The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt//tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-203.01


Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-203.01
Last-Modified: 2000/11/29

                                                  [Page 162]

TWO HUNDRED AND THIRD DAY

WEDNESDAY, 14th AUGUST, 1946

MAX JUETTNER - Resumed

DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued

BY DR. BOEHM:

Q. Witness, yesterday we left off in your examination with
the manner in which the Jewish question was handled by the
SA. Now I should like to ask you how the participation of
members of the SA in actions against the Jews in November,
1938, can be explained?

A. I would like to call your attention to the fact that my
microphone is not working.

Q. Can you hear now?

A. Yes.

Q. In your testimony yesterday, we left off with the manner
in which the Jewish question was handled within the SA and
now I should like to ask you how the participation of the
members of the SA in actions against the Jews in November of
1938 can be explained?

A. The participation of SA members in this action consisted
of irresponsible deeds by individuals which were in gross
contradiction to the directive of Staff Chief Lutze's
executives. Staff Chief Lutze was in Munich in the old city
hall. There, in connection with the speech made by Dr.
Goebbels, he immediately assigned the chief of the
administrative office, Obergruppenfuehrer  Matthes, to go to
the Hotel Reinhof, where a part of the SA leaders present
had already retired, in order to give these SA leaders
strict orders not to participate in any action against the
Jews. About an hour later, when he received the news that
the synagogue in Munich had been set on fire, Lutze, in my
presence, al, this order to the SA leaders who were still
present in the Munich city ball, and said that it was to be
passed along to all units immediately. This was actually
done, as is confirmed by the fact that in many places no
actions were carried out at all, and numerous SA men confirm
under oath that they received this order.

Q. Then how did it come about that, in spite of it, members
of the SA participated in the destruction of Jewish
establishments?

A. As was ascertained afterwards, isolated individuals let
themselves be misled by agencies which were undoubtedly
under the influence of Dr. Goebbels. As an actual fact,
compared with the strength of the SA, relatively few real
members of the SA participated in this action, although
public opinion later blamed the SA for the whole of it. And
here again it so happened that everyone in a brown shirt was
considered an SA man. That the SA was in no way the sponsor
of this action may also be seen from the fact that, as I
have read in the Press in the last few months, in individual
trials, for example, in Bamberg, Stuttgart, and, I believe,
in Hof, people were convicted who had destroyed synagogues
and who did not belong to the SA. The fact also that in many
places SA men made themselves available, upon instructions
from the leadership for protecting Jewish installations
against plundering by shady elements, etc., created the
popular impression that the SA had committed these misdeeds.
In any event, Staff Chief Lutze, one or two days later, gave
voice to his indignation to Dr. Goebbels about the action
itself, about

                                                  [Page 163]

the unjustified accusation against the SA, and strongly
condemned the irresponsible way in, which the SA men had
been incited to these misdeeds. Soon after, he issued an
order that in the future SA men were not to place themselves
at the disposal of other agencies for any tasks or actions
unless he himself had given express approval. Staff Chief
Lutze punished the guilty ones whom he discovered and, if
the case warranted it, they were turned over to the regular
courts for judgement.

Q. Well, had things been different up to that time when
Lutze took this particular line? Was the political
leadership in a position to use SA members for its own
purposes?

A. The political leadership had only the authority to use
the SA for certain tasks, and these tasks were the
following: Participation in Gau and Kreis roll calls;
demands for the use of the SA in cases of disaster, also for
propaganda purposes; for collection drives for the Winter
Relief work, for collecting clothing and the like. These
were the usual demands which the political leadership made
on the SA in the course of the year. So far as I know, at no
time did the political leadership make any other demands of
an illegal nature to the SA. But Lutze issued this order to
prevent those offices which were under Dr. Goebbels
influence from leading SA men astray in the future.

Q. Fine. But now the prosecution has submitted a document in
this trial, numbered 1721-PS. This is a report from Brigade
50 to Group Kurpfalz. I should first like to show this
document to you and then I should like to ask you whether
you made any official inquiries about this matter.

A. We made official inquiries after the action. No actions
and misdeeds, such as are indicated in the report, were
communicated to us from the area of Group Kurpfalz.
Moreover, I consider it quite out of the question that these
matters which are reproduced here are in accord with the
facts.

Q. Now I must put a number of questions to you which would
have been superfluous if the witnesses Lucke and Fuss could
have been interrogated in this Court. Lucke is the person
who made this report and Fuss is the one to whom it is
supposed to have been sent.

Is it customary in the SA, when making reports of action
taken, to repeat in such reports the order for such action?

A. In my entire activity as chief of the main office of the
higher SA leadership and as permanent deputy of the Chief of
Staff of the SA, I never observed that in reports of action
taken the original orders were repeated verbatim as
allegedly occurred here in this report. Moreover, I should
like to say that the leader of this group, who was
Obergruppenfuehrer Fuss, at the time he allegedly gave this
order which is repeated here, was in Munich in the old city
hall, and later in the Hotel Reinhof. He received this
prohibition from Staff Chief Lutze and transmitted it to his
group by telephone in the presence of Obergruppenfuehrer
Matthes. When Fuss returned to Mannheim, as I know, he
convinced himself of the fact that this order had been
transmitted and that in accordance with his instructions SA
men had been furnished to guard Jewish installations.

Moreover, the head of the leadership division of this Group
Kurpfalz, a certain SA leader by the name of Zimmerman,
confirms that the Gruppenfuehrer gave the order to do
exactly the opposite of that which is contained in this
document as a group order, and that he, too, saw SA men
acting as guards for Jewish establishments; and SA men of
this group, in internment camps, who headed units in this
group, testify that they never received an order like the
one which is here alleged to have been given by the group.

Q. Was it customary in SA phraseology to say "Jewish
synagogues"?

A. No, there was no expression like that. If one spoke of
Jewish churches one said "synagogues." The concept "Jewish"
was therefore included, just as when you speak of a mosque
the concept "Mohammedan" is inseparable

                                                  [Page 164]

from it. In the same way in our terminology, if you speak of
synagogues, you do not say "Jewish synagogues," but you just
say "synagogues."

Q. And in the order there is mention of an "Aryan
population." Was that possible or was it customary in this
connection?

A. This, too, is completely pointless. If this order had
been given, one would not have said "adjoining houses which
are inhabited by Aryan people," but one would undoubtedly
have said "those houses which are inhabited by Germans or
persons of German blood," but "Aryan people" would never
have been used in this connection.

Q. Does it sound probable or credible that in the year 1938,
at a time when the National Socialist power was consolidated
100 per cent, an order should be given that riots and
plundering were to be prevented?

A. This speaks quite clearly against the authenticity of the
report submitted here. To mention an occasion for plundering
and riots in such a connection would have been quite
inexplicable, and, moreover, there was no reason at all for
alleging that here.

Q. Would it have been possible that the Group, in an order
to the Brigade, might have ordered that a report of action
taken be sent to the Brigade Leader?

A. That would have been quite senseless. The Brigade could
not send a report of action taken to itself.

Q. But that is expressed in the report or rather in the
repetition of the report.

A. Yes, and that would speak against the authenticity of
this report which is reproduced here.

Q. And for that reason what would you gather from the way in
which the order is set up?

A. I conclude from it, to put it briefly, that this order
was never given, and that the man who invented it had no
idea of the language used in commands by the SA.

Q. Was it customary and in accord with the transmission of
order in the SA that they were not transmitted through
official channels, but that matters were handled in the way
stated here, according to which the Standartenfuehrer would
have been alerted, and according to which they would have
been given very exact instructions, and that in this
connection a report would have been given when they started
to carry out the order?

A. Quite apart from the fact that a report of action taken
would never have been made in the form presented here, it
was customary with us for orders to be transmitted through
official channels; then they began to carry them out. It is
absolutely pointless to emphasize especially, or to report,
that the execution of the order has begun, because every
order prescribes the conditions for its own execution in
advance. A report would have to be given only if certain
difficulties were encountered in executing the order.

Q. And what do you conclude from the improbable, and in part
impossible, style of this photostat of 11th November, 1938,
as a whole?

A. I believe I have stated already that this document here
itself speaks against its authenticity, and that we are
dealing with a forgery. When I look at this document more
closely, I arrive at the conclusion that even
chronologically the execution -

THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Could you give me the number of
the document?

DR. BOEHM: It is 1721-PS.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you not think we have heard enough about
it now? We have heard considerable argument that it is not
authentic.

DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, the point is that since the two
witnesses who would have been competent in this matter could
not be brought here, the matter must be clarified in such a
way that there is no doubt about this forgery. For if

                                                  [Page 165]

this report of action taken were true and correct, the SA
would be deeply incriminated by it.

THE PRESIDENT: I know that, but the witness has been telling
us that for the last ten minutes.

BY DR. BOEHM:

Q. In connection with Document 1721-PS, an order of the
supreme SA leadership was submitted as a document under the
same number, an order which is signed by you and which says:

  "In connection with the actions against the Jews
  originating among the people, valuable objects had to be
  safeguarded here and there by the offices of the Party
  and its branches for the protection of German public
  property. I order that such objects be turned over
  without delay to the nearest office of the Secret State
  Police and receipts be given therefor.
  
  If, in connection with these actions, the offices of the
  Party and their branches should become aware, or have
  been aware, of thefts which unfortunately may have
  occurred, a report is to be submitted without delay to
  the nearest police station. The same procedure is to be
  observed upon the appearance of suspicious objects. The
  offices of the police are to be aided to the fullest
  possible extent in the performance of their duties."

Because of this order, you are accused of having known that
the objects which are mentioned herein were to be turned
over to a certain place from which they were never to return
to their legal owners.

Now, I ask you: What was the origin of this order? Could one
or can one gather from the contents of this order, which
emphasises that the offices of the police are to be aided as
much as possible in carrying out their assignment, that it
was your intention not to return stolen property to Jews?

A. I already became acquainted with this order which was
just read to me, in the preliminary interrogations before
the Commission. According to my memory, it dates from 29th
November. At that time, on the 29th November, I knew
definitely that Adolf Hitler, but above all, Hermann
Goering, Rudolf Hess, and also Lutze, condemned this action
of November, 1938, very severely. The order which bears my
signature is not contested by me. It is a copy of a
directive of the office of the Fuehrer's deputy, Rudolf
Hess, and therefore is traceable to him. Since I knew that
Rudolf Hess himself, as a truly right-thinking person,
condemned this action very strongly, I had to assume from
his order that its purpose was to restore the stolen
property to its original owners, namely the Jews. Any other
assumption was entirely out of the question for me, and it
was also obvious to me that this property was to be given up
to the police offices immediately as trustees, for the
police represented the guardians of law and order, at least
in my eyes, and not offices which were called upon to
withhold or steal other people's property from them.

Q. Now I should like to turn to a different subject. The
witness Schellenberg has alleged that in 1943 and 1944 the
SA leadership tried to take over not only the guarding of
concentration camps, but also of work camps and prisoner-of-
war camps. What have you to say to that?

A. May I ask in what year that was supposed to have been?

Q. In 1943 and 1944.

A. In the year 1943, from May to August, I was chief of the
SA as the deputy of the Chief of Staff. During this period,
as before, I never tried to get tasks into the hands of the
SA which were incumbent on other agencies and the
Reichsfuehrer SS, and especially not tasks of a police
nature. I neither aspired to take over tasks of this sort,
nor did I have negotiations carried out for this purpose.
Moreover, after I learned of this charge against the SA from
the Indictment during my imprisonment, I discussed this
matter with Herr Schellenberg. Herr Schellenberg told me
that the transcript of his testimony must rest on a
misunderstanding. He

                                                  [Page 166]

had meant to refer to conversations of the SA with the Reich
Leadership of the SS about questions of municipal and
country guards. Conversations of that nature are not
disputed by me. They dealt with the apportionment of time in
service, so that on a legal basis there would be no conflict
when members of the SA, who were obliged to serve in the
municipal and country guard, had to perform SA service at
the same time. And so this adjustment of time was the reason
for these conversations. The SA had absolutely nothing to do
with taking over the guarding of concentration camps or,
later, the guarding of prisoner-of-war camps and work camps.
Nor did I ever learn that individual SA men were legally
conscripted for tasks of that nature.

Q. Please comment on the question of how the SA stood toward
the Church.

A. On the Church question, the SA left the individual
complete freedom of choice. Staff-Chief Roehm was a Church
member. Moreover, I recall that in 1934 he issued an order
to the SA in which he prohibited SA men from taking sides in
any Church controversies, for the reason that this might
possibly disturb the solidarity of the SA. I personally was
always a member of the Protestant Church, and am still a
member today. As deputy of the Chief of Staff I was a church
member also. The great majority of the SA men were Church
members. Many members of the SA - in any case, not just
individual members - were active in Church councils even up
to the end, a fact well known to us and one which we never
tried to prevent. Staff Chief Lutze issued an order
everywhere that SA duty was not to be performed when
religious services were being held.


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.