The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)
Nuremberg, war crimes, crimes against humanity

The Trial of German Major War Criminals

Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
9th August to 21st August 1946

Two Hundred and Fourth Day: Thursday, 15th August, 1946
(Part 2 of 5)

[Page 192]


Q. Witness, you have seen that document from Lutze to Rosenberg of 30th January, 1939?

[Max Juettner] A. Yes, I have got it here.

Q. And is that correct, that the Fuehrer had decreed, shortly before that, that the pre-military and post-military training should be assigned to the SA?

A. On 19th January, 1939, this was decreed by the Fuehrer, but in practice this decree was never applied.

Q. I suppose you carried out the training which is contained in these directives from 1934 to 1939, did you not?

A. Regarding these matters of which the SA is being accused here, I shall have to speak in more detail, particularly as the right of vindication has been expressly sanctioned by the American Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Jackson, for the organizations. Therefore, I shall have to come, in detail, to the accusations made here -

Q. I do not think you need worry about -

A. and state my opinion -

Q. Just one moment -

A. I have not finished yet.

THE PRESIDENT: Do not argue, please; answer the question.

[Page 193]


Q. Do you dispute that these directives that I have mentioned all contained training in musketry, training in the handling of arms, training in the use of terrain, that is, the use of ground, camouflage, reports, methods of attack, reconnaissance, and every one except the first - no, all of them - training in the use of hand grenades and, generally training in attack, in battle, in dealing with attack by armoured troops, attacks by aeroplanes, in fact that they all contained the first stages of military training which every soldier has to go through before he is qualified to be a soldier? And, witness, before you answer, you may assume that 90 per cent of the male population of this Court have gone through military training and they know it from a practical point of view.

Are you saying that these training directives do not contain the ordinary, initial stages of military training?

A. In the first place I do not deny it, and in the second place, that is training which is handled by the military and not by the SA. For instance, throwing of hand grenades, air training, training in the use of arms, were things we never handled. These questions cannot be answered with yes or no. I must go into them in detail if I am to give a truthful and exhaustive answer.

Q. Witness, what I want to know is this, and the Tribunal will no doubt let you give your explanation. Are you telling the Tribunal that these training directives were issued one after the other for five years from 1934 to 1939 and that that training was not carried into effect? Tell me. You can answer that yes or no. Was that training carried into effect?

A. We carried out training by sport and army exercises in order to improve physical condition. I would have to see these directives to be able to state whether we worked in accordance with them or not.

Q. I do not propose to put them in detail. If Dr: Boehm wants to -

THE PRESIDENT: What the Tribunal wishes to know with reference to the document that they asked you to put to the witness, was how the witness explains his answer yesterday which I took down in these words, "Lutze did not write about military training." That was the answer you gave yesterday with reference to Document 3215-PS. Well, now, we have had put before us a document from Lutze to the defendant Rosenberg, which thanks Rosenberg for his congratulations incidental to the Fuehrer's decree which assigns all pre- military and post-military training to the SA. Why did you say yesterday that Lutze did not write with reference to military training?

THE WITNESS: Your Lordship, yesterday the matter in question was a newspaper article regarding military training. That article dealt with work the SA was carrying out and that was work of purely military education. In the Fuehrer's decree, if I remember rightly, it also says "the pre- and post- military education," it may even say "training"; that I cannot say with certainty, but what is meant is military education. Later, during negotiations regarding the carrying out of this decree which lasted until war broke out, this conception of pre- and post-military training or education was altered to "training or education outside the military sphere," that is to say, what the military forces were doing should not be done by the SA. They should merely prepare everything. They should prepare the body and mind, so that men who had gone through the school of the SA should become physically fit, capable men, mentally prepared for military service. That was the meaning and the purpose of the decree and the inmost meaning of the so-called "SA Defence Badge." An armed service was not intended in connection with that training.


Q. Are you saying that between the Fuehrer's decree of January and the beginning of the war that there was no pre- military training done?

When did you start it again?

[Page 194]

A. It was supposed to start with the discharge of the men serving with the Army in 1939, in October or November. That is when the decree was to come into force. The beginning of the war prevented its becoming operative. That was mentioned especially in an order by General von Brauchitsch in the early days of November, and also in a letter from Reichsleiter Bormann to the Chief of Staff, where it was stated -

Q. Witness, I just want to get this clear. When do you say it was to come into operation? Did, you say in October? When was it due to start? When was this pre-military training due to start in 1939? When?

A. This training was to start after the beginning of war - in November or October, I am not quite sure about that. Until then preparatory military work had been carried out as well as one could.

Q. Just let us get this clear. Are you telling the Tribunal it did not start?

A. I am telling the High Tribunal that the carrying out of that decree was scheduled to start in the autumn of 1939. Q. Then why did you put such an extraordinary untruth in your report of June, 1941, which your Lordship will find on Page 118:

"The pre-military training practised by the SA since the outbreak of war on a voluntary basis in the SA defence groups has been already explained in detail in reports 1 and 2."
These are your first reports of the war regarding the activity of the SA in the war. Then you go on to explain the report including target practice, instruction and practice in handling and cleaning rifles, as well as shooting on a range in a field, and further, the throwing of hand grenades under assumed combat conditions. Why did you put such an enormous untruth in your report, if what you are telling the Tribunal today is true that you never started it at all?

A. I neither told an untruth in that report, nor have I told one now. May I ask if that report refers to the period of the war. Have I understood you correctly, does it refer to war time? Yes, I mentioned to your Lordship yesterday that with the beginning of the war the SA had done everything to increase Germany's armed strength. That was our duty as patriots. We then paid the greatest attention to military physical training, that is to say, no longer to ordinary athletics and other physical training but particularly to military exercises. But even that was no armed service. If the cleaning of rifles is mentioned, it means we demonstrated it to our men with our small calibre weapons.

Q. My Lord, the report is in. It includes radio training. The pre-military training includes all men over 18 years of age. Your Lordship has the documents to consider.

My Lord, the next group of documents which I have asked your Lordship to consider relate to the fact that it was stated before the Commission that the SA Mann, which is a part of the evidence of the prosecution, was an unofficial publication with a circulation of 200,000. That was said before the Commission at Pages 212 and 213. If your Lordship will be good enough to look first at Page III of Document Book 16-B, your Lordship will find Document No. 4010-PS which will become GB 613. I am sorry, it is Page 117 of the German book.

THE PRESIDENT: And of ours?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My lord, it is Page III of your Lordship's. That is a letter from the editor of the SA Mann to the defendant Rosenberg. Your Lordships will see "Organ of Supreme Leadership, SA of the NSDAP" on the letter heading. It is sent to Rosenberg, and it asks him for an article to commemorate their five years of independent publication and eight years of publication as a supplement to the Volkischer Beobachter. In the middle of the second paragraph your Lordship will find the sentence, "A subscribers' list of half a million clearly shows the importance of the SA. That was on 13th of August, 1936.

[Page 195]

THE PRESIDENT: You said "the importance of the SA." It is "the importance of the SA Mann."

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Certainly, my Lord, I beg your Lordship's pardon; "the importance of the SA Mann."

THE PRESIDENT: Read the first two lines.


"In a few weeks Der SA Mann, combat publication and official organ of supreme SA leadership, will look back upon an existence of respectively eight and five years."
My Lord, I am obliged.

Then, my Lord, on Page 110, Page 116 of the German document book, there is a letter from the defendant Rosenberg's staff: "Reichsleiter Rosenberg confirms, with his best thanks, receipt of your letter of 13th August, and sends you enclosed the preface asked for."

If your Lordship will turn back another page to 109, which is Page 115 of the German document book - this becomes GB 614 - this is a letter from the editor again to the defendant Rosenberg. Your Lordship will see on the letter- heading this time:

"The Pressereferent of the Supreme Command of the SA, main office of the editor of Der SA Mann." This, my Lord, is 21st April, 1938. They have now gone to ten years. There again they are asking defendant Rosenberg for an article on the subject of the "Ideology and Combat paper" (Weltanschauung und Kampfblatt) or something similar to it.
In the next paragraph:
"I do hope that you will be agreeable to our wish, and I am convinced that especially a contribution from your pen will be greeted with particular enthusiasm by our 750,000 subscribers."
Your Lordship will remember the evidence that this witness gave that a few months after that, in 1939, the total membership of the SA was 1,500,000, so Der SA Mann went to one in every two.

My Lord, I have already referred the Tribunal to the recommendation of the Chief of Staff Lutze in the training directive D 918, of Der SA Mann and my Lord, as I told your Lordship, the articles appear in Document 3050-PS, which is US Exhibit 414. There is a long list of articles that are contained in that document of a military nature, anti- Semitic nature, anti-Church nature, all of which my friend Colonel Storey put to the Tribunal. I do not intend to go over it again.

Now, my Lord, the next document which I had asked your Lordship to look at is one of the cases of the perversion of the course of justice in the interests of the SA. My Lord, it is Document D-923, which your Lordship will find on Page 22 of the Document Book 16-B; that becomes GB 615.

My Lord, it is a long document, but I will take it very quickly and if there are any points, your Lordship, I will be very willing to deal in detail with them. My Lord, the German page is 22 also.

My Lord, that is a report that appears on the top of Page 22. There are five sections which are recapitulated in the sixth. The first is a report of the Public Prosecution, Provincial Court, Nuremberg-Furth, dated 21st August, 1933 regarding the beating to death of one Pflaumer by the SA. Then, my Lord, there is a post-mortem report. There is a report from the Public Prosecution that the police were refusing to give evidence in the above case. "This might endanger the well-being of the Reich."

As for the report from the Court of Appeal Public Prosecutor: "The Police Directorate, Nuremberg-Furth, refuse permission to police officials to break official secrecy."

[Page 196]

Number 5 rather naively states in the last sentence:
"Police Directorate refuse permission to police officials to break official secrecy for the trial. They also need both accused (that is, the people who are accused of beating them to death) to guarantee the safety of the Party rally day."
Then, my Lord, the next document, 6, is a report from the defendant Frank to the Minister of State for the Interior and, my Lord, it shows that the man Pflaumer, a twenty-nine year old married mechanic, was beaten up at a guardhouse in August, 1933, and was then brought to the main police station by the SA and died there.

And, my Lord, on Page 23, at the top, your Lordship will see:

"The Provincial Court doctor also reported that, according to his findings, Pflaumer was beaten to death in a most cruel and torturing way with blunt objects."
And two lines on, after dealing with the result of the beating:
"The conclusion had to be drawn that the perpetrators did not cause the injuries to the ill-treated man in self- defence."
And then apparently they say there is some question of doubt, while your Lordship will see, by the evidence there was no doubt that these people were concerned.

Then, my Lord, the next two paragraphs deal with political pressure against proceedings and, my Lord, there then comes in a somewhat similar case in Section II. I do not want to complicate the matter. It is a separate case of three Jews beaten up by the SS.

Now, my Lord, on Page 24, the defendant Frank says in Section III:

"The events described under I and II give me cause for great apprehension."
He goes on to say that people are still indulging in brutality; that members of the SA - in the middle of the next paragraph - "still allow themselves to indulge in the inadmissible ill-treatment of opponents."

And then, at the beginning of the paragraph after that:

"The events show further that unfortunately attempts are still being made to interfere with the legal course of justice."
Then the defendant draws the line of date of the amnesty. Then at the beginning of the next paragraph he says:
"Especially in the case of Pflaumer, I consider it an urgent necessity, in the interest of safeguarding the authority of the State and the good name of justice and the police, to avoid even the slightest suggestion that the police are shielding this crime."
Then he suggests - the last words on that page:
"The misgivings of the chief of the political department of the Nuremberg-Furth Police Directorate can, however, be taken into consideration by the exclusion of the public during the trial. The carrying out of a trial can further hardly be prevented by the refusal to allow testimony. For, in view of the confession of the accused Korn and Stark to date, together with the results of the judicial autopsy, the trial will have to be instituted against them and carried out under any circumstances."
Now, that goes on and you will see that he has requested and the Public Prosecution are requesting the Prime Minister to bring up the matter for discussion at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers, and to invite Roehm and Himmler. Then that is done and, my Lord, there is then a significant inquiry on Page 26 from Bormann, asking how the matter is going on and, my Lord, then on Page 27, Page 27 of the German version too, Document 13 (it is one of the inserts on Page 27):
"The Public Prosecution, Provincial Court, Nuremberg- Furth report to Court of Appeal Public Prosecutor, Nuremberg, that the preliminary investigation ended on 19th March, 1934. The Police Directorate, Nuremberg- Furth, intend to apply for the quashing of the criminal proceedings."

[Page 197]

Then, my Lord, in Document 14 that matter is discussed and, my Lord, that is on Pages 27 and 28. Then at the bottom of Page 28, 28 in the German version, you will find a section "Certificate of Opinion." My Lord, that says:
"On mature consideration, I assent to the suggestion of the Police Directorate.

Firstly it should be considered whether the proceedings could not be brought to an end by the release of the accused. According to the result of the preliminary investigation alone, Korn ought to be accused in any case according to what is mentioned above, while only the accused Stark could be released from criminal proceedings. But, in consequence, an investigation or an extension of the investigation against the persons who took part in this matter (accomplices, possible instigators and helpers) and finally also those who favoured the culprits would, according to-such and such a paragraph-be occasioned.

But if the proceedings were to be carried out in this manner, it would be unavoidable, even if the public is to be excluded from the actual trial, that the public would get to know about the events. But this would seriously harm and shake the reputation of the SA, the Party, the police and even the National Socialist State."

If your Lordship would look at the bottom of Page 29, last paragraph -

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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.