The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt//tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-203.06


Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-203.06
Last-Modified: 2000/11/29

Q. I will ask you to look at Document D-970, my Lord; that
will become Exhibit GB 602, and your Lordship will find it
at Page 64-A. My Lord, this is a report to the defendant
Frank, as Governor General, dated 25th September, 1944. The
subject is: The Prior of the Carmelite Monastery of Czerna,
who was shot at by one of the SA Einsatzkommandos mentioned.
It runs:

  "The incident under consideration took place in
  connection with the operation to obtain people for
  carrying out special building plans in the district of
  Ilkenau. It came to the knowledge of the Sub-Regional
  Commander of the Security Police and SD in Cracow via the
  branch office of Kressendorf and the strong-point of
  Wolbron. As the place where the deed was committed lies
  within the area of the Einsatzstab of Ilkenau, the
  investigations were carried out by the Regional State
  Police Headquarters at Kattowitz - branch post Ilkenau.
  The results of the investigations provided the following
  facts:
 
  The possibility of carrying out the planned building
  operations in the area in question within the period laid
  down was made doubtful by the fact that the various
  communities did not provide the number of workers imposed
  on them.
  
  As a result, the construction staff at Kattowitz ordered
  a special detachment composed of 12 SA men to bring in
  workers from the various villages. The execution of this
  task by this SA Einsatzkommando was in any case carried
  out by them in such a way that they first approached the
  village mayor and presented the demand."

Then it goes on to describe how, when it was refused, they
searched the houses. Some of the inhabitants offered
resistance when the houses were searched, which had to be
broken by the use of arms.

  "In view of the fact that partisans had several times
  appeared in this area during recent times, the SA men
  reckoned that partisans were living in the villages
  during the day disguised as civilians. Besides that, when
  workers were obtained, the local conditions were taken
  into account."

That's the first one, collecting forced labour from this
village.

Now we have another SA Kommando

  "The Prior of Czerna Monastery was seized by members of
  the SA Einsatzkommando in Novojewa Gora. He was told to
  remain with the men of the SA Einsatzkommando for the
  time being. While the members of the detachment were in a
  house in order to search it for workers, the Prior -
  according to what the Kattowitz Regional State Police
  Headquarters established  - used this opportunity, which
  seemed suitable to him, to escape. As he

                                                  [Page 184]
  
  did not stop when shouted at several times and after some
  warning shots had been fired but on the contrary, ran
  even faster and tried to escape, he was fired at.
  
  The Prior had been arrested because he was alleged to
  have made obstructive statements to other workers about
  the Ostwall - Eastern Defensive Line - and the building
  undertaking, which tended to influence the labourers'
  already weak will to work in a still more unfavourable
  manner. It was intended to take the priest first to the
  construction staff at Nielepiece and from there to the
  office of the Security Police."

Now, note the last paragraph, and this is:

  "According to the report of the Regional State Police at
  Kattowitz: steps are to be taken to ensure that in future
  such operations are carried out not by SA men but by
  police officials."

Now, witness, why did you tell the Tribunal ten minutes ago
that there were not any SA Einsatzkommandos and that they
never searched for forced labour in the Government General?
Why did you say that; you knew it was untrue, why did you
say it?

A. That is not untrue. On the contrary, I shall repeat this
statement once more and stick to it, namely, that the SA did
not have Einsatzkommandos. These SA men here were probably
called in by the office furnishing this report and
conscripted for emergency service - I have no other
explanation - as auxiliary police and the reporting office
simply designated the conscripted auxiliary police
detachments in its terminology as SA Einsatzkommandos. This
term does not come from us. We did not have any such units,
nor did we organize any, and the responsibility for the
actions which were carried out here did not lie with the SA,
but with the office which employed the men.

In addition, I can say that we repeatedly stated our
objections to the police department itself of the Government
General with regard to the too frequent use of SA members in
the Government General for police purposes. We did not want
that, we did not want to have any police duties performed by
the SA. However, they were called in as auxiliary police
officials from time to time, by virtue of a legal provision.
If it says at the end:

  "In the future SA men are no longer to be used, but
  police officials," then this undoubtedly means, not
  auxiliary police officials, but regular police officials.

Q. But the police have made objections to the SA doing this
work, and have also objected to the brutal methods with
which they carried it out.

Do I gather, from that long answer of yours, that you do
know that SA men were being used as auxiliary police in the
Government General? Is that what you are telling the
Tribunal?

A. We repeatedly received reports from SA Leader Kuehnemund,
who was working there, that SA men had been conscripted for
police service by virtue of legal provisions.

Q. At any rate, that is something.

Now I want you to tell me this. You said, in your report on
the war, that the SA had been used regarding prisoners of
war. Did not the SA also guard forced labour camps?

A. I never knew that we are supposed to have guarded labour
camps.

Q. Well, now, let me give you the names of some of the camps
which I suggest you guarded Sakrau, a forced labour camp at
which the inmates were all Jews, Mechtal, Markstadt,
Faulbrueck, Reichenberg and Annaberg.

A. This is the first time that I have heard these names in
connection with labour camps.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Your Lordship will find, at Page 131
of the Document Book 16-B, an affidavit of Rudolf
Schoenberg. That will be Exhibit

                                                  [Page 185]

GB 601, my Lord. He speaks of the SA guarding these camps,
and of the conditions. He finishes by saying: "All I wish to
say here is that the SA in no way lagged behind the SS in
their murderous and criminal methods at that time." which
was in 1940.

BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:

Q. Let me put another point to you. Do you remember the SA
guarding a labour camp at Frauenberg, near Admont? That was
a camp for shirkers and drunkards, of about 300 prisoners.
Do you remember the SA guarding that?

A. That is completely unknown to me. I have never heard
about it.

Q. I put the document - there is no doubt that it is a
personal report to Himmler. Now just have a look at it. It
is 034.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it has a certain melancholy
interest in that it deals with the selection of Auschwitz as
a concentration camp.

My Lord, the point that I am dealing with, and it is only on
this one point - I beg your pardon, my Lord, the affidavit
should have been Exhibit GB 603, and this is Exhibit GB 604.

Q. (continuing): Now, will you look at that?

THE PRESIDENT: What page is it on?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I am sorry, my Lord, Page 132, the
next page. That is a report from an SS Oberfuehrer called
Gluecks, whose name I think we are not unfamiliar with. It
is a report to Himmler of 21st February, 1940, in which the
man Gluecks deals with five possible concentration camps
which Himmler might consider using, or rather, six possible
concentration camps. The third of these is a place called
Frauenberg, and he says:

  "Frauenberg is a labour camp set up by the Provincial
  Welfare Union of Styria for shirkers and drunkards. It
  consists of five wooden huts and can take 300 prisoners.
  
  The labour prisoners are exclusively Styrians who are
  paid for their work by the Provincial Welfare Union of
  Styria during their time in the camp - 27 to 57 pfennig
  an hour, less food.
  
  The SA - about 20 men - do the guarding. The labour
  prisoners are employed in two quarries and on building
  roads."

Then it says:

  "The whole place is now State property; formerly it
  belonged to the Admont Foundation."

BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:

Q. Now, witness, how would it come about that these SA men
were employed in guarding a labour camp, and you, the Deputy
Chief of Staff, knew nothing about it? How could you be
ignorant of these facts? Just explain to the Tribunal; how
could you be ignorant?

A. If these men were employed, then they acted as
conscripted auxiliary policemen. Just as National Socialist
Motor Corps (NSKK) men, or any other citizens could be
legally conscripted as auxiliary policemen, SA men, too,
were conscripted as auxiliary police by virtue of legal
provisions. Those were State measures which had nothing to
do with the SA, which could not be influenced by the SA, and
about which the SA did not even know. It was impossible for
the SA leadership to know about the fate of every individual
man, as it is being expressed in your question. That was
quite out of the question. They were not SA men, but men who
had been conscripted into the police.

Q. I suggest it to you, and I put the evidence of the way
the SA were occupied during the war years.

I now want to ask you a little about the training which
fitted them for doing such work.

Do you deny that the SA was the bearer of the military
thought of Germany?

                                                  [Page 186]

A. Such questions have already been asked me during the
preliminary interrogations. You are always confusing
defensive thinking with military thinking. The SA
represented and stood for defensive thinking. That has
nothing to do with military service or military training.

Q. And you say that had nothing to do with the cultivation
of the offensive Spirit, do you?

A. In no way, not in the least.

Q. Why did your friend Lutze, of whom you have told us so
much, in his lecture in 1939, put the two things together so
strongly?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is only a short
reference from a document that is already in - 3215-PS -
which is Exhibit USA 426, and, my Lord, it is in the
original SA Document Book.

Q. (continuing): This is an article by Lutze, as head of the
SA, on SA military training, dated 11th March, 1939, in
which he says:

  "The men never forgot the mission of the Fuehrer  to
  require the military training of the German men and to
  reconstruct the military spirit of the German people."

And he quotes the very well-known passage from Mein Kampf
which I am sure, witness, you know by heart:

  "The sport troop of the SA shall be the bearer of the
  military thought of a free people."

And he gives Hitler's words:

  "Give the German nation six million bodies perfectly
  trained in sport, all fanatically inspired with love for
  the Fatherland, and trained to the highest offensive
  spirit."

In a sentence, are not these words of your chief Lutze, the
spirit and. aim under which you worked to train the SA from
1934 to 1939?

A. I really am surprised that the Prosecutor, after these
many months of the trial, has not yet discovered the
difference between defensive thinking and military raining.
That was discussed in detail during preliminary proceedings
before the commission. Lutze did not write about military
training; he wrote about defensive education. That is
something quite different from military training.

We did what every country expects from its patriots, we
educated, we trained people physically and morally, nothing
more, but we did not make any preparation or war, such as
you are trying to foist upon me now.

Q. If that was as you say, why was it that as early as 25th
July, 1933, the SA command was ordering no publicity about
technical, signal, and motorized companies or separate air
wings, "because they may be taken as an infringement of
Versailles.''

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is Document D-44,
Exhibit USA 428; that is the first document in the book, my
Lord.

Q. (continuing): Why was your leadership such that what the
SA was doing n the way of these technical units would be
construed as an infringement of Versailles, and any
publicity was to endanger the person publicising it with
prosecution for high treason, if you were not doing military
training?

A. About that, too, I have already testified before the
Commission. That order was connected with Roehm's attempts
to create a militia, and the details must become apparent
from the record.

A. If the Tribunal wishes me to do so, I shall repeat what I
stated for the record.

THE PRESIDENT: Just answer the question.

BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:

Q. Why were you afraid that the SA training and formation of
technical units would be considered an infringement of the
Treaty of Versailles if they were not military?

                                                  [Page 187]

A. Roehm's negotiations with foreign countries had not been
concluded and consequently some false suspicion might have
arisen.

Q. Well, then, why was von Reichenau now suggesting in May,
1933, that the Supreme SA Command should combine
representation with the Party on the Reich Defence Council?
Why were you to be represented on the Reich Defence Council
if you were not conducting military training?

My Lord, that is, I think, a new document. It is 2822-PS,
and it becomes Exhibit GB 605. That document was never put
in, but your Lordship will find it in the old SA Document
Book. I am afraid that is not paged, but it is No. 2822-PS.
It is "Strictly Confidential," dated 26th May, 1933. From
the Chief of Ministerial Office in the War Department to the
Supreme SA Command. Your Lordship, it is very short. It is
from von Reichenau. I do not know what his rank was then. I
think he became a General or a Field-Marshal later on.

  "In addition to my letter of 22nd May, 1933, may I bring
  to your attention that the desire has been transmitted to
  me from the defence policy bureau of the NSDAP to be also
  represented in the Reich Defence Council.
  
  I want to submit for consideration that this
  representation be combined in personal union with the
  representation of the Supreme SA Command, and that
  possibly one suitable person be charged with both
  representations."

Why was the SA Supreme Command making a request to be
represented on the Reich Defence Council if it was not doing
military training?

A. The representation on the Reich Defence Council has
nothing whatever to do with military training. At that time,
as I have already testified before the Commission, provision
had been made that in the event that we should not be able
to pay the reparation costs and would have to expect an
invasion from the West, all Germans capable of military
service would be evacuated from the left bank of the Rhine.
The task of carrying out this evacuation was given to the
SA, through the Party. To this extent the SA and the Party
were both interested in what was discussed in the so-called
Reich Defence Council.

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, may I disturb you for a moment?

This document contains a confirmation of the fact that this
was turned down by Roehm. It might be to the purpose to put
that to the witness, too, that it was turned down by Roehm.
It says here: "I talked to Krueger - no, to Reichenau about
it, signed 'Roehm.'" Therefore, he turned it down.

THE PRESIDENT: We had better adjourn now, I think.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 15th August, at 1000 hours.)


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.