The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-201.10


Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-201.10
Last-Modified: 2000/11/19

Q. What effect had the seizure of power on the 30th January
on the old SA war veterans after the serious political
conflict of the previous years?

A. At the time of the seizure of power I was an adjutant in
a Gruppenstab. And if I think back to that time today, I
remember that I believed at first that, on the basis of the
tremendous political tensions and conflicts of the twelve
preceding cars, precisely at that time a tremendous eruption
of pent-up fury and hatred and reprisals was bound to come.
I wish to state, however, since I experienced this period of
time personally, that I could only see and notice that the
seizure of power was effected as a whole quietly and
reasonably, and that also the old SA veteran who still
remembered the fighting days remained calm and prudent.

Q. In what light, however, did you see the various excesses
which occurred later on, from 1933 to 1934, according to the
statement which you have now given?

A. In my opinion, the excesses which occurred later, in
spite of the discipline and order which had been commanded,
could only have been committed by a few individuals or small
groups, who did not understand the sense of our socialist
revolution, its scope and its limitations; or on the other
hand, by individuals who were thrown off their balance and
could not regain their inner equilibrium.

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put
to this witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution wish to cross-examine?

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MAJOR J. HARCOURT BARRINGTON:

Q. Witness, you have told the Tribunal that the SA were
trained only in political soldiership. Did not "political
soldiership" mean that the SA men had special privileges in
the State which the ordinary German citizen had not?

                                                  [Page 114]

A. I do not know what privileges the SA men were supposed to
have had.

Q. Was not the SA man one of the National Socialists elite?

A. The SA man was the political soldier within the movement
and nothing else.

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, our transmission apparatus does
not work. We do not understand the questions. The witness
only understands them in part because he knows some English.

MAJOR J. HARCOURT BARRINGTON: Would it be possible for Dr.
Boehm to come and sit here? The German switch appears to be
working all right here.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think so. If his earphones are not
working properly he can get another pair.

BY MAJOR J. HARCOURT BARRINGTON:

Q. Witness, was the SA man subject to the same restraints of
behaviour as an ordinary German citizen?

A. To a much greater extent. The SA man performed his
services voluntarily, and he was particularly subject to the
law. I, as Chief of the Office for Social Welfare, have
dealt for years with the turning out of thousands of SA men,
and supported them in their work. I had to take care of many
poor and needy SA men through that vast welfare organization
for many years until close to the end.

Q. I ask you - perhaps the translation did not come through
right - were there the same restraints, or restrictions, on
the behaviour of the SA men as there were on ordinary German
citizens?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I would ask you to tell me what
restraints you mean. I do not know of any essential
restraints such as you mention.

Q. Is your answer no? There were no restraints? Or is it
yes?

A. I asked a question of the Prosecutor. What restraints did
the SA man not have in contrast to others? That is how I
understood the question.

Q. Was the SA man as free in his behaviour, or was the SA
man more free in his behaviour, than the ordinary German
citizen?

A. (No response.)

Q. If you cannot answer it, have a look for a moment at the
general service regulations which you talked about just now.

MAJOR J. HARCOURT BARRINGTON: My Lord, that is on Page 30-A
of Document Book B. It is Document 2820-PS, and is Exhibit
USA 247.

BY MAJOR J. HARCOURT BARRINGTON:

Q. Look first at Article I. I think it is on Page 9. Have
you got it?

A. Yes.

Q. "The SA man is the political soldier of Adolf Hitler;"
and a few lines further down: "He therefore enjoys special
prestige and has definite rights in the State". Do you deny
that those words mean what they say? Was not the SA man in a
privileged position?

A. (No response.)

Q. Was not the SA man in a privileged position.

A. I can only say that as far as I was an SA man, and as
much as I know about SA men, SA men were not in a privileged
position. Besides, we are concerned here with the SA service
regulation of 1933, which, according to my knowledge, was
rescinded essentially in 1934, and -

Q. I do not care when it was rescinded. It was issued on the
12th December, 1933 was it not? And that was after the Nazis
were in power?

A. (No response.)

Q. Well, you can see it says so on the top of it. Tell me
what those definite rights in the State were that the SA man
is said to have by Article I. What were the definite rights
in the State? What did it mean? Every SA man read that book?

                                                  [Page 115]

A. If the SA man was in the service of the State or in
emergency police service, he, of course, had the privileges
accorded that particular service.

Q. You cannot tell me what they are, I suppose. Well, look
at that Article 10 on Page 13. Have you got Article 10, Page
13?

A. Ten? Yes.

Q. "The exalted position of the SA man may not be degraded
by insulting, slighting or unjust treatment."

How was the SA man "exalted" above any other German
citizens?

A. In my opinion, he only had a particular responsibility,
or special duty.

Q. What did it mean when it says he had "an exalted
position," and he must not be insulted? He could insult
other German citizens, could he not?

A. (No response.)

Q. Was the SA man exalted above the Army? Yes or no?

A. I have already said that, as far as I am concerned, I
never had or assumed any special privilege, and therefore I
cannot imagine that the SA man had or could assume any
particular privilege.

Q. Very well, then; that is your answer. Now, look at
Article 18, on Page 17:

  "The SA man may use weapons which are entrusted to him
  only in execution of his service or for legal self-
  protection."

Now, I want you to tell me, what aspect of the SA man's
service might require the use of weapons other than self-
defence?

A. I have already said that the SA man could be used for
emergency service (Notdienst). With regard to these service
regulations, I would like to say that in my opinion they had
been issued under Roehm at the time

Q. I do not want to go into that. Roehm was Chief of Staff
of the SA, and what he issued presumably was law to the SA.
And he says that they may use weapons only in execution of
their service or for legal self-protection.

Now, I ask you again, apart from self-protection, what case
could there be where the SA man's service would require the
use of a weapon? If you cannot answer, say so.

Q. I can only say what I have already said in answering a
question of my counsel, that the SA was armed only to the
extent that it was active in carrying out functions of the
State.

Q. Are you suggesting that the purpose for which they might
use their arms might be a military purpose, then?

A. (No response.)

Q. Are you suggesting they might use them for a military
purpose, if they were called for that purpose?

A. I have said emergency service, especially auxiliary
police service or police service, as far as the SA was
called on to do so.

Q. You say you are not asserting they would use them in the
Army, but you are asserting they might use them to assist
the police, are you?

A. For police emergency service, or police auxiliary
service.

Q. Do you mean, then, that when they were under the police
auxiliaries this regulation in the General Service
Regulations of the SA was the regulation that applied to
them? Or did police regulations apply?

A. (No response.)

Q. Did they take the commands of the SA, or did they take
the commands of the police when they were auxiliary
policemen? That is what I want to know.

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I have only stated what I have seen
myself. I do not know what. has been decreed in detail
according to the service regulations. The SA man, as I have
seen it, was armed in so far as he was used in the State or
police auxiliary service, or emergency service.

Q. Can you tell me any other case besides police service
where he would have to use his arms, except in self-defence?
Any other case?

A. (No response.)

                                                  [Page 116]

Q. I put it to you, witness, that what these arms which are
mentioned in this Article 18 were meant for was nothing more
nor less than for the carrying out of the so-called SA
actions, is not that right?

A. I can only repeat again and again that in my opinion -

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you can answer the question. It is
either right or it is wrong. You can say, you were with the
SA all this time.

THE WITNESS: If the SA man used the weapons without being
used himself for emergency service, then he became liable to
punishment. Apart from that, the SA man was used only for
emergency service.

BY MAJOR J. HARCOURT BARRINGTON:

Q. The SA man, I put it to you, became liable for punishment
if he used his weapons for a purpose that the SA did not
approve of. But what I am saying now is that he was
encouraged - indeed, ordered - to use his weapons for
actions which the SA did approve of?

A. (No response.)

Q. Well, if you cannot answer that, I will leave it.

Look in that little book at one more thing. Look at Page 33,
No. 6 of the punishment order; Page 33. Have you got Page
33?

A. Yes, I have Page 33.

Q. Now, you see the last sentence of the first paragraph,
about punishment:

"Right is what is advantageous to the movement and wrong
what harms it." Have you got that?

A. No.

Q. "Right is what is advantageous to the Movement and wrong
what harms it."

A. Yes, I have found that.

Q. Now, I suggest to you, witness, that what is advantageous
to the movement, such as SA actions, is precisely the thing
that the SA arms and weapons were meant to be used for; is
that right or wrong? You can say yes or no.

A. The SA leaders were used under the command of their
leaders, and they had to know for what purposes they were
allowed to use their SA men.

Q. I do not think that has got much to do with my question.
Look again at that sentence, "Right is what is advantageous
to the movement and wrong what harms it." Does not that show
perfectly clearly that the Nazi Party regarded the SA as a
privileged party who were entitled to commit crimes if they
were advantageous to the movement?

A. The SA man was led, and could not on the basis of that
regulation act as an individual, as he wanted to.

MAJOR J. HARCOURT BARRINGTON: My Lord, I have only got one
more document.

There are only two or three questions on it.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

MR. BARRINGTON: My Lord, the document is the first document
in Book C. It is D-918. Oh, I beg your Lordship's pardon. It
is Book 16-B. The document is D-918 and it will become
Exhibit GB 594.

BY MAJOR J. HARCOURT BARRINGTON:

Q. Witness, I am not going to take you into detail in regard
to this document. You can see what it is. It is Lutze's
Training Directive for 1939, and you will see Page 2 the
date on which it was issued was 4th November, 1938, which
was before Hitler's order about the pre- and post-military
training. Now I have only one point to put to you on this
document. You have maintained just now, have you not, that
the training of the SA was predominantly for sport; is that
right?

                                                  [Page 117]

A. I have said that the training of the SA was primarily
training and exercise towards the achievement of the Sport
Insignia and ideological and physical training generally.

Q. But did not you say that the emphasis was placed upon
sport and not upon military tendencies? If you did not say
that, admit it.

A. I cannot remember the details of what was said before. I
can only say one thing, that the SA only had a
wehrsportliches (defence-sports) training; including
physical and intellectual training and training of the will-
power as has been described here in this book.

Q. You do not deny then that that training had a military
tendency behind it; do you deny that? The training for the
Sports Insignia had a military tendency behind it?

A. We received no directives for any kind of military
training. We are concerned here with moral education,
comprising, as I should like to point out again, physical
and intellectual training, and training of the will-power,
and nothing else.

Q. Well, all I want you to do is to run your eye down
certain passages of this document. Look at Page 7 of Lutze's
Training Directive for 1939. You will see that Page 7 deals
with the first training period, from November, 1938, until
the beginning of February, 1939, and at the bottom part of
the page you will see, set out in a certain sequence, the
items on which particular attention is laid: Marching,
drill, shooting, field training, and last of all, sport. Can
you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Now turn to Page 3 - I am sorry, Page 10 - Page 9 first.
Turn on to Page 9, which gives you a similar thing for the
second training period, from February to April, 1939. In the
middle of the page you will see, underlined again: Drill,
firing, training, and last of all, sport. Do you see that?

A. I do not know, Mr. Prosecutor, what you are referring to
now. I have it now.

Q. Now, turn on to Page 10, where you see the same thing for
the third and last training period, which is May to June,
1939. On Page 10 you will see the same thing: drill,
musketry, field training, and last of all, sport. Is it not
perfectly clear that sport was very much an excuse and a
means to an end?

MAJOR J. HARCOURT BARRINGTON: My Lord, I am not proposing to
put any more questions to this witness, as the general
topics will be dealt with in the cross-examination of the
witness Juttner.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will adjourn now.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 13th August, 1946, 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.