gave this evidence, showed how exaggerated it was when he admitted to the Commissioner that in those offices in which he was himself employed, only 18% of the civil servants had become members of the Party or of one of its organizations. And these offices were the Reich Finance Ministry and Reich Chancellery -- the very heart of the Nazi Government. how a German who had the character to stand up for what he believed to be right could continue to do so without any dire results. Himself a civil servant and a leading member of the Stahlhelm in 1933, he resigned on its amalgamation with the SA., refused to join the SA, the Party or my other Party organization, yet nevertheless continued to hold his position until the end of the war. compelled by decree to become members of the SA. This contention has been supported by an order of the SA University Department in Munich, dated 16 April 1934, which is contained in the SA Defence Document Book.
Upon that document I make two submissions. First, the references to "SA service" do not connote membership of the SA but a course of training under SA direction; secondly, the sentence in paragraph 3 "All newly matriculated students are therefore bound to join the SA " is not in accordance with the policy of the SA leadership and does not represent the practice in universities generally.
University Department at Cologne two days before. When that order is read with the Munich order it becomes apparent that this submission is well founded.
29 Aug M LJG 9-1 Feldt Paragraph 1 of both orders is identical.
All students are to be "regimented by the S.A. University Department in order to be physically and mentally trained in a uniform manner in the spirit of the National Socialist revolution." In paragraph 2 it is expressly stated that it is a matter of indifference whether they are members of the S.A. at all. Paragraph 3, while following the same form in both orders, differs essentially. In both cases the orders are said to be based upon the same decree of the Supreme S.A. Leadership of 27 March 1934. We have not seen that decree but paragraph 3 of the Cologne order makes it clear that membership of the S.A. was not intended to be compulsory as is suggested by the Munich order. It is evident also that the S.A. service with which both orders are concerned is something different and independent from membership of the organization. How can compulsory "S.A. service" mean compulsory S.A. membership when it is expressly stated that except during the eleven days from 25 April to 5 May there is a ban on the enrolment of now members? The next words in both orders mark the essential difference between the two. In Munich students "are therefore bound to join the S.A." while in Cologne they are "thereby offered the possibility of joining the S.A." If the S.A. service which was to be compulsory for all German students connoted membership of the S.A., there could be no question of "offering" them "the possibility" of joining. You may think that in Munich, the heart of National Socialism, the decree of the Supreme S.A. Leadership of 27 March was deliberately misinterpreted to suit the desire of a particularly fanatical Sturmfuehrer. On the face of the documents it is apparent that whatever was happening in Munich was not characteristic of every other university in Germany. Juettner confirms the case for the Prosecution. He states:
"I have already expressed that in some instances pressure has been exercised by organizations outside the S.A., for instance, in the case of students and in the case of financing schools." But in answer to the question:
29 Aug M LJG 9-2 Feldt "There was nothing which compelled a student to join the S.A. if he disapproved of what the S.A. stood for?"
he said:
"I share that opinion." I quoted in the evidence of Juettner, there is corroboration in writing of that evidence. The fact is as he explained: where organizations were amalgamated with the S.A. "the vast majority of non were proud of the S.A. and proud to serve in the S.A." If further evidence were wanted of the voluntary nature of this organization, both in theory and in practice, it is to be found in the stops which were taken by the S.A. leadership itself to reduce its members after the large influx that had taken place in 1933 and 1934 by the incorporation of such organizations as the Stahlholm and Reiterkorps and by the large numbers of candidates that flecked to every party organization after the Nazi seizure of power. From 4 1/2 million in 1934 the membership of the S.A. had dropped to 1,500,000 at the outbreak of war in 1939. Juettner explained the causes of this reduction. It was due partly to the Kyffhauserbund, another old soldiers' organization, being excluded from the S.A. But it was due also to the introduction of examinations for their members, failure to pass which resulted in dismissal, and to the fact that those who, " for reasons of their occupation were unable to do us a service and accordingly did not cheerfully continue to serve us in the S.A." were also dismissed. Such a wooding cut and reduction in numbers from 41/2 to 11/2 millions in 5 years is hardly compatible with the story of the whole of the German youth, the whole of the German civil service and of the population generally being compelled to become members of this organization. It is submitted that this is conclusive evidence of the voluntary nature of this organization. number the witness Boley gave as 3 million, a million Stahlhelm members, 100,000 students, 200,000 Reiterkorps members and others 29 Aug M LJG 9-3 Feldt besides were all compelled to join the S.A. when the total membership of that organization in 1939 was only 1,500,000?
was brought to bear; that the consequences of refusal would have been serious. But this issue is to be decided upon recognized and established principles of law. Even were it not so, could we feel sympathy for these people? Did they show sympathy for the thousand of their fellow countrymen that were taken to the dreaded horrors of the concentration camps? Did they sympathize with the thousands of Jews that were slandered and persecuted unceasingly ever the years? Exclusions with the Organizations were argued before you in February, I stated on behalf of the Prosecution that we did not seek a declaration of criminality against certain sections of the S.A. We excluded
1) All wearers of the S.A. Party badge who were not strictly members of the S.A.
2) Members of the S.A. Wehrmannschaften who were not otherwise members of the S.A. You may well think, having heard the evidence that you have of the crimes committed by the Wehrmannschaften in Poland and in the Eastern Territories that that branch of the S.A. ought not to be excluded. Nevertheless, we feel that many members of the units which were involved in these
3) Members of the SA reserve who at no time served in any other
4) The National Socialist League for Disabled Veterans. to obtain a declaration of criminality only against those who bear a major responsibility for the crimes that have been committed. In view of this and in view of the evidence that has been presented to you since February, we desire respectfully to recommend certain additional exclusions from among the general membership of this Organization.
First. The total strength of the S.A. in 1934 was given you by Juettner as 4 1/2 million. That figure included 1,500,000 members of the Kyffhauserbund. Shortly after the amalgamation of that Organization with the S.A. in 1933 the two were again separated. We respectfully recommend the exclusion of all those members of the Kyffhauserbund who did not retain their membership of the S.A. after that separation.
Secondly. We believe that we are also justified in asking for the exclusion of certain sections of the Stahlhelm. So that you may understand the grounds for this recommendation, it may be of assistance if I briefly remind you of the structure and history of that Organization. It was composed of:
1) The Scharnhorst, which was the Stahlhelm youth organization for
2) The Wehr Stahlhelm which included the Jung Stahlhelm (boys from 14 24 years of age) and the Stahlhelm sports formations (men from 23 35 years of age). The total strength of the Wehr Stahlhelm was
3) The Kern Stahlhelm which consisted of men between 36-35 years of age.
Its strength has been given as 450,000.
The total strength of the Stahlhelm was therefore approximately 11/2 million men and boys.