dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
HERR BOEHM: Did the Stahlhelmer bring military views with them into the SA?
GRUSS: Yes, but only to the extent that within the Stahlhelm there was often talk of the first World War, in which almost all of us had participated. But we were not a military organization, as was often asserted of the Stahlhelm because it had a military command. However, it was quite impossible to lead a mass movement of one and a half million members without such commands, which to the Stahlhelmer, as old soldiers, had become second nature. But otherwise we really never thought that there would be another war. We had had enough of the first World War and considered it our task to spread the idea among the people that problems could be solved without war and bloodshed. Not only in Germany did we represent this point of view. We established contacts abroad as well, especially with the foreign organizations of front-line soldiers, because we thought that these veterans would understand us best when we said that there must never be another war.
HERR BOEHM: Was the idea of soldierly comradeship designed to serve the preparation of a war of aggression?
GRUSS: No; from what I just said it should be clear that the Stahlhelmer never thought of a war of aggression; the idea of soldierly comradeship served the sole purpose of spreading the virtues of comradeship formed in the field among wide circles in order that it might peacefully lead to a better understanding among nations.
HERR BOEHM: What were the views of the Stahlhelm toward the political parties of Germany?
GRUSS: The Stah1helm was opposed to all -radical political tendencies. It did not follow the principle of extermination and destruction. It tried again and again to unite these extreme tendencies with a more moderate one based on enlightenment, persuasion, and propaganda. Proof that the political opponents of the Stahlhelm did after all understand this was shown in the spring of 1933 when many persecuted members of the SPD and KPD sought protection and aid in the Stahlhelm. They were accepted by us, but as a result the Stahlhelm. found itself involved in serious conflicts with the Party. The Party could not approve that people persecuted by it should be protected by the Stahlhelm. Typical of this were the events in the spring of 1933 in Brim wick, where an Ortsgruppe of the Stahlhehn held a meeting. The SA surrounded the place where the meeting was being held and arrested all the members. Upon investigation, it was shown that of approximately 1,500 participants over 1,000 were former members of the SPD and the KPD. We had accepted them when they had proved to us that they were decent people and that the majority of them had been at the front with us.
HERR BOEHM: Were the Stahlhelmer opposed to trade unions?
GRUSS: No. Here too the Stahlhelmer were only opposed to the excesses. The Stahlhelm itself had its own union, the Stahlhelm Mutual Aid. It included almost all the workers who were members of the Stahlhelm, and I wish to point out that 25 to 30 percent of the members of the Stahlhelm were workers. However, in the summer of 1933 the Stahlhelm Mutual Aid was compulsorily dissolved.
HERR BOEHM: Did the Stahlhelm carry on anti-Semitic propaganda?
GRUSS: There were many opinions and views represented in the Stahlhelm. Everyone could actually think what he liked; but I never heard of an order by the leaders of the Bund against Jews, and no such order was ever given. Besides, that was quite impossible because the Second Bundesfuehrer, for example, was Duesterberg who was, as we all knew, of Jewish origin, and in spite of this, Duesterberg was the best-liked and most popular Stahlhehnfuehrer. In the central office of the Bund in Berlin one of my closest associates was a Stah1helmer who was married to a Jewess. We did not concern ourselves about that at all. We had many Jews in the Stahlhelm because we had not adopted the radical racial theory of the Party and were always opposed to it. In addition to Duesterberg we had other Jews as Stahlhelmfuehrer. There were Jews, half-Jews, and Freemasons in the Stahlhelm, therefore there could not have been any anti-Semitic tendency in the Stahlhelm, with the exception of a few circles who did not, however, have the upper hand.
HERR BOEHM: What was the effect of this Stahlhelrn training when the Stahlhelm was transferred to the SA?
GRUSS: It was doubtless this pronounced Stah1helm training which caused the majority of the Stahlhelmer to resist the incorporation. There were three points in particular which the Stahlhelmer could never understand, and which always separated, him from the SA. There was, first, the autocratic Fuehrer principle. In the Stahlhelm there were only elected Fuehrer, which did not exist in the SA. Then the Stahlhelmer could not agree with the radicalism which was to be observed in the SA, and furthermore they could not get used to the idea of totalitarianism.
HERR BOEHM: Well, now I should like to ask you: why did the Stahlhelmer not leave the SA again?
GRUSS: Well, if that had been possible, large numbers of them, believe me, would have left again, but leaving the SA was almost impossible. There were really only two possibilities of leaving the SA. One was honorable discharge and the other was expulsion. 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 many Stahlhelmer only expulsion was possible because the SA had recognized , very early from the opposition of the Stah1helm that these were elements hostile to it. As a result, expulsion was ordered in many cases if they wanted to harm the Stahlhelmer seriously. To the examples which I had given earlier in connection with the term "enemy of the State" I should 'like to add the following: Expulsion from the SA was recorded on the papers of the Stahlhelmer. If the Stahlhelmer wanted to accept a new position, it was immediately to be seen that he had been dismissed from the SA, and that was such a serious offense that no one wanted to have him. Stahlhelmer who wanted to join the Reichswehr were not accepted if they had been dismissed from the SA. The result was, if you take into consideration what I have said before, that there were so many serious difficulties that many Stahlhelmer 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.
HERR BOEHM: And over what period of time did these observations of yours extend?
GRUSS: Up to the time of the war .
HERR BOEHM: And from whom did you learn the things which you have told us here?
GRUSS: In my position as Treasurer of the Bund, I spoke constantly with many Stahlhelmer about these matters. In addition, I had to read innumerable reports.
HERR BOEHM: Did you, as liquidator of the Stahlhehn, maintain any contact with the transferred Stahlhelmer beyond the settlement of business matters?
GRUSS: Yes, I did.
HERR BOEHM: Were you permitted to do so?
GRUSS: No; I was allowed to settle the business affairs of the Stahlhelm, but I was warned by the Gestapo against any attempt to continue the Stahlhelm in a camouflaged form. I repeatedly had clashes with the Gestapo on that account. But I constantly tried, because many of my old comrades kept telling me that I must do so because there was no one else left.
HERR BOEHM: And of what did your activity consist in holding the Stahlhelm together?
GRUSS: I spoke to many individual Stahlhelmer myself. They came from all parts of Germany to see me in Berlin. I was in contact with many of them by correspondence. Furthermore, I mailed circulars camouflaged as business letters to the old Stahlhelmer from which they -could...
THE PRESIDENT: [Interposing.] What have we got to do with this, Dr. B6hm?
HERR BOEHM: The purpose of it is to show the Tribunal what the nature of the ideas and the ideologies of 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.
HERR BOEHM: Yes, but I must give the Tribunal some idea about the attitude of this witness and the one and a half million men who came from the Stahlhelm to the SA. As to the few remaining questions-there are four or five-I shall try to be as brief as possible. You mean to say then, Witness, that this continuation of the Stahlhelm after July 1934was illegal?
GRUSS: Yes, because it was not permitted.
HERR BOEHM: And about how large was the circle of persons with whom you were in contact in this connection?
GRUSS: I myself was in contact with only a few hundred former Stahlhelmer, but these were only the liaison men. Behind them were the many thousand in the various cities.
HERR BOEHM: Were there other contacts among the Stahlhelmer?
GRUSS: Yes. Aside from the contact with me, everywhere in Germany in the various towns independent groups of Stahlhelmer had been formed which sometimes were of quite considerable size. For instance, in Berlin I often participated in meetings where there were 150 to 200 Stahlhelmer. In order that the Gestapo...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. B6hm, if this is intended to show that this witness knew the circumstances about the Stahlhelm, surely you can leave that to re-examination if it is challenged. Why should you anticipate that they will challenge this witness that he doesn't know anything about the Stahlhelm? Presumably he does. Until it is challenged, you can leave it to re-examination.
HERR BOEHM: I shall ask my last, or last but one, question. Do you know, Witness, that transferred Stahlhelmer participated in crimes which were charged against the SA, for example, the persecution of the Jews?
GRUSS: No, I know nothing about that, although I should have known about it if it were true. It would have been a quite remarkable fact if it had been established that Stahlhelmer had participated in the persecution of Jews. I refer to the statements which I made about the nonexistence of an anti-Semitic tendency in the Stahlhelm.
HERR BOEHM: Did you observe that the antagonistic attitude of the Stahlhelmer in the SA was general, or were there indications that considerable numbers of Stahlhelmer gradually changed their opinion?
GRUSS: This antagonistic attitude of the Stahlhelmer, in the case of the great majority, remained unchanged until the end. Actually, I should go so far as to say that the longer the Third Reich lasted, the stronger this proposition became among the Stahlhelmer. I do not believe that there were many Stahlhelmer who abandoned their opposition during the course of the years. Of course, there are always some such cases among a large number of people, but they were only exceptional cases.
HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, I have no more questions to put to this witness at the moment.
DR. HANS GAWLIK (Counsel for the SD): Witness, do you know whether the Stahlhelmer who were in opposition were watched by the SD?
GRUSS: I know nothing about their being watched-by the SD. I always heard that only the Gestapo and the local police watched the Stahlhelmer.
DR. GAVJLIK: The son of Duesterberg made an affidavit, Number Stahlhelm-4, stating that the Stahlhelmer who were in opposition had been watched by the SD. Are these statements with regard to the SD incorrect?
GRUSS: I am of the opinion that the son of Duesterberg must have been mistaken in this case. I myself never heard that the SD persecuted or watched the Stahlhelm.
DR. GAWLIK: Thank you.
COLONEL H. J. PHILLIMORE (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): Witness, you have spoken about the radical and extremist tendencies of the SA.
GRUSS: Yes.
COL. PHILLIMORE: You mean, do you not, that they were terrorists and gangsters?
GRUSS: When I said here radical and extremist tendencies, I meant those groups of people in the SA -who already at that time had severely damaged the reputation of the SA. But they were only groups; by that I mean that it was not-the whole- SA, but only parts of it.
COL. PHILLIMORE: There were groups in every town in Germany, weren't there?
GRUSS: I cannot say whether they were in every town in Germany, but there were no doubt such groups in many cities.
COL. PHILLIMORE: You are saying, aren't you, that the Stahlhelmer were forced to join the SA throughout Germany?
GRUSS: Yes.
COL. PHEELIMORE: That was done by threats by the local SA leaders who took them over, isn't that right? That's what you are saying?
GRUSS: Yes.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Can there be any doubt that those threats and those arrests you spoke about were ordered by the SA leadership?
GRUSS: According to my judgment, these threats, arrests, and everything connected with them, were initiated by the SA leadership. Of course, in view of the large number concerned, it may have happened that also the Party or other formations of the Third Reich participated, but in the main, however, this pressure was exercised by the SA itself.
COL. PHILLIMORE: 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?
GRUSS: At any rate, in those cases of which I knew, and there were very many, such a boycott was carried out. I know for example of such a boycott in a small town. There the conditions were entirely ...
COL. PHILLIMORE: 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?
GRUSS: It is possible that the SA gave these names to the army, but I do not know exactly. I only know one thing-that the Stahlhelmer who wanted to join the army, for example former officers, were not accepted if their papers showed that they had been dismissed from the SA.
COL. PHILLIMORE: I just want to ask you one or two more questions about the SA. Do you know Minister Severing?
GRUSS: Like every other German, I know Minister Severing from the time when he was a minister. I do not know him personally.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Do you know of him as a man of integrity?
GRUSS: I personally consider Severing a man of integrity.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Will you listen to his description of the SA in the early days, before the seizure of power.
GRUSS: I do not know this description.
COL. PHILLIMORE: "Wherever the SA was able to exercise its terror unhindered it did so in the following manner: They had indoor battles against people who thought differently. Those were not the ordinary little brawls between political opponents during elections; that was organized terror." Is that a fair description of the SA during the years before the seizure of power?
GRUSS: I believe that on the whole Severing describes it correctly.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Do you know the witness Gisevius?
GRUSS: No, I do not know him.
COL. PHILLIMORE: 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 in front of the SA flag; and these Storm Troopers acted the same way everywhere." Again I ask you, is that a correct description of the behavior of the SA as you knew it?
GRUSS: Well, to that I must say I am not really competent to pass judgment on the SA of the early period.  My observations were made from 1933 on; I might say I was bound to make them officially because I was Bund Treasurer of the Stahlhelm.  But before that time I was a bank director and not so greatly interested in the SA.  But I will admit that...
COL. PHILLIMORE: Well then, I will put to you one more, my last question.
THE PRESIDENT: Are these statements in evidence?
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord.  The first statement I put is from Minister Severing's evidence in the record (Volume XIV, Page 273). The second statement is from Gisevius' evidence (Volume XII, Page 271).
THE PRESIDENT: The nature of this witness' evidence has been that the Stahlhelmer were incorporated into the SA by force. He has not said anything about the SA being an orderly or properly run organization. COL. PHILLIMORE, My Lord, he has spoken of their 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?
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, one can give it no other 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 cross-examination is relevant.
COL. 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.
COL. 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 ig 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 (Volume XII, Page 272). "The SA organized huge round-ups. 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 unto anyone who got into their clutches. From this time dates the 'Bunker', those dreaded private prisons of which every SA Storm Troop had to have at least one. Robbing 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." [Turning to the witness.] Is that a fair description of the activities of the SA in the months immediately following the seizure of power?
GRUSS: Well, I must say that most of what the author says came to my ears daily at that time in Berlin. But remember that this concerns the SA which was under the Chief of Staff Röhm, and that later the SA was subjected to a purge. I believe that the SA later ...
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, but I will come to that in a minute But that 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?
GRUSS: I should like to say, according to my recollection, that Herr Gisevius did not exaggerate. There is a good deal of truth in what he says.
COL. PHILLIMORE: 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 anti-Semitic in its outlook, was that one of the reasons why you say Stahlhelm members did' not like joining it?
GRUSS: No, it was like this, rather: The Stahlhelm training the moderate democratic concept of the Stahlhelm-excluded any anti-Semitic propaganda, because anti-Semitic propaganda would have been radicalism and such radicalism did not exist with the vast majority of Stahlhelmer.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Do you know the witness Hauffer? He gave evidence before the Commission.
GRUSS: Yes, I know Hauffer. He was in Dresden formerly.
COL. PHILLIMORE: He said this in his evidence: "We disapproved completely of the Party's policy against the Jews." Was that right?
GRUSS: Yes.
COL.PHILLIMORE: And the Party's policy was the policy of the SA and the SA leadership, wasn't it?
GRUSS: Yes, that is true.
COL. PHILLIMORE: 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?
GRUSS: 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.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Certainly in the case of anyone over 35, he could have stayed out, couldn't he?
GRUSS: Yes, if they had been asked beforehand, but they were not asked. They were given orders and had to join.
COL. PHILLIMORE: You know the witness Waldenfels who appeared before the Commission? Do you know him, a senior civil servant?
GRUSS: Yes.
COL. PHILLIMORE: He refused to join and he retained his post right up to the war, isn't that correct?
GRUSS: That is correct, but that is the same as my case. Waldenfels was above the age of those who were incorporated into the SA.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Well, he was under 45 at the time, wasn7t he? .
GRUSS: Whether he was under 45 at the time, I do not know, but he is an elderly man, and therefore I assume that he was not affected by the transfer.
COL. PITILLIMORE: He is an elderly man now. He was born on 10 August 1889, according to'his evidence. The witness Rittner has said, you know, that even if pressure was put on a man to join, there was nothing whatever to stop him withdrawing. Now I know you say he would be boycotted, but in fact the number in the SA fell, didn't it, from 41/2 million to 11/2 million between 1934 and 1939?
GRUSS: I have heard of that.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Wasn't that because people were withdrawing?
GRUSS: No; as far as I can see the situation, first of all after 30 June 1934 all followers of Chief of Staff Röhmwere removed from the SA, and there were very many of them. I cannot give a figure, but at all events there were very many. Then, furthermore, hundreds of thousands of SA men were released from the SA, not to return to private life, but, as far as I can recall, to be assigned to other branches of the Party. Only very few of the Stahlhelmer were affected by this release. I know that very well, because Stahlhelmer came frequently to me and said that they hoped to be able to get out of the SA now, but after some time they came back to me and said it was not possible since the Stahlhelm had to remain in the SA so that it could be controlled better.
COL. PHILLIMORE: 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?
GRUSS: 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 often it was the Stahlhelmer who were the ones to refuse to obey orders for -which they could not take the responsibility.
COL.PHILLIMORE: I have no further question.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. BOEHM, have you any re-examination? HERR BÖ, No.
THE PRESIDENT: 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?