During the SS case I submitted the Document-4043 PS wich was a statement by a Polish President 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 a satisfactory form. Now the Polish delegation wishes to submit a further certificate from a Dr. Pietrowski who said that the President's statement was made to him, in his presence, and in accordance with the stipulations of Polish law, and that in English law it is equivalent to a solemn declaration. I discussed this matter with Dr. Pelckmann and he has no objection to the document going in in its present form.
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 Wittness Juettner?THE PRESIDENT : Yes.
as follows : BY THE PRESIDENT :
Q Will you state your full name, please?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me : speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT : You may sit down.
BY DR. BOEHM :
Q Mr. Juettner, from 1934 until 1945, you were chief of the main office leadership of the SA, and, beginning with 1939, simultaneously, you were the permanent deputy of the staff chief of the SA. All questions concerning the SA even before 1933, you can answer because you are advisor and informed on those questions? ponsible member of the higher SA leadership. From the record, from conversations, I am informed on all essential matters concerning the SA even before this tine. The questions put to no I can answer in the affirmative therefore. dership? What was your profession and political gackground? 1920, After my honorable discharge from the Army, I entered the Central German Lining Company. There I started as a common labored. I worked myself into an office position of a large concern. As far as politics are concerned, after 1920 I belonged to the German National Peopled Party for several years. Then I was without a party. Beginning with 1920, parallel with my profession. I worded in a leading position in the Central German Stahlhelm (Steel Helmet) Society. leadership into the SA? connected with the incorporation of the stahlhelm (steel Helmet) Society into the SA. I enjoyed a good reputation even anon political opponents.
I maintained a position of confidence with minor interest. These facts were well-known. Especially in the social field, the Stahlhelm was active. All of these factors may have contributed to my being called in. I left the wining industry voluntarily and became an SA leader for a profession. In the sum of 1934 I was taken into the party.
Q Therefore, you came from the Stahlhelm into the SA? decisive positions in the SA? technical background, but from memory I can tell you that 60 higher and intermediate SA leaders, I set down for my own purposes. They were people who were formerly members of the Stahlhelm Therefore many former Stahlhelm In members were incorporated into the SA in leading positions. The Chief of the Air Defense Office
Q Is that in the Stahlhelm or in the SA?
A. In the SA, all key positions in the Sa, in the course of time, were taken over by former Stehl Helmet members.
Q. But despite this personnel in the Personnel Office, the Office of the Adjutant General, the Office of the Chief of Staff, and the Head of the Educational Branch, and the groups with the heads of the various units that you could find from among ex-Steel Helmet members, can you say that the positions which were held by former Steel Helmet men and the men of the SA were of such a nature that they were of but little significance for the bulk of the SA ?
A. One cannot say that. The leaders of the SA who came from the Steel Helmet into this position had considerable influence on the education, training feud youth of the SA.
Q. About a half-hour ago, a witness by the name of Gruss was interrogated herem who, of course, was never a member of the SA, and who did not know the conditions in the SA from personal experience, but who testified in reply to a series of questions which, in my opinion, only an SA man could answer, and someone in a high position. Did you, during your membership in the SA, from the year 1934 until the dissolution of this organization, ever observe that some SA members who had come from the Steel Helmet Organization tried to form an opposition party ?
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 Steel Helmet Society; and like myself they felt regret that their fine old organization was no longer in existence. But together with me, they hailed the fact that they were now permitted to participate in this large community of the SA.
Q. Did you ever hear from any source of opposition on the part of these people who had come from the Steel Helmet ? Did other SA men complain about things like that ?
A. If I understand you correctly, we are concerned with men who had been in the SA.
Q. Yes, men who came from the Steel Helmet in the years 1933 and 1934 and entered the SA, who were incorporated into the SA, or who voluntarily entered the SA at that time.
A. These men, as far as I know, did not oppose the SA. I know of no opposition like that.
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 SA members came into the SA in the years 1933 and 1934 ?
A. You mean members of the Steel Helmet ?
Q. Yes, members of the Steel Helmet.
A. When the Steel Helmet was incorporated into the SA, the Steel Helmet, had approximately 1,000,000 or a somewhat larger number of members. More than half of these were incorporated into the SA, 500,000 men. This figure is identical with that which remained in the Former Bundesfuehrer Seldte.
Q. Are you differentiating between the original Steel Helmet and the later Steel Helmet Organization ? Can you say that the total of the men coming from the Steel Helmet who were taken over into the SA was approximately 1,000,000?
A. After the Steelhelmet was dissolved -- I believe that occurred in 1935 -- it is quite possible that altogether 1,000,000 men came into the SA from the SteelHelmet.
Q. Therefore the ratio in the years 1933 and 1934 was such that the SA consisted of two-thirds Steel Helmet men and one-third men of the SA ?
A. In the year 1933-1934, in addition the SA Reserve No. 2 was brought in. That was the Kieffhauserbund. Therefore, that apportioning into thirds that you just set up does not quite apply. But if the original figure, the original strength as of January 1933 is taken into consideration, what you have just said is true.
Q. Then briefly, shortly after 1933, the SA went through a tremendous increase. The original figure of 300,000 jumped at 4,500,000 in 1935; is that correct ?
A. Up until 1934, that is true, yes.
Q. Then it was the intention on the part of the Higher SA leadership, since there were many people coming into the SA who really had no business there, to reduce this number; and approximately 3,000,000 men were eliminated from the SA up until the year 1939, so that in the year 1939, the SA had approximately 1,500,000 members; is that correct ?
A. Yes, indeed, that is quite correct. The figure of 1,500,000 had, of course, been reached some several years before. The reducing of the SA was brought about in such a way that these who were eliminated were first of all the SA Reserve No. 2, the Kieffhauserbund. The Kieffhauserbund was perhaps 1,500,000 members. Secondly, after the death of Roehm, the NSKK; thirdly very many SA men who were active in the political leadership, such as Block Leaders and Gau Leaders, and so forth; fourthly, the Staff Chief Lutze eliminated all of these men who for professional or other reasons could not serve or did not wish to serve.
Q. After the reduction of this number of 4,500,000 to 1,500,000 did it come to your attention that especially many Steel Helmet members or former Steel Helmet members were eliminated from the SA ?
A. Perhaps in this, connection I might refer to the Steel Helmet in Central Germany, of which I was the head. There we were located in the heavily industrial region around Halle. Really, after 1935, the nucleus of the SA was my old Steel Helmet Organization; therefore very many Steel Helmet men remained in the SA.
Q. And thus those who served in the SA remained until the dissolution of the SA ?
A. Yes; and they were not the worst elements.
Q. If now in the years 1935 and later, the individual SA man who had come from the Steel Helmet Society had fought against the need to lead the SA, could ha have done so ?
Q. Would he have met, with particular difficulties if he had done so ?
A. Under no conditions from the SA.
Q. The witness Gruss asserted among other things that in a case like the it would have become impossible for him to come to the army as an officer, of in that case, a remark would have been placed in his record,"Dismissed from the SA". Is that correct ?
A. The witness Gruss seems to have confused matters. Of course, a man who was expelled from the SA as a punishment for having committed some wrong act or other, would have had a remark placed in his record, and that would be comparable to being sentenced for the first time in ordinary life.
Q. Therefore, you can say in order to summarize briefly, that the larger part by far of the members of the Steel Helmet who entered the SA in the year 1933 and at the latest in 1934, as far as you know, were loyal comrades and remained such; Is that true ?
A. They were my best friends, and they remained so.
Q. What was the psotion of the Staff Chief of the Party Leadership with respect to the government, or to the State Chiefs ?
A. Roehm was a strong personality. His word meant much among 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 into 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 Steel Helmet was a voluntary organization, and it was taker into the SA on the basis of orders.
THE PRESIDENT: There seems to be a certain difference of view between the too witnesses that you have called. The Tribunal wants to know what your case was, whether you case is that the SA after being incorporated in to the Stahlhelm was a voluntary organization.
DR. BOEHM: After the Steel Helmet was incorporated into the SA, all voluntary bases of the Steel Helmet had been taken away from it. Of course. then the organization and each and every member of the Steel Helmet had became a member of the SA.
THE PRESIDENT: And was voluntary, you mean, or was involuntary ?
DR. BOEHM : The Steel Helmet, on the strength of orders, was taken over into the SA, and now after its incorporation, its virtue as an independent organization ceased. Then, it was the SA, and each and every former member 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 : In my opinion, that is a question with Paragraph 6 of the Resolution of the 13th of March, 1945. As a question of law, I assort that on the strength of orders, the Steel Helmet was taken into the SA. In its later ramification, it was not voluntary, but rather on the strength of order.
THE PRESIDENT : You say they were involuntarily incorporated into the SA, involuntary members of the SA?
DR. BOEHM : That is not quite that way, Mr. President. I should like to say that on he strength of orders, most of the larger part, the bulk, went into the SA involuntarily.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Boehm, I don't 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. Possibly it night make my meaning more clear to your case -- they could resign from the SA or that they could not resign.
DR. BOEHM: That was not to be the topic of my evidence, Mr. President. The topic of my evidence is to show first of all that the Steel Helmet was taken into the on the strength of an order involuntarily, and I am sure that must have been the opinions of the bulk of the Stool Helmet.
If and how far they could leave, that was the point I tried to clarify through this witness.
THE PRESIDENT : All right, go on, Dr. Boehm. At son stage, no doubt you will be able to tell us which of the witnesses you adopt.
Q (Continuing) Witness, I should like to ask you to continue in your testimony. What was the position of the Staff Chief to the Party Leadership and to the government. You said that Roehm was a decisive personality, and that his word did have a great influence on the Party Leadership. Now, I should like to ask you to continue, please. to influence the government in order to persue his aims. Staff Chief Lutze was on a Reichs leader in the Party. Despite the fact, he had no influence on the Party leadership. In the last few years and even before the war he avoided Gau and Party meetings. Lutze was not Reichsminister any longer; therefore, he had no influence on the conduct of the government and its leadership. Scheppmann was neither Reichs loader nor Reichsminister; and after the 30 of June, 1934, the SA degenerated to insignificance. The influence of the Staff Chief on party government had disappeared. Corps of the SA? Were the latter notified of everything that was intended and which was planned, were they advised of those matters? in the SA school, the Staff Chief constantly advised their Leader Corps about the fore-aim tasks, and especially the educational tasks of the SA.
At the Loader rallies there was an open discussion and after the death of Roehm? specially the higher SA leaders. I know then very well. For be it from me to give it a false color. A small fragment of SA leadership who proved that they rented to be mightier objects were eliminated Even those SA leaders during the last World war had shown themselves to be brave soldiers, and later had been members of the Free Corps under the government of Ebert Nosker and achieved certain merits. Their attitude and their manner of life, however, contradicted the principals of the SA; therefore, they had to leave. But a part from, that, the mass of the SA Leadership Corps were decent and clean, and they were perfect in choir conception of justice and duty.
Q Tell us about the Professional Leadership Corps? Obergruppenfuehrer and the Gruppenfuehrer, of that group, I know their development, that is, the origin, their manner of life and their political and ethical position. Quite apart from the incidental few who have left, these SA leaders were without blame. Not a one of then had been punished, not one of then was one who had left before they were taken into the Leadership Corps of the SA. with their May, they had lead such a life that it was modest and proper, and to compare then with compensurate officials, representatives of economy their pay was very small. And all other sources of income were chalked up to their record. There were no on in the SA who had more than one source of income; not one could enrich himself personally because of his position, and he could make a splurge into society who had means of his own. And the Gruppenfuehrer and the Obergruppenfuehrer who in 1939 were active in the SA leadership or among the SA group, more than half of then lost their lives in the war.
They gave their life in the belief and for fighting for a just cause. They were patriots, and they did not commit any injustice or barbarous act. And event today, I admit having belonged to a decent Leadership Corps, and I will speak that even today.
Q Were you paid for this work? worked for pay. Only the Fuehrers of the so-called Untergruppen, the lower Gruppen In each Gau received a certain remuneration of perhaps Three Hundred marks a month. After 1933 a table of remunerations was established. In 1940 there was a small increase In ray. Who highest basic salary for an Obergruppenfuehrer was Twelve Hundred Marks a month. Beginning with the Scharfuehrer up to the Obersturmfuehrer inclusively, all SA leaders, with the exception of the auxiliary personnel, were honorary members of the entire Fuehrer Corps. Roughly, two percent were paid and that included those who hole this position as secondary.
Q What was the division of the SA Leadership Corps?
administration leaders, and SA sanitation leaders. The SA leaders comprised the leadership staff and they headed the units. The SA administration leaders concerned themselves with the budget, with money matters. Together with the leaders of the administration of the other formations and of the Party, they comprised a special leadership body and bad to follow the directives of the Reich Treasurer. The medical leaders were physicians and druggists; they were charged with the health of the SA. whatsoever on the leadership of the SA, and they had no right to have any. purposes, the so-called ZV leaders and honorary leaders, some of which are among the main defendants here.
Q Is not one of the main defendants an honorary leader?
A Yes, I believe several of thorn are. Honorary leaders were Messrs. Goering, Frank, Sauckel, von Schirach, Streicher, and, to my knowledge, perhaps Wess and Bormann. were not at all informed about the business affairs of the SA. They Lad neither the opportunity nor the authority to influence training, leadership, or use of the SA. They solely had the right to wear the SA uniform and, when it came to meetings and festivities, to march in the ranks of the SA leadership and take their positions there. Even Hermann Goering -- who in the year 1923 headed the SA temporarily, at a time when it comprised but a few thousand men did not have any influence on the SA after that time, nor did be even have the time to do that. His nomination as chief of the unit Feldherrnhalle was only a nominal honor. merit or members -- even feminine members -- of reigning houses received the same distinction.
13 AUG A LJG 21-2 Daniels Mr. Frank was made leader of the SA by the Staff Chief Lutze, for the General Government.
And that, as well, was and remained only an external honor, or rather, only a nominal one, because the leadership itself was carried out by a special leadership staff under Brigade Loader Pelz, and later Pluenemund. He did not receive any orders concerning the leadership of the SA in that region from the staff chief; orders like that went to the ZV leadership staff that I have mentioned, and that, in turn, was responsible far the higher SA leadership.
for special tasks of service, but only if they were ready to do so. They were consulting services, for example on legal and social questions.
Q Of what types of people in general was the SA comprised? first World war, that is, soldiers and young idealists who loved their country above all. The SA was not, as the witness Gisevius asserted, a criminal or gangster organization, or a mob of gangsters; rather, as Lewis Sinclair allegedly wrote, they were pure idealists. Many clergymen who carried out their office, many students of theology, belonged to the SA as active members or part-time members up until the very end. were criminal actions demanded of him, and that the SA never pursued criminal aims. members of the SA who came into conflict with existing laws? all parts of the Reich were interned, partial lists were kept and investigations were started with the result that it was not possible to judge generally about the SA. However, in this connection it was found that of the SA men interned, not even one percent -- That is, .65 percent -- had been punished as criminals before. As opposed to that, the Reich Bureau of Statistics gave out a figure of 1.67 of those who had been punished as criminals before. example, excesses and abuses were committed by members of the SA such as are asserted in the Indictment?
A These excesses cannot and should not be apologized for. They are excesses such as occur in every revolutionary movement, for example, such as the German revolution in 1918, or similar incidents in the past in other countries. These excesses were revolutionary actions committed by political fighters who were not satisfied.
Q Aren't there also other explanations for these excesses?
A You can list the whole serious of circumstances. One would not excuse such excesses, but perhaps right explain them. For example, point 1: police took especially strong measures, and one-sided measures, against the SA. The result was a distrust of the police. It happened in the year 1933 riots and civil war threatened in the interior of the country. It is quite understandable, even if you cannot excuse the fact, that to me would try to place themselves in the position of the police, which was considered unreliable, and would consider themselves called upon to protect the State, and in that way would let themselves be plunged into excesses.
Point 2: SA. Almost all other political parties participated in this campaign of hate. There were invitations for activities, posters with the slogan, "Beat the Fascists where you find them", "Down with the SA", chicaneries committed toward SA members at their places of work, oppression of the children of members at school, boycotts of businesses whose owners were SA members, attacks on individual SA men and on members of the Steel Helmet, and so on. For example, in my home district of Halle, at that time, 43 dead were mourned, members of the Steel Helmet and men.
able and so people thought they could square the old accounts as far as politic opponents were concerned after 1933. after '33 a mass overrunning to the SA took place. The investigation of the dece of the individual of course suffered perforce and, as can be proved, dark element and provocateurs sneaked in with the intention of damaging the reputation of the SA. The excesses, therefore, were not just the final note of the political conflict before 1933 but rather, in many cases, they were committed by just such provocateurs. The organization, as such, did not accrue any guilt. It kept its distance from the evil doers, and the leadership objected to these evil doings when they were advised of it. excesses as occurred in the year 1933? Minister for the Interior and his deputies, constantly worked together so that excesses like that could be prevented. Staff Chief Roehm selected people for to auxiliary and selected men from the SA for the Feldjaeger Corps, which was established in Prussia and which proved itself. Secondly, the SA leadership, in order to gain confidence, participated and worked in the cleaning of its own ran of provocateurs with the police and auxiliary police; mediocre people were at the same time removed from the SA. Anyone who was proved guilty of any excesses was punished. The SA leadership of its own accord further set up an SA Patrol Service so that the attitude of its men and the deportment of its men in the streets and in public life could be watched. And finally, it was always the main care of the SA leadership to have the many unemployed put to work, to have them taken away from the streets and put in commensurate professions, and for that person the numerous social measures of the SA leadership were directed toward the many institutions for professional reconversion, the many settlements and similar works. SA members, was that a large number? tained were infinitesmally small, and in addition to that, another point should not be forgotten.
In all of these excesses the SA was always accused, for at that time everyone in a brown shirt was characterized as an SA man, regardless of when her he was a member of the SA or not. Through that, perforce, in world opinion a distorted picture of the SA must have arisen; prejudices were bound to arise of course, to the detriment of the SA. The SA was blamed for many excesses where SA members were not participating at all. courts would be undertaken to squash excesses on the part of SA members? undertaken. In periods of general amnesty the SA leadership naturally demanded the pardoning of its own members. court tried to use influence on behalf of SA membership who had participated in the shooting of Jews. Do you know about this request?
A I do not know this request. Here in my internment I heard, about it however
Q And was your position in line with this request? that first of all the man who was responsible for this action be called to account.
Q Do you consider this attitude of the highest Party court correct?
A This demand is taken quite from my heart. It is to be regretted that the highest Party court could not make its will prevail. A demand that men who had she. others should go scot free and would, not be sentenced by regular courts is not to be justified under any conditions. SA at all? this in November of 1938, was that those who had, been found to be guilty be punish ed, not only on behalf of the SA but also through the regular courts. As far as the Staff Chief Lutze received knowledge of cases like that, to my knowledge, he tried to do the necessary thing. In the SA we had an agreement with the judicial authority ties that if an SA man committed a misdeed and was to be brought before a court, the SA leadership would be notified so that it could suspend this man from service at once and, as the case might be, could prohibit him from wearing the SA, uniform, and, in the last analysis, to punish him on its own initiative.
This principle was applied in the action of November, 1938 by Staff Chief Lutze.
Q What was the opinion and the attitude of the SA on the Jewish question? the life of the State, in economic and commercial matters, be commensurate with their minority in Germany and be limited in accord with that it acted on the basis of the Numerous Clausus.
Q And what was the reason for this demand or this attitude? in that after the War, 1919, a number of Jewish people emmigrated from Poland to Germany and entered into the economic and other spheres of life in an undesirab manner and by profiteering. It is well known through large judicial proceedings that these disintegrating influence caused ill-will and a movement contrary to in Even the Jews who had lived in Germany for a long time and societies of German citizens of the Jewish faith defined their positions against those forces and, in part, they took a very sharp position. From these facts you can understand the demand of the SA.
Q Did the SA incite active violence against the Jews?
A No, in no way. Staff Chiefs Roehm, Lutze, Scheppmann, at no time did they make the Jewish question the topic of their speeches or their directives; you can not talk of any incitment against them. The concept of a master race was never fostered in the SA; that would have been quite contrary to reason, for the SA received its replacements from all tracks. The extermination of a people because of its type Was never a cause for which the SA held any brief, and actions of violent against Jews was not favored by the SA. Quite the contrary. Then leadership always objected most strongly to actions of that kind.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps that will a convenient time to break off. How long do you think you are going to be with this witness?
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I believe I will need another hour to interrogate the witness, perhaps an hour and a half to examine him.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 14 August 1946, at 1000 hours.)
BY DR. BOEHM:
Q. Witness, yesterday we left off in your examination about the dealing with the Jewish question as related to the SA. Now I should like to ask you :What was the participation of members of the SA in actions against the Jews in November 1938 and how can you explain that ?
A. I beg to be able to call your attention to the fact that there seems to be a technical disturbance in my microphone.
Q. Can you hear now ?
A. Yes.
Q. In your testimony yesterday, we left off with the matter of the Jewish question within the SA and now I should like to ask you :"What was the participation of the members of the SA in November of 1938 and how was that to be explained ?
A. The participation of the members of the SA in this action, those were actions which could not be excused. They were isolated incidents and they were in complete contradiction to the directive of the leadership of Staff Chief Lutze. Lutze was in Munich in the old city hall (Rathaus). There, in connection with the speech made by Dr. Goebbels, he immediately called the chief of the administrative office, Obergruppenfuehrer Mappe and charged him to go to the Hotel Reinhof where a part of the SA leaders, who had been present, had gone; and he was to tell this SA leadership not to participate in any way in any action against the Jews whatsoever. Perhaps an hour afterwards, when he received word that the synogogue in Munich had been set on fire, Lutze, in my presence, told the SA leaders who were still in the large festival hall of the city hall in Munich -- he repeated this prohibition to them and said that this order was to be passed along to all units immediately.
This did take place and is confirmed by the fact that in many places no actions were carried through at all and numerous SA men know the contents of the order and can give their oath on it. members of the SA participated in the destruction of Jewish installations? uals let themselves be persuaded through agencies who without doubt, were under the influence of Dr. Goebbels. Indeed and in fact, compared with the strength of the SA, relatively few real members of the SA participated in this action , even though public opinion later blamed the SA for this action and here again, it turned out that everyone in a brown shirt was characterized as an SA man. The SA was in no way the bearer or the initiator of this action as may be seen as well from the fact that, as I learned from the press in the last few months, isolated places, such as in Bamberg, Stuttgart, and I believe, in Hof as well, people were sentenced who had destroyed synagogues and who had not belonged to the SA and the fact as well, that many SA men volunteered to protect Jewish installations against subversive elements. That may have created the opinion in public life that the SA had actually committed these misdeeds. In any event, Staff Chief Lutze, a few days later, gave voice to his indignation to Dr. Goebbels about the action itself, about the unjustified accusation against the SA and of the persuading of the SA men to misdeeds and he objected to this most strenuously. Soon after, he issued an order that in the future SA men would not put themselves at the disposal of other agencies for further action unless he himself had given the respective approval or permission. Staff Chief Lutze punished the guilty ones and as the case might have been, they were turned over to the regular courts for sentencing.