The units of the Stahlhelm were set up from which the SA reserve one was formed and they were transferred to the SA. Again, with their own leaders and their own units and in the Stahlhelm uniforms. This operation was completed by the end of January 1934. I believe it was on the 24th of January when Chief of Staff Roehm reported to Hitler that the whole Stahlhelm had been incorporated into the SA.
Just as early, the Wehrstahlhelm had been place under the Wehrgruppen -- the SA Reserve 1 was placed under the Command of the Wehrgruppen. That meant in both cases -
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't this all set out in detail in the Commission evidence?
DR. BOEHM: No, Mr. President, The examination of this witness in the Commission was nut as the examination in general. This witness was examined only very briefly in the Commission because his state of health was very poor at the time and it is essential for this witness to be examined in detail before the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The only topic he is dealing with is the merger of the Stahlhelm in the SA in 1933; isn't it? That is the only evidence he is giving and surely that is adequately dealt with in the Commission evidence.
DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything else that you want to get from him?
DR. BOEHM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What is it? But you aren't getting it at present, you are getting the way in which the Stahlhelm was merged in the SA.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President; the Stahlhelm has placed great value on being presented to the Court, how may were taken over into the SA but that they were taken over on orders a and that, as they assert, they did not volunteer for the SA.
THE PRESIDENT: I quite understand that but you aren't telling me, are you, that that wasn't stated in the evidence in the Commission, that they were taken over compulsorily by the SA.
DR. BOEHM: But I wanted the individual events as they actually occurred to be presented to the Court here.
TIE PRESIDENT: Well, we have got the summary of the evidence before us and it seems to me that the evidence lie is giving now is the same as the evidence he gave them.
DR. BOEHM: For the majority it is the same thing, Mr. President; he is finished with his testimony in this connection. I have come to the next question anyhow.
BY DR. BOEHM: collapse of 1945?
A Not all of then. A large part of these units were in the course of the years, particularly at the beginning of the war, transferred to the active SA; though they were either assigned to the Front SA or attached to the Front SA in the form of reset props the ether SA reserve units continued to exist.
AAt the beginning of war there were gaps in the SA. Through the transfer of the SA Reserve 1. these gaps were filled; primarily, however, the Stahlhelmers who were always recognized as oppositional were to be better supervised by the SA.
Q Why were you, yourself, incorporated into the SA? going beyond orders?
A Yes, to a large extent. There was no voluntary transfer. This transfer was on orders; for example the Wehrstahlhelm, in most cases the Wehrstahlhelm was called together be, They were hold that they had been transferred and then he present, took over the Stahlhelm. No one was asked where he wanted to participate. Immediately upon the incorporation of the he was shown that in the case of the majority of the Stahlhelmers, this incorporation proceeded only involuntarily and with the use of resistance. Stahlhelmers who did not want to join the SA were in many cases threatened with arrest. Police arrest punishments up to ten days and longer were inflicted in these cases. Furthermore, the Stahlhelmers were told that if they remained out of the SA, an order of Hitler' would not be fulfilled and this was an action hostile to the state which would have serious consequences. Whoever was charged with this, with an action hostile to the state, was reported to the police as politically unreliable and was especially watched by the police. It could happen to many that on any occasion, without any reason, he could be arrested, put into prison or a concentration camp.
Being investigated as an enemy of the state also had the very serious consequences that almost always resistance was at least seriously interfered with or even destroyed. The state officials who, as Stahlhelmers, did not want to be in the SA were designated as enemies of the state and removed from their positions. They often lost their salaries. It was similar with the employees in private industry. They always lost their positions because the heads of the concerns did not want to have a man working for then who was an enemy of the state. In many hundreds of cases we tried at the time to have these Stahlhelmers, who applied to us for aid, to help then by appealing to the labor courts but in most cases we were not able to have these people restored to their positions. In most cases the court merely guaranteed then compensation. What a Stahlhelmer had to suffer, who did not want to belong to the SA, was in many cases so serious that I know with certainty of several cases of suicide of Stahlhelmers who could not bear it.
Q Do these observations of yours cover all of Germany? was incorporated?
A Yes, in my opinion, maneuvers of deception also took place. For example, I have already mentioned that the Wehrstahlhelm, as well as the SA Reserve 1, were permitted to be incorporated in their own formations with their own leader and in the field grey uniform. After a short time, however, these concessions were removed and the Wehrstahlhelm as well as the SA Reserve 1 had to wear the brown uniform of the SA but they were no longer recognized as former Stahlhelmers in the SA. Then there was one point which had especially serious consequences. The Stahlhelmers had been promised that after the transfer, they could remain members of the Stahlhelm -- so-called dou membership. They could participate in the exercises of the Stahlhelm if the SA Reserve did not suffer but this promise also was withdrawn very soon and the Stahlhelmers who wanted to be loyal to their league had the very greatest difficulties. There were many arrests and punishments of all kinds, represent the will of the Stahlhelm League?
A No, he did not. The vast Majority of the Stahlhelmers did not approve the measures of Seldte. Serious "whirls" occurred in the Stahlhelm on this account and if it did not collapse at the time it was only because the Stahlhelmers said "We have not taken an oath to the person of Seldte. We swore an allegiance to the Stahlhelm and to the Front soldiers. did they have? Stahlhelm leaders had been expressly premised that they would serve in the SA with the sane ranks but this promise was not kept. The Stahlhelm leaders were reduced by one or two ranks. Shortly thereafter, they were relieved of their commands. Only a few of them remained in commanding posts. Most of them had nothing to do in the SA but they could not got out of the SA. According to my observation, the Stahlhelm leaders did not go beyond the rank of a Standartenfuehrer in the SA unless it was a special exception -- as men who have distinguished themselves by a special activity on behalf of National Socialism, In view of the ranks, a special role was played by the N.S. Reiter Corps which included many Stahlhelmers but as regards the leaders, the Reiter Corps was left more or less as it was. Up to a Standartenfuehrer, most of the Stahlhelmers kept their command although they included many who were in opposition.
different from the attitude of the ordinary SA? different from the SA. If anyone joined the Stahlhelm , he did so voluntary and on his own decision. Not everyone was accepted in the Stahlhelm. Everyone was first carefully investigated. Then the Stahlhelm had a charter, a constitution, which was on a completely democratic basis and which gave him the possibility to elect those leaders whom he wanted or had remove those leaders whom he did not want. The two leaders a the league. had to be reelected from time to time by the assembly of members. tradition of the front comradeship, which had arisen in the field, that unique comradeship which in emergency and death demanded that "I must give everything for my comrade and help him always." That was, as we called it, front socialism, No difference was made between rich and poor, between rank and rank and file. We Stahlhelmers were all alike. care from a moderate, middle-class, I might say conservative part of the population. These people were not for extreme measures and for radicalism. They were for macerate and peaceful development. Then one sums it up, one realizes that a quite special type of person was included in the Stahlhelmer and that this resulted in many reasons for friction with the SA. SA? spoke of the First world war, in which almost all of us had participated; but we were not a military organization; but that was often asserted of the Stahlhelm because, for example , it had military command; but it was quite impossible to have a mass movement of one and a half million members without such command, which were in the bulk of the Stahlhelmers as old soldiers. We had had enough with the First World War. We considered it our task to spread the idea among the people that one could solve problems without war.
Not only in Germany did we represent this point of view. We established contacts abroad as well, especially with the foreign organizations of front fighters because we thought that these old veterans would understand us best if we said that there must never be another war. of a war of aggression?
A NO; but aside from what I just said, the Stahlhelmer never thought of a war of aggression. The Fighters Front Comradeship had only the purpose of promoting the virtues of comradeship which had arisen in the field, of steadying them to other circles and in peaceful ways of leading to better cooperation among states. of Germany?
A The Stahlhelm was against all radical political tendencies. It did not follow a principle of extermination, however. It repeatedly attempted through enlightenment, conviction, recruitment, to unite these extreme tendencies with the moderate tendencies. Proof that the political opponents of the Stahlhelm did in the last analysis understand it was shown in the spring of 1933 when many persecuted members of the SPD and the KPD sought protection and aid in the Stahlhelm. They were taken in by us. Party. The Party could not approve that people persecuted by it should be projected by the Stahlhelm. Significant of this are the events in Brunswick in the spring of 1933. There an Ortsgruppe of the Stahlhelm held a meeting. The SA surrounded the place where the meeting has being held and rested all the members. Upon investigation, it was shown that of approximately 1500 participants, over a thousand were former members of the SPD and the KPD. We had taken the men when they had proved to us that they were decent people and that the majority of them had been at the front with us.
Q Were the Stahlhelmers opposed to trade unions?
A No. The Stahlhelmers were only opposed to the extreme exaggeration. The Stahlhelm had its own union, the Stahlhelm Self-Ad, Selbsthiffe. This included almost all the workers who were members of the Stahlhelm. I point cut that the Stahlhelm had twenty-five to thirty per-cent of its members who were workers, laborers.
In the summer of 1933 the Stahlhelm was dissolved possibly.
Q Did the Stahlhelm carry on anti-semitic propaganda? Everyone could think what he liked; but I never knew of any order of the leaders of the League against Jews; and no such order was ever given. It was quite impossible;. For example, the Second Bundfuehrer, leader of the league, Duesterberg, was of Jewish origin. Nevertheless, Duesterberg was to most popular Stahlhelm fuehrer. In the central office of the League in Berlin, one of my closest associates was a Stahlhelmer who was married to a Jewess. We did not concern ourselves about that at all. We had many Jews in the Stahlhelm. We did not appropriate the radical racial theory of the Party but were always opposed to it. In addition, to Duesterberg, we had other Jews as Stahlhelm fuehrers. There were Jews, part Jews, Free Masons in the Stahlhelm; and therefore there could not have been any anti-Semitic tenancy in the Stahlhelm, with the exception of a few circles who did not have the upper hand.
13 Aug A LJG 15-1 Bubley the Stahlhelm was transferred to the SA? resistance in the majority of Stahlhelmers against the incorporation. There were three points in particular which the Stahlhelmers could never understand, and which always separated him from the SA. There was, first, the autocratic fuehrer principle. In the Stahlhelm there were only self elected Fuehrers, who did not exist in the SA. Then, the Stahlhelmers could not agree with the radicalism which was to be observed in the SA, and furthermore they could not approve the idea of totalitarianism. not leave the SA. numbers of them would have resigned, but leaving the SA was impossible. There were only two possibilities of leaving the SA. One was honorable discharge and the other was dismissal. Honorable discharge was awarded when one could prove without doubt, for example, that one was very seriously ill, but only a very small fraction of the Stahlhelm could take advantage of this opportunity to leave the SA. For the majority of the Stahlhelmers, only dismissal was possible because the SA had recognized very early from the opposition of the Stahlhelm that these were elements hostile to it. As a result, dismissal was ordered in many eases if they wanted to harm the Stahlhelmer seriously. "enemy of the state" I should like to add the following. Dismissal from the SA was recorded on the papers of the Stahlhelmer. If the Stahlhelmer wanted to accept a now position, it was immediately clear that he had been dismissed from the SA and that was such a serious offense that no one wanted to have him. accepted if they had been dismissed from the SA.
13 Aug A LJG 15-2 Bubley so many serious difficulties that many Stahlhelmers who were otherwise brave and courageous men hesitated to leave the SA because they could not take on themselves the responsibility of endangering the livelihood of their family.
Q To what period of time do the so observations apply? told us here? orally with many Stahlhelmers about these matters. In addition, I had to read many reports. any contact with the Stahlhelmers beyond the settlement of business matters?
Q Were you permitted to do so? the Stahlhelm, but any attempt to continue the Stahlhelm in a camouflaged form had been prohibited by the Gestapo. I repeatedly had clashes with the Gestapo on that account. But I constantl made the attempt because many of my old comrades told me repeatedly that I had to do this because otherwise there would have been no one loft. Stahlhelm together?
A I spoke to many individual Stahlhelmers myself. They came to see me in Berlin from all parts of Germany. I was in contact with many by latter, and on the excuse of business I wrote letters to -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): What have we got to do with this, Dr. Boehm?
DR. BOEHM: The point at issue, Mr. President, is to show the Court what the nature of the ideas and the ideologies of 13 Aug A LJG Bubley 15-3 the men in the Stahlhelm was.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you are defending the SA against a charge of being a criminal organization. You are now trying to show us what the ideology of the Stahlhelm was. You have been nearly an hour over this witness already. Practically everything he has said is written down in this summary of his evidence, the summary which we have before us, his evidence to the Commission.
DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President, but I must show the Court something about the attitude of this witness and the one and a half million men who came from the Stahlhelm to the SA, and I can do that only in the context in which I have done it. For the few questions remaining -- there are four or five -- I will try to be as brief as possible. BY DR. BOEHM: of the Stahlhelm after July 1934 was illegal? whom you were in contact in this connection? Stahlhelmers, but these were only the liaison men. Behind them were the many thousand in the individual cities.
Q Were there other contacts among the Stahlhelmers?
A Yes. Aside from the contact with me, everywhere in Germany In the individual towns independent groups of Stahlhelmers had been formed. Sometimes they were of quite considerable size. For instance, in Berlin I often participated in meetings where there were 150 to 200 Stahlhelmers.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, if this is intended to show that this witness know the circumstances about the Stahlhelm, surely you can leave that to re-examination if it is challenged. Why should you anticipate that that will challenge this witness that he doesn't know anything about the Stahlhelm? Presumably 13 Aug LJG 15-4 Bubley be does.
Until it is challenged, you can leave it to re-examination.
DR. BOEHM: I will ask my last or second from the last question. BY DR. BOEHM: in crimes which were charged against the SA, for example the persecution of the Jews? to know about it. It would have been a quite noteworthy fact if it had been established that Stahlhelmers had participated in the persecution of Jews. I refer to the statements which I made about the non-existence of an anti-Semitic tendency in the Stahlhelm. was general regarding the SA or were there indications that considerable parts of the Stahlhelmers gradually changed their opinion? the case of the great majority, remained unchanged until the end. I should like to say that the longer the Third Reich lasted, the stronger this opposition became among the Stahlhelmers I do not believe that there were many Stahlhelmers who changed their opposition during the course of the years. Of course, there are always such individual cases in a largo number, but they were only individual cases.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I have no mere questions to put to this witness at the moment. BY DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for the SD): were in opposition were watched by the SD? I heard only that the Gestapo and the local police observed the Stahlhelmers.
Q The son of Duesterberg made an affidavit under Stahl-
13 Aug A LJG 15-5 Bubley helm No. 4 that the SD watched the Stahlhelmers. Are these statements untrue? be mistaken. I myself never heard anything of the SD in the capacity of persecutors of the Stahlhelm.
BY COLONEL PHIOLIMORE:
Q. Witness, you have spoken about the radical and extremist tendencies of the SA ?
A. Yes.
Q. You mean, do you not, that they were terrorists and gangsters ?
A. If I said radical and extremist tendencies here, I meant those groups of people in the SA who at that time already severely endangered the respect of the people for the SA. But they ware only groups. That was not the whole SA. They were parts of it.
Q. There were groups in every town in Germany, weren't there ?
A. I can't say whether they were in every town in Germany but there no doubt were such groups in many cities.
Q. You are saying, aren't you, that the Stahlhelmers were forced to join the SA throughout Germany ?
A. Yes.
Q. That was done by threats by the local SA Leaders who took them over isn't that right ? That's what you are saying ?
A. Yes.
Q. Can there be any doubt that those threats and those arrests you spoke about were ordered by the SA Leadership ?
A. According to my judgment, these threatsk, arrests, and everything connected with them were introduced by the SA Leadership. Of course, in view of the large number concerned, it may have happened that the Party or other branches of the Third Reich participated, but primarily this pressure was applied by the SA itself.
Q. And you have spoken of the boycott of a man who was dismissed from the SA. Are you saying that that was the case all over Germany, if a man was dismissed he was boycotted ?
A. In these cases of which I know, and there were very many, such a boycott was carried out. I know for example of such a boycott in a small town...
Q. I do not want instances. And you say that a man would not be able to join the army. That can only have been, can it not, that the SA Leadership communicated his name to the army as having been dismissed ?
A. It is possible that the SA gave these names to the army but I do not know exactly. I only knew one thing -that the Stahlhelmers who wanted to join the army, for example former officers, were not accepted if, when their papers were presented, it was shown that they had been dismissed from the SA.
Q. I just want to ask you one or two more questions about the SA. Do you know Minister Severing ?
A. Like every other German, I know Minister Severing from the time when he was a minister. I do rot know him personally.
Q. Do you know of him as a man of integrity ?
A. I personally consider Severing, a decent man .
Q. Will you listen to his description of the SA in the early days, before ghe seizure of power.
A. I do not know this description.
Q. "Wherever the SA could exercise their terror unhindered they acted in such a manner. They had in--door battles against people who thought differently. Those were not the ordinary little fights between political fighters during elections; that was organized terror." Is that a fair description of the SA during the years before the seizure of power ?
A. I believe that on the whole Severing describes it correctly.
Q. Do you know the witness Gisevius ?
Q. No, I do not know him.
Q. will you listen to his words :"During the early part of the struggle for power, the SA constituted a private army for carrying out the orders of the Nazi Party. Whoever had not entirely made up his mind had it made up for him by the SA. Their methods were primitive but effective. One learned the new Hitler salute very quickly when, on the sidewalks beside every SA marching column, a few stalwart SA men went along giving pedestrians a crack on the head if they failed to perform the correct gesture at least three steps ahead of the SA flag; and these Storm Troopers acted the same way in all things."
SA as you knew it ?
A. I must say I am not really competent to pass judgment on the SA from the early period. My observations were made from 1933 on, I might say 1 had to make them officially because I was Bundeskaemmerer of the Stahlhelm. Before that I was a bank director. I did not have such great interest in the SA.
Q. Well then, I will put to you one more, my last question.
THE PRESIDENT: Are these statements in evidence ?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord. The first statement I put in is from Minister Severing's evidence, age 10,084 of the transcript. The second statement is from Gisevius' evidence, page 8,442.
THE PRESIDENT: The nature of this witness's evidence has been that the Stahlhelmers were incorporated into the SA by force. He has not said anything about the SA being an orderly or properly run organization.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, he as spoken of radical and extremist tendencies and by inference one can assume that he was speaking of the SA.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that is what he said about the SA ?
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Yes, one can give it no ether meaning.
THE PRESIDENT: If he said that about the SA that is not giving evidence on behalf of the SA as an organization and you are not entitled to challenge him about that. If he had been giving evidence saying that the SA was a perfectly well behaved organization, then this cross-examination might be relevant; but if he has not said that I do not quite see how the crossexamination is relevant.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, witness after witness has appeared for the SA before the Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but not this witness on this aspect of the matter. Let us deal with this witness. This witness has said nothing before us which shows that the SA was an orderly or well behaved organization.
COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, but he has said that the SA was a most disorderly organization. It is my submission on cross-examination that I cannot be asked to refrain from continuing to follow on that evidence, unless your Lordship feels it is a waste of time of the Tribunal.
In my submission it is of great importance when you have to judge the evidence of a large number of these witnesses for the SA who have appeared before the Commission. Your Lordship, it will be very short. I want to quote one further statement about the period after 1933. It is by the witness Gisevius, page 8443 of the transcript. BY COLONEL PHILLIMORE:
Q. "The SA organized huge riots. The SA searched houses. The SA confiscated property. The SA cross-examined people. The SA put people in jail. In short, the SA appointed themselves auxiliary police. Woe into anyone who got into their clutches. From this time dates the Bunker that dreaded private prison of which every SA Storm Troop had to have at lead one. Taking away became the inalienable right of the SA. The efficiency of a Standartenfuehrer was measured by the number of arrests he had made and the good reputation of an SA man was based on the effectiveness with which he 'educated' his prisoners." immediately following the seizure of power ?
A. I must say that the majority of what the author said became known to me then In Berlin but please consider that this concerns the SA which was under Chief of Staff Roehm and that later the SA was subjected to a purge.
Q. Yes, but I will come to that in a minute. But this is a fair description of what was happening in Berlin in the early months of 1933 ? And, if you had, to make a report about this, can you say whether that is a fair description of what was happening in every town in Germany ?
A. I should like to say that according to my recollection, Mr. Gisevius, did not exaggerate. It was no doubt often the way he describes it.
Q. Now, I want just to ask you about the Jews. You have said that the Stahlhelm members were not anti-Semitic. Was it because the SA was antiSemitic in its outlook, was that one of the reasons why you said Stahlhelm members did not like joining it ?
A. No it is rather so : The Stahlhelm education, this moderate democrat idea of the Stahlhelm , exluded any anti-Semitic propaganda because antiSemitic propaganda would have been radicalism and there was no such radicalism in the vast majority of Stahlhelmers.
Q. Do you know the witness Haufer ? He pave evidence before the Commission.
A. Yes, I know Haufer. He was in *resden formerly.
Q. He said this in his evidence, page 2681: "We disapproved completely of the Party's policy against the Jews." Was that right ?
A. Yes.
Q. And the Party's policy was the policy of the SA and the SA leadership wasn't it ?
A. Yes, that is true.
Q. Now with regard to the joining of the Stahlhelm, the incorporation of the Stahlhelm in 1933. It is not true to say that all Stahlhelm members were compelled to join, is it ?
A. I said before that certain age groups of the Stahlhelm had to join and these age groups were transferred as a whole and without exception.
Q. Certainly in the case of anyone over 35 he could have stayed out, couldn't he ?
A. Yes, if they had been asked beforehand, but they were not asked. I were given orders and had to join.
Q. You know the witness Waldenfels who appeared before the Commission? Do you know him?
A. Yes.
Q. He refused to join and he retained his post right up to the war, isn't that correct?
A. That is correct but that is just as in my case. Waldenfels was above the are of those who were incorporated into the SA.
Q. Well, he was under 45 at the time, wasn't he?
A. Whether he was under 45 at the time, I don't know, but he is an elderly man, and I assume that he was.
Q. He is an elderly man new. He was born on 10 August 1889, according to his evidence. The witness Juettner has said, you know, that even if press was put on a man to join, there was nothing whatever to stop him withdrawing. Now I know you say he would he boycotted, but in fact, the number in the SA fell, didn't it, from 4 1/2 million to 1 1/2 million between 1921 and 1939?
A. I have heard of that.
Q. Wasn't that because people were withdrawing?
A. No, as far as I can understand the state of affairs, first after the 30th of June, 1934, all followers of the chief of Staff Roehm were removed from the SA. There were very many of them, but I cannot give any number. There were very many, though. The hundreds of thousands of SA men were released from the SA, but not to return to private life. As far as I can recall, they were assigned to other branches of the Party. Only very few of the Stahlhelmers were affected by this release. I know that very well, because Stahlhelmers came to me in many cases and said that they hoped to be able to get out of the SA now, and after a time they came to me again and said it was not possible. The Stahlhelm had to remain in the SA because it could be better controlled that way.
Q. Once they were in the SA did these members of the Stahlhelm obey orders and perform the same actions as anybody else in the SA?
A. They had no other choice if they did not want to expose themselves to the extraordinary difficulties which I have described.
But it is a fact that in many cases it was Stahlhelmers who refused to obey orders.
COL. PHILLIMORE: I have no further question.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm, have you any re-examination?
DR. BOEHM: No. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, in 1933 when the Stahlhelm were incorporated into the SA can you give me the approximate numbers of the Stahlhelm and the approximate numbers of the SA?
A. I can only give the approximate strength of the Stahlhelm. I would estimate it at about one million. That is those people who were incorporated into the SA from the Stahlhelm. I do not know the strength of the SA.
Q. Do you know approximately how many Stahlhelmers there were in the SA on the first of September, on or about the first of September, 1939?
A. No, I cannot say that.
Q. Do you know how many Stahlhelmers there were at the end of the war?
A. If you mean how many Stahlhelmers there were in the SA at the end of the war, I cannot answer that question, either, but there may have been Stahlhelmers at the end of the war, perhaps five hundred to six hundred thousand men. Since everything in Germany was in confusion, one can only estimate. On cannot say exactly.
Q. Then you really can't give any apporximately accurate figures for the Stahlhelm after 1934?
A. Do you mean the Stahlhelm as it continued to exist after 1934 as a league, or the Stahlhelm which was transferred?
Q. I meant the Stahlhelm which were transferred to the SA.
A. Yes, 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?