Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-201.08
Last-Modified: 2000/11/19

Q. The prosecution still refers to this Affidavit No. 5 of
General Blaskowitz and for the purpose of clearing this
statement, as the interpretation by the prosecution might
lead to misunderstandings, I asked General Blaskowitz to
issue a statement on his affidavit here. I shall read part
of it to you now, and subsequently I shall ask you whether
this is correct as General Blaskowitz has given it. I quote:
"The purpose of the present declaration is to make clear the
restriction I made use of in my affidavit of 10th November,
1945: In your sphere: What I state in

                                                  [Page 105]

today's supplementary declaration should be included in the
restriction. I did not mean a conference of commanders at
the Front forming a 'group' or an actual 'advisory circle.'
Both expressions might be misunderstood; they should only
designate a circle from which individual advisers could be
heard by their superiors on matters affecting the
individual's sphere." Would this supplement to this previous
explanation correspond to the actual steps a commander could
take?

A. Yes, that is so, and it removes the misunderstanding
which I believed due to General Blaskowitz.

Q. You were furthermore asked regarding the misunderstanding
which occurred before the opening of the Russian campaign
between you and Field-Marshal von Bock concerning a gap due
to by-passing a large swamp area.

A. That is an error, that was not a misunderstanding between
von Bock and myself. This deployment plan was laid down by
the OKH, and I, as Commanding Officer of Army Group South,
did not like this gap. That was why I reported to Hitler
saying: " My army group has such and such a task and will do
this or that. It would be good of some troops were to pass
through this gap." It was not a misunderstanding at all.
That was a suggestion for improvement coming from me.

Q. When you both reported to Hitler concerning your
intention of carrying out your military tasks, was it at the
same time, or would the reports be given at different times?

A. They took place one after the other. First Bock and his
army commanders had their turn. Then I had my turn with my
commanders. I was referred to the order that officers should
not know any more than what concerned them. That meant that
I was not supposed to know how Bock was going to operate
with his army group. According to Hitler's order, it was
none of my business.

Q. The result was that you reported separately?

A. Yes, and that is easy to understand as the more there
were present at such a report the more uneasy one felt.

Q. An order has been submitted to you, 4067-PS, according to
which German citizens, as far as they were found fighting
for the Free French units in Africa, were to be shot. Did
you ever hear -

A. No.

Q. - that this order was put into practice?

A. No, I do not know anything about the order.

Q. You said that you had never agreed with Field-Marshal von
Blomberg's ideas. In this affidavit which is constantly
being referred to by the prosecution, Field-Marshal von
Blomberg announces the opinion of what is called the "Group
of German Staff Officers." Did Field-Marshal von Blomberg
have a particularly close connection with the generals under
him?

A. He always remained a bit distant. He seemed to live in a
different sphere. He was a pupil of the Steiner school of
theosophy and no one really liked him. Once he was a
subordinate of mine, before becoming Minister of War. His
position was quite exceptional.

Q. You have not answered the question. Did Blomberg have
such close contact with the generals under him that he could
state their opinions in such a decided manner as he did in
this affidavit?

A. I cannot imagine that.

DR. LATERNSER: Thank you very much. I have no further
question.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness may retire.

DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, in the event that professor
Dr. Schreiber is produced by the Russian prosecution, and
only in that case, I should like to make application for
another witness to be questioned on this point, on which he
can give the most exact information.

                                                  [Page 106]

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you would say what point you mean?

DR. LATERNSER: The Russian prosecution today, during the
cross-examination of von Manstein, submitted a written
statement by Professor Dr. Schreiber regarding a special
type of warfare.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know, but there are three or four
points in that statement. Which one are you referring to?
There is not only one point in the statement. There are a
number of points.

DR. LATERNSER: Only in case the witness arrives, I should
like to ask to make an application to produce a witness of
mine, to be questioned on this point. This is only an
application made for an eventuality.

THE PRESIDENT: You must make the application now. What is
the application; who is the witness?

DR. LATERNSER: If Professor Dr. Schreiber appears here as
witness, I would like to call, to give evidence on this
subject, Medical Officer Dr. Handloser, as a witness for the
defence.

THE PRESIDENT: Is he in Nuremberg, or where?

DR. LATERNSER: I cannot tell you where he is, Mr. President,
but I will surely make every effort to find out.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, the Tribunal thinks that the
application should. be made in writing giving the reasons
why you think this doctor knows anything about the
biological warfare, and where you can find him. That
concludes your witnesses, does it?

DR. LATERNSER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has now only the SA to consider.
Will you call your witnesses for the SA?

DR. BOEHM: I should like to hear, as first witness, the
witness Bock.

FRANZ BOCK, a witness, took the stand and testified as
follows:

BY THE PRESIDENT:

Q. Will you state your full name, please?

A. Franz Bock.

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, when did you join the SA?

A. I joined the SA in 1922.

Q. What was your profession at the time?

A. At the time I was a commercial employee.

Q. What offices did you hold in the SA?

A. From 1922 to 1929 I was an SA man - an SA private. From
1929 until 1932 I had the following ranks: Truppfuehrer
until about 1930; Sturmfuehrer until 1931, and
Sturmbannfuehrer until 1932. When I became unemployed around
this time, I professionally joined the SA group staff West
as an adjutant in 1932. In 1933 I was transferred to the SA
group "Bayrische Ostmark" and became Stabsfuehrer. In 1934,
as Standartenfuehrer, I was transferred to Traunstein. From
1935 to 1937 I was Brigadefuehrer. In 1937 I became
department chief' and late the chief of the leading
department of the Supreme Staff of the SA. In

                                                  [Page 107]

1940, I performed my military service. After having
completed my military service toward the end of 1942, I was
sent to Dusseldorf as the leader of the group Lower Rhine.
There, I remained until the collapse in 1945.

Q. So, you are one of the oldest SA leaders. You can
therefore tell us why the SA was created and how it was
organized:

A. Originally, the SA was created as a sports and athletic
association in about 1920. Shortly thereafter it were
organized into a guard or protective organization, as a
security group for duties in assembly halls and for self-
protection. At that time the SA consisted of young idealists
and front soldiers of the First World War and it was not
particularly organized until approximately 1923. It was
created in accordance with local needs and necessities as
the Party happened to see fit.

Q. You have talked of a self-protection squad for duties in
assembly halls What was to be achieved by these means?

A. The spreading of National Socialist ideas was met with
much resistance by political opponents, who tried to fight
the Party with all means, even with means of terror. From
that a so-called protective organization arose and a so-
called assembly security guard.

Q. Why did the SA declare its main task to be the fight
against the opponents of their movement and its great aims.

A. Every desire for self-preservation demands a struggle.
The realization of National Socialistic ideas, with the aim
to assume power in the State, required political struggles
and fighting. Our weapons, however, were spiritual ones -
propaganda, the spoken word, and mass demonstrations.

Q. What was the development of the SA from 1925 until its
strict organization in 1931?

A. The SA from 1925 on developed organically, generally
speaking, keeping pace with the development of the entire
Party. It was closely connected with the Party, and merely
had a very insignificant organisational construction of its
own. At that time, the Party and the SA were recognized by
the rulers of the State and were legalised by them, just as
all other political parties, as, for instance, the
Reichsbanner, or the Red Front Fighters' Association, or the
Union of Storm Fighters, who were parts of the various
organizations and parties of the time.

Q. What reasons existed in your opinion for reorganizing in
1931?

A. The development of the Party and with it the spreading of
the SA over the entire Reich necessitated at that time, in
my opinion, a closer co-ordination and a corresponding
organization of the leadership of the SA. Furthermore, it
was urgently necessary, because of the Party rallies which
took place every year and in which the SA was mainly
responsible for the rallying, that the SA should be closely
organized and united for these propagandistic purposes.

Q. Why did the SA wear uniforms, and were they of a military
type?

A. In my opinion, it is not correct that the SA had military
uniforms in the literal sense. First of all they had a grey
wind-jacket and later on a brown shirt, but most of the
outer clothing was of a civilian nature. The SA had to have
a certain uniform at that time to distinguish it from the
other political organizations such as the Reichsbanner, etc.
It would be fallacious to hold that the uniform was of a
military character and we never considered that this type of
clothing could or should be of a military nature.

Q. Did the members of the other organizations at the time
wear any badges of distinction indicating they were units?

A. Yes, of course; the Reichsbanner, for instance, had
uniforms similar to ours and they wore our type of grey wind-
jackets and special caps. As far as I remember, the Red
Front Fighters' Association too, wore a kind of uniform, a
green-brown shirt, etc. All organizations at the time were
appearing in the uniform typical of their organization.

                                                  [Page 108]

Q. Did the SA have arms and who was allowed to carry such
arms?

A. The SA was not allowed to carry arms in conformity with
regulations. After 1933, end of 1933 or beginning of 1934,
the SA received the so-called "Dagger of Honour." Later on,
only a leader was allowed to carry a pistol and then only if
he had an appropriate police permit or a valid SA passport.
The carrying of arms, particularly during the period of
struggle (Kampfzeit), was supervised by the police and State
executive, and I remember when I was a unit leader that
before and during every meeting or during our marches and
demonstrations, the police searched us for arms. We .had the
strictest orders at the time not to carry arms, even if we
ran the danger of being attacked.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for ten minutes.

(A recess was taken.)

Q. Witness, you know that SA members were active in the
service of the State and of the police and were armed. By
whom were they armed in these instances?

A. As far as I know, the SA units which were used for
emergency State services or as auxiliary police were armed
by the competent authorities by whom they were employed, and
were also generally directed by the corresponding military
or police offices.

Q. You know that special units were established in the SA.
Please tell me what the tasks of these special units were.

A. These special units were created in the SA in the first
place, to correspond to the peculiar characteristics of
people of the different regions - for example, the people
living near the sea or those living in the mountains - or in
the second place to give the SA men the opportunity to make
use of their technical abilities. Training in these was, in
general, the same as in other SA storm units. Only to the
extent that these units had the necessary material at their
disposal, or could obtain it as it applied to their special
field, was service in these specialized fields carried on.

In addition, particularly in the earlier times, we needed
these special units, also called technical units, for our
big parades, for the demonstrations and so forth, because
thus we could be completely independent. For example, in
carrying out a big Party rally in Nuremberg, it was
absolutely essential, for directing and encamping 100,000
men, to have the necessary intelligence units and
engineering units to make the arrangements ourselves for
these rallies; and it was the same in the individual
Gaugebiete (zones). There, also, the intelligence units were
set up for such purposes.

Furthermore, later these intelligence units and these
special units were urgently needed for service during
emergencies and for protection against emergencies, for
which the SA specialized.

Q. For what purpose did the SA keep musicians' units?

A. They belonged to the marching units when they wanted to
appear for propagandistic and recruiting purposes. In
addition, they needed these musicians' units for the big
rallies and demonstrations of the Party.

Q. From what point of view was assignment in the SA made?

A. I should like to say that that varied greatly everywhere.
Partly, it was determined according to purely Party
viewpoints, such as I mentioned in regard to these special
units for the Party rallies, parades and so forth, for the
meetings, for the distribution of handbills, and the like.

Furthermore, the SA service was necessary for arranging the
columns for the parades in such a way that they would make a
good impression and encourage recruitment. It was the
spiritual and physical development of the units which was
effected through the training programme of the Higher SA
Leadership. And finally, there was the service in
emergencies which had to be practised beforehand in order to
be effective.

Q. Did the SA members perform their obligations?

                                                  [Page 109]

A. As far as I could see in my units, the SA men performed
their duty gladly, only there were great difficulties for
the men, difficulties arising from their occupational duties
due to problems of distance and time. For example, a worker
in the Ruhr District could, of course, not always be
available to follow up his duties.

As I emphasized at the beginning, service varied greatly,
and it was especially difficult in country districts in the
summer-time. As a rule efficient training could only be
carried on during the few autumn and winter months.

Q. Did the SA men perform their duty according to their oath
or in blind obedience?

A. The SA man performed his duty voluntarily. He followed,
according to an oath, the orders which were given to him.
The oath was that he, the SA man, was bound to absolute
obedience to his superior unless illegal things were
demanded of him. That is about how it read.

Q. Service in the SA was voluntary, you said. Do you know of
no cases in which the principle of voluntary service was
broken?

A. It may be that units appeared with the SA which were not
built up on a voluntary basis. I am speaking, for example,
of the Reich schools of finance or the storm units which
were recruited primarily from students later on, or possibly
also such national organizations as had been taken over by
the SA.

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