The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-22/tgmwc-22-213.09


Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-22/tgmwc-22-213.09
Last-Modified: 2001/02/21

Finally, I have shown that preparations were made on
the part of the SA leadership for the Reich Party Rally
of 1939, which were contrary to any possible plans

                                             [Page 223]

for war. We have also made this clear through the
testimony of the witness Dr. Geyer and through the
affidavits of Koch and Zellenhoefer. Finally, in the
proceedings before the Commission there came to our
attention an agreement between the SA and the
Wehrmacht, which was intended to constitute a counter
balance against any possible military aggressive
tendencies on the part of Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels
(Affidavit General SA No. 1).

The prosecution's view that the SA was founded in order
to overthrow political opponents with terroristic
methods and thus make the way clear for an aggressive
war is likewise completely misleading. Anyone who knows
the political conditions in Germany, and looks at them
with eyes unclouded by propaganda, will wonder how
people can arrive at such an opinion. The arms depots
of the KPD (Communist Party of Germany), which have
been officially proved, and the unequivocal attitude of
the KPD speak clearly in unambiguous language (SA
Document No. 287). What extent the political struggle
of the KPD and the other leftist radical elements
assumed, which these organizations carried into the
streets, 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 in order to care
for members of the NSDAP who fell victim to the leftist
radical terror. It might be pointed out that it was the
KPD that considered civil war, general strikes, and a
mass political strike as necessary political fighting
methods, as appeared from the decision of the State
Court for the Protection of the German Republic, which
I submitted to the Tribunal in my document book (SA
Document 285). That this political terrorism was
carried on as a part of world revolution, is also shown
by a decision rendered by the State Court for the
Protection of the German Republic. This was also
pointed out to us by the witness Juettner when he
referred to the idea of a defensive Western pact
directed against endeavours to bring about a world
revolution (SA Document 286), in pursuance of which, by
their own admission, the Communist International began
revolutions, among other places, in Finland, Austria,
Hungary, Bulgaria and Syria. It can be said without any
exaggeration that without the Marxist theory of the
class struggle, and without the events which led up to
it, the underlying causes would doubtless not have
arisen which required the protection of an intellectual
movement by means of the SA. The witness Gisevius also
adopts this view when he declares:

  "The SA has its origin in that post-war period when
  revolution was either still in progress in Germany,
  or was just beginning again. One might say that it
  was one of the last outcroppings of the Spartakus
  upheavals in 1918. Red pressure produced Brown
  counter-pressure, and from that time on the latter's
  external manifestation has been called the SA."

The prosecution for their part, have submitted
unequivocal documents of the SA Mann which was
certainly not an official organ of the Supreme SA
Leadership, but which in this case contain unequivocal
proof as to which side was responsible for the
terrorism, and this was undoubtedly the Communist
Party. I do not propose to quote the articles in detail
which contain this proof. I merely want to refer to the
prosecution's Document 3050-PS, in which, by the way,
articles from the SA Mann were reproduced by the
prosecution in a distorted way and taken out of their
context (compare the testimony of Klaehn and Bock
before the Commission).

COLONEL POKROVSKY: My Lord, the counsel for the defence
is trying to attribute to the prosecution material
submitted as evidence which the prosecution itself has
never submitted. I very definitely object to such
methods on the part of Dr. Boehm, since such methods
seem quite obviously intended to introduce Fascist
slander and libelous Fascist inventions before this
Tribunal. I am asking the Tribunal to reject the
reading of the subsequent paragraph of the defence
counsel's speech 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,

                                             [Page 224]

to the circumstances that we have there a very clear
alteration of the real state of affairs. It is quite
true that Document 3050-PS was submitted by the
prosecution, but it consisted of a bundle of copies of
unofficial newspapers, Der SA Mann, covering a number
of years. In terms of previous decisions of the
Tribunal, if defence counsel wanted to refer to any
part of that document, he should have followed the
example of the other counsel by putting in the
particular part of the document which he wanted to
quote in his speech. This he did not do. Thus, the
allegation that the prosecution submitted material
which the prosecution did not intend to put in is
incorrect and in my opinion defence counsel has no
reason at all to refer to what he is referring to,
namely to the first paragraph on Page 29 of that
document.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not quite understand your
objection. I have got a translation before me which
says:

  "The prosecution also presented documents derived
  from the Associated Press, as has been proved at the
  session of the Commission."
  
I understand that was submitted by the prosecution. Is
that right?

COLONEL POKROVSKY: My Lord, Document 3050-PS, to my
knowledge, consists of a collection of newspapers, Der
SA Mann, for the years 1934 to 1939. Some parts of the
text contained in these newspapers have, in fact, been
quoted by the prosecution. But my opinion is that if
defence counsel wanted to use parts of the material
which have not been quoted but which did appear in the
same document, 3050-PS, then he ought to have done that
at the time he was submitting his evidence, or else he
ought not to have done it at all. That is the way we
interpret this question, my Lord. It concerns the
quotations from the newspapers, Der SA Mann.

THE PRESIDENT: But has not the Tribunal laid it down,
at the outset, that the defendants could refer to any
other part of the documents which was contained in the
document of which part was put in by the prosecution?
Is not that all he does, referring to some other pages
of the documents which have been put in by the
prosecution? At the outset the Tribunal laid down a
rule to cover this very situation. It is always the
same.

COLONEL POKROVSKY: The prosecution does remember that
decision of the Tribunal, my Lord, but we interpreted
it in the way I have described. It seemed to us, and
our point of view was strengthened by all the previous
procedure followed by the defence, that defence counsel
has to put in those parts of a document which have
already been submitted, but which have not been quoted
by the prosecution and which defence counsel would like
to use as evidence. Dr. Boehm has not done so.

DR. BOEHM: May I define my attitude, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: No.

Colonel Pokrovsky, he does not expressly say it was
used by the prosecution. He expressly states to what he
is referring. I do not consider it improper, referring
to any other part of the document in that way.

COLONEL POKROVSKY: It seems to me, my Lord, that such
utilization of a document on the part of the defence is
not correct and this for the reasons I have already
stated. I would like to repeat once more, it seems to
me that he ought to have produced these parts of the
Document 3050-PS at the time he was submitting his
evidence.

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.

COLONEL POKROVSKY: That is it, my Lord. You are quite
right. Thank you.

                                             [Page 225]

THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Boehm.

DR. BOEHM: In my brief, I merely referred to document
... Mr. President, in my brief I merely supported my
argument with the document which was not submitted by
me, but by the prosecution, 3050-PS. To pick out the
individual articles here would amount to the work of at
least a whole day, as was also the case in the
Commission hearings. It is true that there are many
individual articles included in Document 3050. But as
far as I am concerned, there was no occasion whatsoever
for me to give their numbers because I did not present
them. And therefore I do not think I have done anything
wrong here.

May I continue?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Go on.

DR. BOEHM: The prosecution has also introduced
documents which originated with the Associated Press,
as was proved at the meeting of the Commission, in
which the political struggle is viewed in connection
with world revolutionary tendencies. I only recall the
article entitled "The Red Danger in the East," and the
cartoon with the caption "Stalin wants world
revolution, Budyenny has already smelled the roast,"
which was likewise introduced by the prosecution.
Finally, the defence would like to draw attention to
the street fighting regulations issued by the KPD.

Moreover, I refer to the general order issued by the
Supreme SA Leadership, which states that weapons of any
kind are forbidden in the SA, and that violations of
this regulation will be punished with expulsion from
the SA. Furthermore, I might refer to the testimony of
the witness Dr. Kurt Wolf, who stated that this
prohibition against carrying arms resulted in a
disproportionately high number of victims among the SA
men. The witness confirmed that the number of dead on
the side of the National Socialist Party was higher
than on the side of the PKD. He also gave the
explanation that the members of the SA, unlike the
radical elements of the left, were always searched for
arms by their responsible leaders. I also refer to the
affidavits by Freund, Zoeberlein and Hahn. They
represent the political situation as it really was,
beyond any doubt. The testimony repeatedly revealed
that before 1933 we stood on the verge of civil war.
The excesses which actually occurred in 1933 are to be
explained by this civil war psychosis. This is also
shown by the testimony of former State Secretary
Grauert. Herr Gisevius says the following about this
period, as I have explained in Document SA 301,

  "Looking back on these events, one may say without
  hesitation that this first phase of the revolution
  claimed comparatively few victims."

If we look at Document SA 302, he also adds, and I
quote, that

  "By and large, it was only a very small clique which
  rendered itself guilty of excesses."

In his testimony before the Tribunal, he repeatedly
makes an exception in the case of the majority of the
SA. It was also perfectly clear from the testimony that
the Supreme SA Leadership intervened whenever excesses
were brought to their knowledge. That this was actually
the case is shown by the Vogel affair, and above all by
the testimony of former Police Chief Habenicht about
the camp near Wuppertal. In close co-operation between
Grauert and the Supreme SA Leadership, elements
committing excesses were eliminated. In his affidavit
on the SA, Herr Diels, who serves as an incriminating
witness for the prosecution, limits the number involved
in Berlin to the intelligence section which had grown
out of Ernst's Group Staff. On the other hand, we also
know from the summarized collection of affidavits that
the notorious SA leader who had the nickname
"Schweinebacke" (hog jowl), was expelled from the SA
for blackmailing a Jew, and sentenced to a long term of
imprisonment. The testimony of Burgstaller and Juettner
make it clear that the SA did not adopt an extremist
attitude in the racial question; because otherwise, it
would have been impossible for baptized

                                             [Page 226]

Jews to be admitted to the SA in Berlin, and for
baptisms of Jews to take place in the presence of
uniformed SA men. The testimony given by Diels shows
that the SA of Berlin was not anti-Semitic. He
expressly emphasizes that anti-Semitic propaganda had
been Dr. Goebbels's business. We have also the
testimony of Dr. Menge, who stated that Jewish
businesses in Hanover were protected by SA detachments,
in return for which the Jewish shopkeepers supplied the
members of the SA with purchase coupons (Affidavit
General SA No. 1). Furthermore, we see from the
collective affidavits that houses and businesses of
Jewish citizens in other cities, too, were protected by
SA members from looting. From the testimony of the
witness Juettner, we see that the attitude adopted by
the Supreme SA Leadership in this matter coincided with
that of the well-known Jewish professor Karo, who
adopts a hostile attitude toward Eastern Jewry. These
manifestations of hostility to Eastern Jewry are the
after-effects of the First World War, when innumerable
Jews came to Germany from Galicia.

The events on the occasion of the 9th November, 1938,
are among the most seriously incriminating points
against the SA. The alleged report of the leader of the
Kurpfalz Brigade plays an important part in this
connection. It appears from the entire circumstances
surrounding this alleged report of mission completed
(1721-PS) that it can only be an unskillful forgery. In
proof of this I named the witnesses Lucke and Fust who,
in spite of efforts by the Secretary General extending
over a period of months, could not be transferred to
Nuremberg, although the defence had indicated the camps
where they are interned.

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 those witnesses were in the
camps that you are referring to.

Now you may go on.

DR. BOEHM: The following may be said in detail - and I
am here commenting on Document 1721-PS:

1. In the correspondence of the SA it has never
happened that in the case of report of mission
completed the order given was repeated in substance;

2. The order of the Fuehrer of the Kurpfalz Group
reads, according to the prosecution, that is, this
document: "By order of the Gruppenfuehrer." If an order
had been given, it would have read: "It is ordered," or
"The Group orders"; in no case, however, does it say,
"By order of the Gruppenfuehrer."

3. The expression "Jewish synagogues" does not exist in
German. This expression "Jewish synagogues" is also
foreign to official Party communications. The term
"Jewish" is already implied 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" (deutschen
Volksgenossen).

4. "Riots and looting are to be avoided," it continues.
Conditions in Germany in 1938 were such that no one,
and certainly no leader of a Group or a Brigade, would
have thought of such disturbances, much less have used
these words in this
connection in an order.

5. "Report on completion of mission to be made by 8.30
o'clock to the Brigadefuehrer or Local Office," it says
further in this alleged order.

In no case does the Group order a report on completion
of mission to be made to the Brigade, which is
receiving the order, but only to the Group. Logically,
it should have said "to the Gruppenfuehrer."

6. It is equally improbable that the leader of the
Brigade did not pass on the order, that is, give orders
to the leaders of the Standarten on his own initiative,
but only "informed the Standartenfuehrer immediately
and gave them exact information." Fanciful reports such
as this on the completion of a mission never existed in
the SA.

                                             [Page 227]

7. It says in the report, "and began immediately to
carry out orders." This formula is also completely
lacking in probability. The leader of the Brigade
reports in the preceding sentence that he immediately
informed his Standartenfuehrer. 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 of the order was
immediately begun.

In the examination of the witness Juettner the
prosecution wanted to save the document by alleging
that the stamps on the Juettner letter (1721-PS) and on
the report of the Group (1721-PS) were identical. These
two documents were submitted under the same PS number.
It was established, however, that the written notations
were made by different persons.

THE PRESIDENT: Shall we break off?

(A recess was taken.)


Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.