Trials of German Major War Criminals: Volume 22

The Trial of German Major War Criminals

Two Hundred and Thirteenth Day: Wednesday, 28th August, 1946
(Part 9 of 13)

[DR. KUBUSCHOK continues]

[Page 222]

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.)

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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

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.