The attempt to use this vary came to naught from the lack of cooperation of the offices, for which I might give here a characteristic example. officer of their camp. Only in the case of a few camps, weeks and months after the beginning of the trial, were the applications received and, even so, only from a part of the camps in the American and British zone and from a camp in the United States. From the Soviet, Polish and French zones, as well as from Austria, and other camps in foreign countries, no applications have been received, so far as I know. I shall leave it to the Tribunal to form its opinion of these facts. members of the organizations cannot be the reason. I should like after many difficulties to point out only one striking example which will give a picture of the situation. November 1945, to make use of their right. A few days ago I was told in a camp by a guard officer that at that time no applications were permitted since those in custody, according to the rules of the camp, could communicate with anyone outside the camp. If the application was to be transmitted further, an army order would be instituted. However, there was no such order and the present restrictions were strictly adjered to. those concerned had certain disadvantages. The care was expressed that the CIC would persecute the people who applied because of their application. This fear was particularly inspired by the fact that the announcement of the right to make applications was associated with the notice that the appliers would have no sort of immunity. The effect of this was that even those who were not in custody, of whom only in the most infrequent cases did any submit application and then frequently anonymously, and then under false names. that such fears are without foundation and that the participation of all is invited so that a falsely based decision can be avoided. Here if that were done a large part of the lack of applications would have been met.
applications has showed such serious deficiencies that the legal theory is so far usury. But even those applications that have been received are to that extent worthless with a few exceptions, and for the following reasons the Tribunal shall on the nasis of the application decide whether the person has a rig* to a hearing. But this can, for practical purposes, only occur if these applic* tions give also the reasons for the application. Such reasons are entirely lac* ing in the application or are irrelevant. generalities can form no basis for Judgment. In a part of the application the person applying does not even mention his official function as a member of the organization or his civilian profession. This faulty form of application can b* traced back in the case of the men in custody by issuing regulations of the camp commander that, namely, a provision allowing only block or group applications or prescribing certain forms to be filled out. For all those effected, whether in custody or not, a sensible establishment of the reasons for the application is not possible because those accused only know their organizations as "criminal", but they do not know in what this criminality consists. directed against the purely assumed contents of the indictment. In order to relieve the situation, the defense counsel have visited various camps to find out what was wrong and to collect the pertinent information. I shall not so in the difficulties on this activity. I should not like to go into the limitations placed on the length of time that we could stay in the camp, etc., but I must mention that the success of the visits to the camps was lacking as far as the sworn affidavits collected in the camps and the written presentations of the members in custody which until today did not come into my hands. They were given to the camp commander, but they have not yet reached me. beginning of the trial, even the technical basis for the trial, for the realisation of the hearing of the members of the organizations have not been provided. Defense counsel for the large organizations are not in a position to make up for this lost time in a short period of time new.
On the other hand, the actual material is extremely exhaustive. In the case of the political leaders there are twenty or so categories, such as the workers' front propaganda section, organization section, and so forth, w hich must be examined as to their official function and financial function and as to their criminality. None of this can be ignored, and even the appearance of less than careful treatment of the subject must be avoided. I shall not enter into the difficulties that confront the defense counsel. It is based on the fact that certain question of law and procedure have only new been explained by the Prosecution.
that their case should be decided quickly. Nevertheless, we are obliged by circumstances to make an application. Namely, I apply that the case against the groups and organizations that are to be declared criminal should be separated from the main trial and be carried but as an individual subsequent trial. This application is in accordance with the particular nature of the trial of which I spoke at the beginning of my brief. possibility of a legal hearing. Here I am obliged, because of the suggestions made this morning regarding the carrying cut of the hearing of the members of the organization -- according to that suggestion, an officer should carry out these interrogations. I cannot be energetic enough in objecting to this suggestion. In my opinion, it is one of the main rights of the defense counsel to collect his own information and it is the light of every defendant to speak with his counsel. It would be incomprehensible if the Allied Prosecution carries on both its prosecution and our defense. One did not expect that an officer would have such objectivity in such a matter nor such understanding for the feelings of the person he was interrogating as would be necessary.
My application is consequently this: That in every camp a German lawyer should be present who receives his information from the main defense counsel and instructs the members in the individual camp and collects his information. Then, in a relatively short period of time, a selection of the material could be carried out by the defense, both in what effects the individual, as well as the material that is to be submitted to the Tribunal as evidence. the Prosecution, is objectionable, and I should really hove to seriously consider how I could carry on my defense if such a suggestion were entertained by the Tribunal.
DR. MERKEL (Counsel for Gestapo): Regarding the general questions concerning the admissibility of declaring an organization criminal, on the question of the technical submission of evidence and on the general criminal character of the organizations, I prefer what my colleagues has just said.
I have simply a few additional remarks to make. inece that it has also affected me strangley that the length of time that passed between the formulation of individual applications in the individual camps andtheir arrival in the hands of the defense were extraordinarily long. I should like to mention, for example, that a few days ago we received applications from a camp that were drawn up in November or December. I, myself, in order to get information, sent letters to camps and I sent them as much as six or seven weeks ago and I have so far received no answer to these letters. member of the SS and Gestapo was made and was supposed to have been sent to the defense counsel. Neither the defense counsel nor myself have received this application. I have here applications from members of the Gestapo. In my opinion, this is one of the reasons why there are so few, that a large number of those in custody do not know that they are being represented in this trial. of last year. Defense counsel for the organization, according to the record, on 17th of December, were appointed only after that date. The pertinency of my objection can be assumed from the following: About three weeks ago, in a German newspaper an article appeared regarding the question of the organization and in this article it states literally that the organizations are not represented in the Nurnberg trial. It is, however, a fact that in the first part of the defense, for months, counsel for the or animations have been sitting -- even the public doesn't know we are here -how much less the inmates of camps know that they are being represented. That is about all I had an that subject to say. tions in their entirely can be accused, is an absolute innovation in jurisprudence and that it is something which, in its extent and its effects, shakes the very foundations of law. Organizations areto be judged which not existed for over almost a year.
In the juridical procedure of all coun-
tries, it is a basic principle, that the person being defended should still be alive, which here is not the case.
According to Justice Jackson's statements today, the organizations, the Gestapo and SS, should be held responsible for the liquidation of the Jews in the East. He pointed out that the millions of Jews who were killed and the impossibility of determining who were the individual perpetrators, should be the reason why the organization should be made guilty of these acts. Of course, the defense is not convinced of that and its point of view is that the guilty individuals -- but only the guilty individuals -- should be punished. the SD, it was suggested that in the liquidation of the Jews in the East, only about two hundred, members of the Gestapo belonged to this Enisatzgruppe. In a total number of 45,000 to 50,000 members of the Gestapo, this figure of two hundred is a very very small one. In a general verdict against, for instance, the Gestapo, 45,000 people and more would be concerned who had absolutely nothing to do with this matter. I refer to the example of a mass murderer who cannot be caught and whose family is taken into custody in his place and condemned. this matter, I request the Tribunal for permission to address the Tribunal after having had time to examine what has been said today. I should like to take an attitude towards only a few questions today; first of all, to the question of the time during which the organizations are to be considered as criminal. Here I must assert that at least in the year 1939, the case has been such that the prosecution is concerned with the crimes that took place after the beginning of the war in 1939. Only such crimes are laid at the feet of the Gestapo.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat your last sentence?
DR. MERKEL: Regarding the length of time, I should like to say that until the year 1939, acts cannot be seen as criminal because they took place on the basis of a legal Reich organization and the indictment actually accuses the Gestapo of crimes that were committed only after 1939, after the beginning of the war.
The Prosecution further took excerpts from the Indictment. I refer to an application made in December.
I determine that no only the secretarial personnel be eliminated from the charges in the Indictment. The reason why the Indictment against the secretarial personnel was eliminated was that according to the conviction of the Prosecution, this secretarial personnel had nothing to do with the crimes of which the Gestapo is accused. of the Gestapo, which make up about 70% of the whole membership of the Gestapo, should be exempted from the Indictment. As far as I can see from the applications I have before me so far, they are almost exclusively from such administrative officials. These officials were trained only in the field of administration. There were no criminal elements among these people. They were not schooled in criminality. They could not be used for the execution of any violent or criminal actions nor could have been responsible for them because they had no executive power. They were active only in matters of personnel and economy; for example, in the appointments of officials, promotions, dismissals, and so forth; economic matters, keeping of books, and taking care of the offices, and what not.
These are all things with which the executive branch of the Gestapo was concerned and we must consider that these things have nothing to do with the crimes of which the Gestapo was concerned and these people should be exempted from the Indictment just as the secretarial personnel has been exempted. of voluntary joining of an organization. On the 7th of June, 1945, Justice Jackson, in his communication to the President of the United States, said among other things, the following: "The units, such as the Gestapo and SS, were fighting units and consisted of volunteers, particularly fanatical people." To what extent that is true of the SS, I don't know. So far as the Gestapo is concerned, it certainly is not true, for, the Gestapo was anorganization founded by Goering on the basis of the law of 22 April 1942. It was a police organization just like the criminal police or ordinance police were responsible for keeping communications open. It consisted in the greatest part of the professional officials who, in part, had been police officials long before the creation of the Gestapo and who, on the creation of this police organization, were ordered, commanded, or appointed to positions in the Gestapo. According to the laws affecting public officials in the Reich at that time, these officials were obliged to take these positions. They were never voluntary members of the Gestapo. It might perhaps be that one percent of the Gestapo were voluntary members of the Gestapo. The rest were forced into that membership on the basis of the laws I have just cited. That is all that I have to mention at the moment. I should like, however, permission to continue.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. We will adjourn now.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1 March, 1946 at 1000 hours) Official transcript of the International
THE PRESIDENT: At the conclusion of the argument on the organizations, which the Tribunal anticipates will finish before the end of today's session, the Trinumal will adjourn into closed session. Tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock the Tribunal will sit in open session for consideration of the applications for witnesses and documents by the second four Defendants. Will the Defendant's Counsel who was in the middle of his argument now continue? Dr. Merkel, had you finished?
DR. MERKEL (Counsel for the Gestapo): Yes, sir.
DR. LOEFFLER (Counsel for the SA): High Court, the objection made yesterday by the defense, regarding the accusation of the six accused organizations, affects very particularly the question of the SA. against one's feeling of justice than in the case of the SA. I request of the high court permission to submit reasons for this fact. considered criminal affects, conservatively estimating, at least four million people. As useful as the subdivision was that Justice Jackson gave his approval to yesterday, nevertheless its effect in terms of numbers is not relevant, because the groups eliminated yesterday, the SA wehr units and other groups, did not actually belong to the inner membership of the SA, so that so far only the SA reserve has been exempted. in this proceeding, be included all who belonged to the SA during the twentyfour years of its existence, between its foundation in the year 1921 and its dissolution in 1945, that is to say, a period of almost a quarter century. All those who were at any time during that long period, members, are under indictment.
the organizations are accused are the same of which the main Defendants are accused, namely, crimes against peace, crimes against the usages and customs of war, and crimes against humanity, as well as participation in the general conspiracy. in these four possible categories of crimes, then we see the following: Crimes against the customs and usages of war are not held against the SA. The Prosecution presented an affidavit, according to which the SA also took part in watching concentration camps and prisoners of war camps, and also the guarding of forced labor; but, according to the presentation of the Prosecution, this occurred only in 1944 for the first time, within the scope of the total war taking place at that time, and it was not asserted that at that time the SA committed any excesses or mistreatment. witnesses, the SA, with its four million members, was never concerned. The few offenses against humanity of which the SA is accused by the Prosecution, and of which individual members in the course of almost a quarter century have been guilty, can in no way be compared or equated with the serious crimes against humanity of which We have heard now. union property, happened on the instifation of Reichsleiter Ley, who used the SA for this operation, and this happened after Hitler's seizure of power. any ill treatment, excesses, or violent actions took place. In connection with the seizure of power in the Spring of 1933, that individual excesses occurred, and that Rosemann and Klauber, according to the affidavit submitted by the Prosecution, were in connection with those events beaten, is certainly deplorable, but such excesses of individual people are unavoidable in such movements involving millions of people and are hardly designed to serve as grounds for declaring the whole organization criminal. camps is, according to the presentation of the Prosecution, a unique exception, and it ended anyway in the year 1934.
The guard of concentration camp Oranienburg, according to the presentation of the Prosecution, was an SA Scharfuehrer. Nevertheless, it is not asserted that he committed any crueltie by SA and SS members, in the year 1934, led to a criminal proceeding, and the guilty SA men were sentenced to six years. excesses of the 10th to 11th of November, 1938, when the windows of Jewish stores were broken, synagogues were burned, and so on. Here, too, the plan and the order did not originate with the SA. It was given by the highest Party leadership, and the SA was simply commissioned with its execution. SA, in the political struggles of that time, was involved in street fights with political opponents, during which, nevertheless, in many cases their activity was of a defensive nature, but that the growth of the SA to an organization embracing millions of people took place only after Hitler's seizure of power. Then we see the following numerical picture: secution, were committed by at most 2 percent of all the indicted former SA members; 98 percent of the four million, according to their conviction, kept their hands clean of any such individual punishable acts. this 2 percent should serve to have the whole organization declared criminal. This 98 percent, that is 3,900,000 previous SA members, must, nevertheless, find themselves here defendants in this trial, accused of having waged aggressive war or in the planning or carrying out of the general conspiracy; or, even more strongly formulated, accused of having belonged to organizations which pursued these criminal aims. an organization? That definition formulated yesterday by Justice Jackson and Sir David, the SA members as they were defined to us yesterday in Points 1 and 2 -- the SA must also submit to this definition, namely, that the SA was a union of numerous people, and their collective aims were principally voluntary membership.
But, particularly in the case of Points 3, 4, and 5, we must strenuously object to their application to the SA. Number 3 requires that the organization pursued objectively criminal aims in the sense of Article 6 of the Charter. neither in the program, nor in the speeches of their leaders had they recognized that they were called upon to carry out such goals. whether the leaders of the SA pursued such goals in secret, that the individual member is not in a position to judge. Whether such criminal goals were pursued secretly by the leadership of the SA, it is possible that this be determined only by the high court, and only after the archives have been opened, after the witnesses have testified, and that the whole framework should be laid open to the perusal of the Court.
Now, point four of the Prosecution's definition, if I understood Justice Jackson correctly yesterday, requires as a definition of the criminal nature of the organization, that the crimes and methods of these organizations had such character that a reasonable, normal man can be accused to having Known of these things. boration with my colleagues, do not accept this definition as adequate for it means that a member can then be punished if he had not recognized the criminal nature of the organization but reasonable care should have enabled him to recognize that criminal nature. I know of no penal code in a modern state in which negligence, even of a serious nature, is sufficient grounds to prove guilt in a serious crime, as of a crime of a nature so serious of which these people are accused. Such a crime can. only be committed intentionally. Perhaps the Prosecution can later on the grounds of the knowledge of the particulars make some statement on this matter. the danger that the Justices, particularly the Anglo-Saxon judges, will apply the political standards of their countries to German conditions. The sober political instinct that is characteristic of the citizens of England and America is lacking the Germans. We are a politically immature people, easily misled and consequently susceptible to political seduction.
The Court should take this into consideration in passing its judgment on the good faith of the various organizations. its visits to camps, from a large number of letters and so on, a vast number of SA members are convinced that they did not belong to any criminal organization. Among other reasons are the following subjective ones. specifically stated that only those would be accepted in the SA whose character are altogether unobjectionable. It is further stated verbatim, and I quote, "unobjectionable behavior and references." The members of the SA state that they know of no case in which any criminals or band of conspirators require such entrances requirements. that its criminal goals should not become known to the enemy. An organization of several millions, is, by its very nature, not designed to carry out a plot. The leaders of the SA emphasized in many addresses that they wanted to maintain peace under all circumstances. They pointed out that Germany, without means of defense, without arms in the very center of Europe, was no more a danger to European peace and that being in a state of preparedness was the best guarantee of European peace. diplomatic recognition to the leaders of the Nazi Party. That was not simply international courtesy that the expression of the conviction that foreign governments would have had no intercourse with the German Government if that German Government were composed of obvious criminals.
I might mention a particularly characteristic is example. The Indictment against the SA is substantiated by a number of demands. These are documents 22, 28 and 23 PS. According to the these documents, even on May of 1933, a deputy of the Reich War Ministry, Colonel Auleeb, was transformed to the highest command of the SA in order to assure liaison between the two organizations. But the entire occurrence is treated as strictly secret and it is stated that Auleeb, in order to camouflage himself, should not wear the SA uniform.
How, I ask, could a single SA member know anything of such events? interests of the SA members. The Defense wishes to make no gratuitous assumptions. they were members of a criminal organization. Also the criterion set up yesterday by the Prosecution to define a criminal organization, the close connection between the main defendants and the SA, is in the case of no organization so difficult to establish as in the case of the SA. This may, at first, sound very surprising since of the main defendants here six were high members of the SA. Nevertheless, a closer scrutiny shows that their connections were in no case close connections. Besides Goering, none of the main defendants ever had command authority over the entire SA. The rank that these main defendants had in the SA was an honorary rank and to a large extent simply decorative. mentioned only Goering's connection with the SA but even Goering's connection with the SA curiously enough is very slight and is confined actually to the period of three-quarters of a year, that is for nine months, mainly from February 1923 to November 1923, that is to say twenty-seven years ago, Goering was never, as he is accused in Appendix A of the Indictment, Reichsfuehrer of the SA. That is an error. Rather in February, 1923, Goering was commissioned with the command of the Sturmabteilung that the Party had at that time.
1923. After that, his command over the SA vanished and was never revived. Later, Goering received from Hitler honorary leadership of the Standarte Feldherrnhalle. He was, however, not commander of this unit. must be generally known. I do not have to dilate upon it further. Honorary membership is a purely decorative function. The tasks that the SA had to carry out under Goering in the year 1923 were safeguarding of meetings. It cannot be asserted that at that time the SA, along with Goering, had anything to do with planning the crimes stated in Article 6 of the Charter, or that those acts had already been formulated or could have been anticipated at that time. It also cannot be asserted that after the year 1923 Goering made use of the SA for the execution of any criminal plan. opponent of Goering's. After his death, the SA, from 1934 to 1943 was led by Victor Lutze, and then, until its dissolution, by Wilhelm Schepmann. tion can only be comdemned in connection with an action on account of which one of the main defendants is being tried. From the legal and reality point of view, I have the gravest doubts whether the events I have just spoken of suffice for the requirement of the Indictment. I ask that the High Court not look upon Goering's activities as honorary member of the SA 23 years ago as criminal. On the other hand, this entire event was settled by the amnesty of the democratic government in Germany at that time, which amnesty was granted to the SA at that time. zation, and certainly in the case of the SA, inclusion among the numbers of the criminal organization does not correspond to reality. Large circles in foreign countries, particuarly those who had to leave Germany in 1933, knew nothing of the complete change of structure which the SA went through in the following years. The foreign countries heard, from every Reichstag meeting, "The SA marches," whereas, as a matter of fact, it had lost all political Influence, and in its size had become numerically enormous.
It was precisely for that reason it had become innocuous from any conspiratorial point of view, nor could it have been used for any criminal act. tion. This is on page 1546 of the court record.
"The organization by which the SA was then completely excluded from political life was, as everyone knows, the SS, and this occurred in connection with the so-called Roehm Putsch in the year 1934." as inimical brothers, a fact that in the interests of truth should not remain unmentioned. The opinion of the SA is, for all these reasons, also in the case of the Germans, even under National Socialism, a completely different one, and this has already led to contradictory occurrences the elimination of which by the Prosecution or the Court would be highly desirable.
This is the time to point out the following: The SA, up to the higher ranks, is not susceptible to being taken into custody, in contradistinction to the other organizations. The new Denazification Law which, after these things were talked over with German circles and the Military Government, came into effect and which is now law throughout the American Zone, regards all SA members in the lower ranks, such as that of Sturmfuehrer, neither as active Nazis nor as criminals. Since, in the American Zone, the laws regarding who can vote have now been formulated, and under those laws in thousands of German communities voting took place under the direction of the Military Government, the simple SA members, so far as they were not Party members, were not simply actively permitted to vote, but the same people who are here accused before the Court of serious crimes, at the same time, according to valid law, could right now be chosen as Community Councillors. on the request of the Court, he had reported here for interrogation. He reported that he saw no reason for that because in themeantime he had been elected and approved as a Community Councillor.
The regulations of Law No. 30 regarding the organization of German communities, 30 December 1945, Paragraphs 36 and 37, in which eligibility to be elected is defined, state also the fact known in all Germany, but apparently not in foreign countries, concerning a simple Party member who had no active political life, any more than the purely uninfluential SA man. Whoever was a member before 1937 cannot vote, and whoever was a Party member cannot be elected. here, and the SA members, who are indicted here, is as follows: could, without difficulty, become an SA member, but under no circumstances a Party member because, in relationship to Party membership, higher political requirements were made than in the case of the SA membership. There were certainly many SA members who belonged to this organization only in order to remove the blemishes of their suspect political life. to show one extreme danger which exists, particularly in the case of the SA, if a judgement is passed that concerns up to millions of simple SA men, if these millions of people are declared by this Court to be criminal. here a case of the verdict to be passed by this Court of a purely abstract judgment with no punishment mentioned -- I cannot agree with that. who weren't even members of the Party, have been inculpated, and their existence and income will be endangered by the passing of this verdict.
But for them to be banned and dealt with as I have just described, the verdict of this Court would be enough. The evidence being submitted is not direct evidence. A Court does not decide the fate of lifeless forms or organizations that have long since ceased to exist; it passes judgment on living, human beings, and no court should fail to look those in the face whom they are considering condemning. A good court is a good judge of character and can judge, by having the person in front of them, whether he is a criminal or not. or allowed such a passing of a judgment. The laws cited yesterday by the prosecution regarding conspiracy certainly define to a large extent the participation of members in a conspiracy, but two requirements were made even in these cases; Firstly, the member must know that he is party to a criminal plot or conspiracy; and secondly, the Indictment is not directed toward the conspiracy as such, and it is not the conspiracy that will be condemned but the individual participants. stand in contradiction to these legal principles of all states. father of the Charter, in his greatest speeches, particularly in that of the 25th of October, 1941, and others, clearly stated that the leaders shall be judged. Franklin D. Roosevelt, published by the Government of the United States.
I quote from the speech of the 25th of October, 1941:
"Civilized nations have long recognized the principle that no one shall be punished for the crimes of another." the 7th of October, 1942, and I quote:
"The number of those held guilty will, compared with the total population of the enemy countries, undoubtedly appear extraordinarily slight. The Governments of the United States and its Allies intend no mass reprisals, but we are determined to punish the leaders as they deserve for the planned murder of thousands of innocent people and those deeds of terror for which they are responsible, and every Christian principle that they have offended."
must be considered.
The Tribunal's decision regarding the organization will affect millions of people. It will put these millions of people in a twilight zone of banishment which will only be ended after the subsequent trials have been held. Until that time every individual is under serious suspicion of being a criminal, since it is questionable whether he will succeed, in the subsequent trial, in exonerating himself. But since an individual person, with such a frustration, would probably not be able to re-enter his profession--and until he is exonerated will be excluded from the ranks of honorable citizens--we are depriving him of the right for such a subsequent trial, and we do not have the right to do so.
I believe that Justice Jackson will agree to this. But if, as the prosecution requires, seven million members of organizations should be affected by the judgment of the Tribunal, and so be condemned to this twilight region of banishment, then millions of subsequent trials will have to take place. We shall have to assume that in one year, perhaps, a hundred thousand trials will have to be carried out. I believe that that is a very conservative estimate.
Our German courts will not be able to help out in this. They are, as everyone knows, greatly overworked since they have now only a small portion of their previous personnel. The courts, for these millions of cases, will probably have to treat those first whose criminal nature is mat suspect. The others, for whom it is a question of their existence, will defend themselves with all the legal means at their disposal. It is probable that the person who is really innocent will have to wait years, even decades, before he will have an opportunity to exonerate himself and so rehabilitate himself. another to find a way cut of this dilemma if the Control Council had passed the necessary laws, since the suspicion arises that the organizations mentioned have committed crimes against peace and humanity. Consequently the courts have the right and duty, for those of whom it can be proved that they were participating in these crimes in any form, to call them to judgment.
prosecution and the defense would recognize in that a just solution. This problem would then be limited to those who actually could have guilt proved against them. guilty, provided that their guilt is once and for all determined in an open trial. as the prosecution has requested, then I ask, for the reasons that I have just given, from the picture that the prosecution will now draw of the case, that the condemnation of the SA should not be pronounced. other organizations--for instance, the various murders and cruelties, where the individual perpetrators can no longer be determined--this consideration does not apply to the SA. The few excesses which, according to the presentation of the prosecution, took place, did so only in Germany. The perpetrators are known. Individual regional courts have already instituted proceedings against these people. against the destroyers of the synogogue, and that the perpetrators of these deeds, on the 10th and 11th of November, 1938, were called to trial. should be condemned, thon I ask the Tribunal, so far as possible, to make use of the right which both the prosecution and defense recognize as theirs, to limit the condemnation in terms of classes and time.
A very important discrimination is to be made here. For one, the SA members who, after the accession or seizure of power in 1933, entered the SA, joined an organization that had State approval. Certainly a state authority cannot make a matter of law the commiting of crimes against humanity. But the question of finding out who is 1st Mar - M -O'B - 1 categories, I should like to request a double limitation.