Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-202.01
Last-Modified: 2000/11/29

                                                  [Page 118]

TWO HUNDRED AND SECOND DAY

TUESDAY, 13th AUGUST, 1946

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will sit in closed session
tomorrow afternoon at 2 o'clock. That is to say, it will not
sit in open session after I o'clock tomorrow.

Major Barrington, had you finished?

MAJOR J. HARCOURT BARRINGTON: Yes, my Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other Chief Prosecutors who
want to cross-examine? Then, Dr. Boehm, do you wish to re-
examine?

DR. BOEHM (counsel for the SA): Mr. President, I should like
to ask a few brief questions on the cross-examination
yesterday.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. BOEHM:

Q. Witness, will you please answer these questions as
briefly as possible. Do you know the basic principle, the
foremost in the SA, equal rights for everyone?

A. Yes, I know this principle. It was also taught in the
schools.

Q. Is it true that the higher position of an SA man, which
was mentioned here yesterday, meant only the respect held
for him in the national community on the strength of his
contribution to the realization of the aims of the Third
Reich?

A. The SA man was always educated to observe order and
discipline and to obey directives and the law.

Q. Were the privileges which were mentioned here yesterday
something different from the respect for the SA man as a
political soldier?

A. The SA man had no privileges. He could earn certain
rights in connection with his services which enabled him to
advance more easily, socially speaking, but otherwise he was
subject to the law in all respects.

Q. You mentioned yesterday that the SA man was not armed,
that he only carried an SA dagger. From Sturmfuehrer up, he
had in addition firearms for which he needed a licence like
every German who wanted to carry firearms.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, within the SA, within the circle of persons in
question here, did the individual who carried a pistol have
a right to use it against other nationals?

A. No, the SA man who carried a weapon had to know, just
like any other citizen, that he could use it only in
emergencies for his own defence.

Q. Article 10 was read yesterday to you stating that the
high position of the SA man must not be disgraced by
insulting, slighting or unjust treatment.

A. The rights were the consequences of certain duties. If
the SA man was under special obligation he had to have
special rights. But never - that was constantly emphasized -
could he overstep the existing laws in any way.

Q. Article 18 says especially that the SA man may use
weapons that were entrusted to him to the extent I have just
stated, only in the execution of his duties and for
legitimate self - protection. Does this not mean that the SA
man, like every other German citizen, had to obey the
existing regulations concerning the possession and the use
of weapons?

                                                  [Page 119]

A. I have already said so once. The SA man was subject to
the existing rules. That means, of course, that he needed a
police licence or a proper pass stating how and when he was
entitled to use his weapon.

Q. Was it not true that the SA man, because he was in the SA
and because more was demanded from him than from any other
citizen, would receive more severe punishment if he
committed an offence with his weapon?

A. An order was in existence that the SA man, when he was on
trial, was to be punished especially severely, or special
standards were to be applied in determining  his punishment
if he had committed any offence.

Q. Another quotation from the service regulations of 12th
December, 1933, was read to you yesterday, stating that all
violations of discipline were to be punished. Does that not
mean that violations, that is, discipline infringements,
were punished by the supreme SA command and that order was a
ruling principle in the SA?

A. The leaders particularly made especially strenuous
efforts to see to it that every SA man kept within the
limits of the law. In addition, we had strict orders that an
SA man, if he had committed any offence anywhere in civil
life, had to be reported, particulars of his case obtained
from the judicial authorities, and then be subjected to
disciplinary punishment.

Q. The document which was shown to you yesterday, of 12th
December, 1933, on Page 33, No. 6, says, "Right is what aids
the movement; wrong is what harms it." Did this phrase mean
anything more than the English proverb, "My country, right
or wrong"?

A. According to any conception and interpretation, it means
that the man has rights within the framework of his duties
and that on the other hand, if he does wrong, and oversteps
the limits of the law, he also thereby harms his Fatherland.

Q. The training directives were also shown to you, on Pages
7 and 9. There has been talk here of police duties, of
drilling, shooting practice, exercises in open country,
sports and so on. I am asking you now whether the pentathlon
in the Olympic Games did not consist of just the same
things? Did not the athletes taking part march into the
stadium in good order and in a way made possible only by
previous exercise? Did they not also shoot and drill; did
they not also engage in sports, all the forms of sports
which are listed here?

THE PRESIDENT: Do you not think this is really more a matter
of argument than examination? We have had this argument as
to whether or not it was for sport or whether or not for
military purposes over and over again. We have got to make
up our minds about it. It does not help very much to have it
put in again in re-examination.

DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. I would not have asked this
question if the witness had not been referred to the fact
that sports were the last mentioned of the exercises in
these training directives. I should like to point out that
the other exercises which are listed here were also carried
out in the pentathlon of the Olympic Games, and I hardly
think that they involve a military significance or
militaristic attitude.

May I now ask the witness one more question?

BY DR. BOEHM:

Q. Incidentally, you did not answer my previous question:
Were not the same or very similar exercises carried out in
the pentathlon of the Olympic Games?

A. I was interrupted earlier by the President. I, myself,
was present at the Olympics and I know the individual forms
of sport well. We carried out all the drills so that we
could appear in public in a disciplined fashion like all
sport organizations and make a good impression. Because we
were later to organize these large-scale games, we chose in
general the exercises of the Olympics, and

                                                  [Page 120]

these were taught and practised by us. We shot, we held
obstacle races and we used all these exercises in our
training.

Q. On Page eight of the training directives, which were
submitted to you yesterday, it says with regard to drilling
- this would be the only exercise resembling military
training - "that the training be put into effect
energetically. After exercise in the basic movements,
applied drill tests should be tackled, as they occur in
drill movements necessary in political assignments." In
connection with the wording of these instructions, did you
think of military training or militaristic training when it
was a question of drill within the SA?

A. For us the drill and, the training of the men as
individuals as well as in closed formations were always done
for the purpose of presenting a unified picture in public
appearances.

DR. BOEHM: I have no more questions to put to the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I should now like to call the next
witness, Schaefer.

WERNER AUGUST MAX SCHAEFER, a witness, took the stand and
testified as follows:

BY THE PRESIDENT:

Q. Will you state your full name, please?

A. Schaefer.

Q. Is that your full name?

A. Werner August Max Schaefer.

Q. Will you repeat this oath after me:

I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will
speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.

(The witness repeated the oath.)

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. BOEHM:

Q. Witness, what are you by profession?

A. I am a Regierungsdirektor in the Reichsstrafvollzug.
(Government director dealing with the execution of court
sentences.)

Q. Were you a member of the NSDAP or any of its branches?

A. I have been a member of the party since 1928.

Q. Were you a member of the SA?

A. I have been a member of the SA since 1932. I became an SA
Oberfuehrer in 1938.

Q. The witness Reimund Geist said in an affidavit that a
thousand local assembly places of the SA were used to keep
people under arrest. Do you know anything about that and is
this allegation true?

A. Of the number of a thousand local assembly places, used
to keep people under arrest, I know nothing.

Q. Would you have known anything about such places if they
had existed in that number?

A. If they had existed in that number, one would certainly
have known of them; actually, a few of these places did
exist for a short time; after conditions had become settled,
they were dissolved or taken over and administered by the
Gestapo.

Q. Is it correct to say that these arrest places were an
emergency measure during a period in 1933?

A. Yes, it was definitely an emergency measure. At that
time, at the time of the change of power, we were in a state
of latent civil war in Germany. It was therefore necessary
to arrest active opponents in order to put into effect what
the

                                                  [Page 121]

Fuehrer had decreed in connection with the assumption of
power, namely, that the revolution was to be carried out
without bloodshed.

Q. Is it true that extensive finds, of weapons caused the
arrests in 1933, and that these arrests were carried out to
avoid chaotic conditions, which would have resulted if these
weapons had not been confiscated?

A. Yes. A large number of such weapons were found and it did
not remain unknown to us that a large number of our active
opponents were willing to use these weapons to bring about
such chaotic conditions.

Q. Can one say that the SA in confiscating the weapons at
that time was carrying out an assignment of the State?

A. Yes. It was a State assignment of the Prussian Minister
of the Interior and Ministerprasident Goering, who used the
SA as an auxiliary police force on that occasion.

Q. Dr. Diehls says in an affidavit that it was his task to
prevent the transfer of the central political police into
the SA and to follow up the innumerable complaints about
illegal actions by the SA, since some SA Fuehrer appointed
as police presidents from July to November, 1933, had
allowed lawless conditions to arise. Since you were in that
district, what can you say about Dr. Diehls's statement?

A. As far as I recall - and I remember it very well - Diehls
stood in very friendly relationship with the then SA Chief
of Staff, Roehm, and also with the local chief of the Berlin-
Brandenburg Group, Ernst. Therefore, I cannot understand
that he considered and termed it his main task as chief of
the Gestapo to follow up any complaints which were received
about the SA. I should like to point out the fact that these
undisciplined elements, which could damage the movement and
the SA, were prevented from doing so within the SA by a
special SA liaison staff at Gestapo headquarters. I know
personally that it was Gruppenfuehrer Ernst who at that time
arrested such undisciplined elements on his own initiative
and kept them in a separate sector of the Oranienburg
concentration camp. It was, therefore, not a task of the
head of the Gestapo to take action against undisciplined
elements of the SA or the movement; his tasks were quite
clearly on another level.

Q. Diehls has now restricted his originally far-reaching
affidavit, restricted it particularly to Berlin. What was
the attitude of Count Helldorf who was removed by Hitler on
20th July, 1944, in this respect?

A. I know Count Helldorf from my activity as SA Fuehrer in
Berlin. Shortly after the seizure of power he was, as far as
I know, for a short time in the Prussian Ministry of the
Interior and was then police president in Potsdam. I can
only say that, as police president, Count Helldorf did
everything required and necessary to maintain an orderly
police organization. For this purpose he employed old,
reliable police officials. As police president he was also
my superior with regard to the concentration camp at
Oranienburg. I should mention that he paid frequent surprise
visits to Oranienburg and inspected with great thoroughness
the conditions and administrative organization of the camp.
He was known to me as a man who advocated the maintenance of
absolutely correct behaviour and discipline.

Q. I also draw your attention to Diehls's statement that the
SA formations forcibly entered prisons, abducted prisoners,
removed files, and established themselves in the offices of
the police. Is that true? Did such conditions ever exist?

A. I cannot recall such conditions. They would surely have
been known to me if they had existed, for I was frequently
in Berlin; but I must say that I did not hear of such
occurrences. Later too I should have heard something about
them when I became an official in the Penal Execution
Administration of the Reich. In my opinion my Berlin
colleagues would certainly have reported such events to me,
but that was not done.

Q. You were at that time commandant of Oranienburg and were
in Berlin together with the men of the police or of the
Gestapo almost every day.

                                                  [Page 122]

A. I was not in Berlin every day, but I was there quite
frequently so that such things certainly would not have
escaped my notice.

Q. Considering the statement made in his affidavit for the
SA that altogether fifty people were the victims of the
revolution in Berlin, do you think that Diehls's assertion
that it was his task to try to transfer the SA camps to the
control of the Government in order to avoid mass murder is
true?

A. This statement of Diehls's is undoubtedly incorrect. I
can say that it in no way corresponded to the ideology of
the SA to remove political opponents by committing mass
murder. Diehls himself in his affidavit gives the figure of
fifty victims in Berlin, as you have just read, and that
proves what I say. One must not forget that a large part of
the political opponents of yesterday were now marching with
the SA and that therefore there still existed many personal
ties with the camp of the political opponents. If this
intention to remove political opponents by mass murder had
existed at all, its execution would have met with the
greatest resistance in the SA itself; and I may say frankly
here that what Diehls asserts was in no way true.

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