Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-202.09
Last-Modified: 2000/11/29

Q. Do you know how many Stahlhelmer there were at the end of
the war, approximately?

A. If you mean how many Stahlhelmer there were in the SA at
the end of the war, I cannot answer that question, either.
But there may have been about five hundred to six hundred
thousand Stahlhelmer at the end of the war. As everything in
Germany was in great confusion, one can only make an
estimate.

Q. Then you really cannot give any approximately accurate
figures for the Stahlhelm after 1934?

A. Do you mean the Stahlhelm as it continued to exist after
1934 as a Bund, or the Stahlhelm which was transferred into
the SA?

Q. I meant the Stahlhelmer who were transferred to the SA.

A. Well, there must have been about one million.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness may retire, and the Court
will adjourn.

(A recess was taken.)

MR. ELWYN JONES: If your Lordship pleases, would your
Lordship allow me to mention one brief matter? During the SS
case I submitted the Document 4043-PS, which was a statement
by a Polish priest as to the killing of 846 Polish priests
and clergymen at Dachau. The Tribunal did not accept the
document at the time because it did not appear to be in
satisfactory form. Now the Polish Delegation wishes me to
submit a further certificate from a Dr. Pietrowski, who said
that the priest's statement was made to him, in his
presence, and in accordance with the stipulations of Polish
law, and that is what constitutes in English law a solemn
declaration. I discussed this matter with Dr. Pelckmann and
he has no objection to the document going in in its present
form.

                                                  [Page 153]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter. You
may put in the document. .

MR. ELWYN JONES: Thank you. There are copies in Russian,
French and German.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, have you another witness?

DR. BOEHM: May I be permitted to call the witness Juettner?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MAX JUETTNER, a witness, took the stand and testified as
follows:

BY THE PRESIDENT:

Q. Will you state your full name, please?

A. Max Juettner.

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. Herr Juettner, from 1934 until 1945 You were chief of the
main office "Leadership of the SA," and, beginning with 1939
You were, simultaneously, permanent deputy of the Chief of
Staff of the SA. You are familiar with all questions
concerning the SA even before 1933, are you not?

A. I only assumed on 1st November, 1933, my responsibilities
in the supreme SA leadership. From the records, from
conversations with the Chief of Staff Roehm and my comrades,
I am informed on all essential matters concerning the SA
even before this time.

Q. What did you do until your appointment to the SA
leadership? What was your profession and political
background?

A. Originally, I was an officer by career from 1906 until
1920. After my honourable discharge from the Army I entered
the Central German Mining Company. There I started as a
common labourer in the mines, but in the course of the years
I worked myself up to a high official position of a large
concern. Politically I belonged, after 1920, to the German
National People's Party for several years. Later I belonged
to no party; but from 1920, I had, besides my job, a leading
position in the Central German Stahlhelm.

Q. What were the reasons for your appointment into the SA
leadership?

A. My appointment into the SA leadership was connected with
the incorporation of the Stahlhelm into the SA. The Central
German Stahlhelm enjoyed a good reputation even among its
political opponents. My especially good relations with the
miners and the unions were well known to Roehm. The Central
German Stahlhelm was especially successful in the social
field. All this might have contributed to my appointment. I
left the mining industry voluntarily and became a
professional SA leader. In the summer of 1934 I was taken
into the Party.

Q. That means, you went from the Stahlhelm into the SA?

A. Yes.

Q. Besides you, did other leaders of the Stahlhelm get into
important positions in the SA?

A. I am unable to give you complete figures on that without
referring to statistical material. But some time ago I
compiled from memory the names of sixty higher and
intermediate SA leaders alone who were formerly members of
the Stahlhelm. That means that many former Stahlhelm members
were given leading

                                                  [Page 154]

positions in the SA, In the course of time all key positions
in the Stahlhelm, the leadership, the head of the office of
the Chief of Staff

Q. Is that in the Stahlhelm or in the SA?

A. In the SA. All key positions in the SA were filled, in
the course of time, with Stahlhelmer. They could be found in
the leadership, in important positions in the Personnel
Office, as head of the office of the Chief of Staff, as head
of the Training Department, also in the group staffs
(Gruppenstaben) and as leaders of units.

Q. Can it be said that the positions held by former
Stahlhelmer in the SA were such that they were of little
influence on the bulk of the SA?

A. That cannot be said. These SA leaders who came from the
Stahlhelm and who held these positions, had considerable
influence on the education, training and activity of the SA.

Q. About half an hour ago, a witness by the name of Gruss
was examined here who was never a member of the SA, who did
not know the conditions in the SA from personal experience,
but who testified on a series of questions to which, in my
opinion, only an SA man could supply the answers. Did you,
during your membership in the SA from the year 1934 until
the dissolution of this organization, ever observe any
opposition on the part of the SA members who had come from
the Stahlhelm?

A. I can answer this question clearly and unequivocally with
"no." Numerous SA men came to me in the first few months who
had formerly belonged to the Stahlhelm. Like myself, they
felt regret that their fine old organization was no longer
in existence, but they, as well as I, hailed the fact that
they were now permitted to participate in this great
community of the SA.

Q. Did you ever hear of any opposition on the part of these
people who had come from the Stahlhelm? Did other SA men
complain about this?

A. If I understand you correctly, you are talking of men who
were already in the SA?

Q. Yes, men who transferred or were transferred from the
Stahlhelm into the SA in the years 1933 and 1934.

A. These men, as far as I know, did not oppose the SA. I
know of no such opposition.

Q. What was the strength of the SA in the year 1933?

A. In 1933, the SA had 300,000 men.

Q. And how many members were transferred into the SA in the
years 1933 and 1934?

A. You mean members of the Stahlhelm?

Q. Yes, members of the Stahlhelm.

A. When the Stahlhelm was incorporated into the SA, the
Stahlhelm had approximately 1,000,000 members, perhaps a
little more. More than half of these were incorporated into
the SA, about 550,000 men. This figure is identical with
that which the former Bundesfuehrer Seldte has given.

Q. Do you differentiate between the Stahlhelm proper and
another formation of the Stahlhelm? Would you say that the
total of the men coming from the Stahlhelm who were taken
over into the SA was approximately one million?

A. After the Stahlhelm was dissolved - I believe that
occurred in 1935 - it is quite possible that altogether one
million men came into the SA from the Stahlhelm.

Q . Well, then, the ratio in the years 1933 and 1934 was
such that the SA consisted as to two-thirds of Stahlhelmer
and as to one-third of SA men?

A. Added to this in 1933-1934 was the SA Reserve II - the
Kyffhauserbund. Therefore, the above-mentioned ratio of two-
thirds to one-third is not quite correct. But if the
original figure, the original strength of the SA as of
January, 1933 is taken into consideration, then what you
have just said is true.

                                                  [Page 155]

Q. Then, shortly after 1933, the SA experienced a tremendous
increase, i.e., from the original figure of 300,000 it grew
to about 4,500,000 men by 1935; is that correct?

A. By 1934 that is true, yes.

Q. Then it was determined by the supreme SA leadership to
reduce the SA, as many people had joined who really had no
business there, and by 1939 approximately 3,000,000 men were
eliminated from the SA, so that in 1939 the SA had
approximately 1,500,000 members left; is that correct?

A. Yes, indeed, that is quite correct. The figure of
1,500,000 had, however, already been reached several years
before. The reduction of the SA was brought about through
the following eliminations:

1. The SA Reserve II, the Kyffhauserbund, with about
1,500,000 members.

z. After the death of Roehm, the NSKK.

3. Very many SA men who were active in the political
leadership, such as Blockleiter, Zellenleiter, and so forth.

A. The Chief of Staff Lutze eliminated all those men who for
professional or other reasons could not serve or did not
wish to serve.

Q. Did you notice whether in the course of the reduction of
this number from 4,500,000 to 1,500,000 many Stahlhelm
members or former Stahlhelm members were eliminated from the
SA?

A. In this connection I might perhaps refer to the Stahlhelm
in Central Germany, of which I was the head. There, in the
large industrial region around Halle, my old Stahlhelm
organization after 1935 was actually the nucleus of the SA,
which shows that still very many Stahlhelmer had remained in
the SA.

Q. And those were the Stahlhelmer who remained in the SA
till the end, till the SA was disbanded?

A. Yes; and they were not the worst members.

Q. Now if in 1935 and the following years, if an SA man who
had come from the Stahlhelm had had the desire to leave the
SA, could he have done so?

A. He could have done that without difficulty.

Q. Would it have resulted in particular difficulties for
him?

A. As far as the SA is concerned none whatsoever.

Q. The witness Gruss asserted, among other things, that such
an action would have made it impossible for him to join the
Army as an officer, for example, because his papers would
have carried the remark: "Dismissed from the SA." Is that
correct?

A. The witness Gruss seems to have confused matters. He, who
was punished by dismissal from the SA because he had
committed an offence of some kind, did, it is true, have
entered on his papers, "Dismissed from the SA," and the
effect was the same as a previous conviction in ordinary
life.

Q. Well, then, you are able to say, in order to make a long
story short, that by far he largest part of the Stahlhelmer
who entered the SA in 1933 and at the latest in 1934 were
and remained loyal comrades of yours; is that correct?

A. They were and remained my best comrades.

Q. What was the attitude of the Chief of Staff toward the
Party leadership and the State leadership?

A. Roehm was a strong personality. His word carried great
weight in the Party leadership. As Reich Minister -

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, the Tribunal would like to know
whether your case is that the SA, after its incorporation of
the Stahlhelm, was a voluntary organization or was
involuntary, so far as the Stahlhelm was concerned.

DR. BOEHM: If I understood the question correctly, Mr.
President, I can say that the Stahlhelm was a voluntary
organization, and that it came into the SA on account of an
order.

                                                  [Page 156]

THE PRESIDENT: There seems to be a certain difference of
view between the two witnesses that you have called. The
Tribunal wants to know what your case is, whether your case
is that after its incorporation of the Stahlhelm the SA was
a voluntary organization.

DR. BOEHM: After the Stahlhelm was incorporated into the SA
it was of course relieved of its voluntary character and the
organization, that is each and every member of the
Stahlhelm, became members of the SA.

THE PRESIDENT: And was voluntary, you mean, or was
involuntary?

DR. BOEHM: The Stahlhelm was incorporated into the SA on
account of an order, and after its incorporation had lost
its character as an independent organization; it became SA
and each and every former member of the Stahlhelm became a
member of the SA.

THE PRESIDENT: What I want to know is whether you contend,
having become members of the SA, it was voluntary or
involuntary?

DR. BOEHM: That is, in my opinion, in connection with
paragraph 6 of the resolution of 13th March, 1945, a legal
question. I contend that they became members of the SA on
the strength of an order and not, in the last analysis,
through their own volition. I repeat on the strength of an
order.

THE PRESIDENT: You say they were involuntarily incorporated
into the SA, involuntary members of the SA?

DR. BOEHM: That is not exactly right, Mr. President. I say
that they got into the SA on the strength of the order,
certainly the larger part, at first involuntarily.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, I do not doubt what the witness
said. I heard what the witness said, and I heard what the
last witness said. Mr. Biddle wants to know what your case
is. Are you saying that the Stahlhelm after it had been
incorporated into the SA, those members of the Stahlhelm who
were incorporated into the SA, were involuntary members or
were voluntary members? It is for you to make up your mind
which case you are putting forward. Possibly it might make
my meaning more clear to your case - they could resign from
the SA or they could not resign.

DR. BOEHM: That was not supposed to be the subject of my
presentation of evidence, Mr. President. I wanted to show,
first of all, that the Stahlhelm was incorporated into the
SA on the strength of an order, i.e., involuntarily. This
was probably the consensus of opinion of the bulk of the
Stahlhelm. Whether, and if so to what extent, they could or
could not resign then, that is the point I want to clarify
through this witness.

THE PRESIDENT: All right, go on, Dr. Boehm. At some stage,
no doubt, you will be able to tell us which of the witnesses
you adopt.

BY DR. BOEHM:

Q. (continuing.) Witness, I should like you to continue with
your testimony on the question: What was the attitude of the
Chief of Staff toward the Party leadership and the State
leadership? You said that Chief of Staff Roehm was a strong
personality and that consequently his word carried great
weight in the Party leadership. Now, I should like you to
continue, please.

A. Roehm was Reichsminister, and as such he endeavoured to
exert his influence on the Government in order to pursue his
aims. Chief of Staff Lutze was only a Reichsleiter in the
Party. In spite of that fact, he had no influence on the
Party leadership. In the last few years and even before the
war he avoided Gau- and Reichsleiter meetings. Lutze did not
become a Reichsminister. Therefore, he had no influence
whatsoever on the conduct of government affairs.

                                                  [Page 157]

Chief of Staff Scheppmann was neither Reichsleiter nor
Reichsminister. When after 30th June, 1934, the SA was
reduced to insignificance, the influence of the Chiefs of
Staff on Party and Government affairs had disappeared.

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