He refused and the hunger strike went on and we were taken to,the hospital in Vienna.
On the 11th day, the hunger strike was stopped because even the giving of water was prohibited on that day.
THE PRESIDENT: When I said you could make your comments, I didn't mean you could go on giving the details of the hunger strike.
THE WITNESS: I just wanted to point out that it is incorrect as testified by the witness; that there was -- that I was active in the resistance and that I was still in my barracks. I had to be transferred on a stretcher to the barracks. None of us could even walk at that point.
Point 2, I talked with a cousin of Karwinsky. I talked with him repeatedly. His cousin was in charge of the sickness department at Linz and he told me that his cousin, that the witness mentioned here, never had been at Mauthausen, that he was at Dachau, beginning with the day of his detention. There is a lot of difference between Mauthausen and Dachau. I was committed as a former member of the Austrian government who had committed crimes against National Socialism. Through the RSHA and Heydrich in Berlin I was committed through a Berlin agency, not through an Austrian agency. I didn't see this man afterwards. That is, beginning with the first day of his internment at Dachau.
Point 3. I think the Prosecution should determine whether or not this man doesn't confuse me with someone else. If he has confused me with someone else, the prosecution should go to the trouble of determining whether this mart was not at Dachau from the beginning. I do know that this man was at Dachau. He was arrested at Innsbruck, and at thesame time it was made known to me that he had been brought from Innsbruck to Dachau. And my jurisdiction at that time had been stopped.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1400 hours) Official transcript of the International
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, I suppose the defendant wants to say something about these other two documents. He had answered the one, had he not?
COLONEL AMEN: I do not knew whether he had finished, your Lordship. BY THE PRESIDENT: Karwinsky? it be given back to me. May I please ask you to return the document to me?
(witness handed document) interrogations before the trial. Otherwise I would have immediately answered with a request that the cousin of the witness Karwinsky, who was chief of theInvalid Department at Linz and who bears the same name, be called as a witness and be asked whether it is correct that he expressly told me that this Karwinsky here was detained at Dachau and never at Mauthausen. I should very much like to add that the witness Dr. Skubl, who will be appearing before the Tribunal in another matter can probably make a statement on the same matter and particularly regarding the fact that this witness, Karwinsky, its arrested near the Swiss border on the occasion of his escape after the Anschluss and that he was taken from Dachau therefrom.
The reason why he was taken to Dachau is not exactly known to me but this Dr. Skubl will be able to give information on that subject, presumably saying that this intervention from Austria in connection with a former member of the Austrian Government would have to be prevented since Himmler was of the opinion that something might be done for Karwinsky on the part of the Austrian Government.
in rebuttal. He can make application for that request. It is not necessary to go into that. other two documents. Its entire contents are stated herewith by me to be untrue and incorrect. Had they been put before me in the interrogations then I would, as I did in other cases, have referred to the witness Zutter and his evidence and I would, have made an urgent request that this witness be confronted with me. next to Colonel Amen, mho is sitting at the table, holding the rank of major, and I have asked him at least twenty times that this witness who is making such serious statements against me be confronted with me and the Prosecutor today, Colonel Amen too, was present when I made that request, particularly when the question of Mauthausen was discus sod and these gentlemen retired to consult with a third officer and discussed in English as to whether or not Ziehreis and Zutter could not be called in at once. Both were in this prison. All this is untrue. any witnesses that you wish in rebuttal. two witnesses. BY COLONEL AMEN: inmates at Mauthausen concentration camp, shortly before the end of DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, may I say a few words in con-nection with these two documents?
and it is only now possible for me to discuss these serious accusations with the defendant. He has denied it even to me, that is that these statements are true. I think it would be a violation of my duties as a defense counsel if I would not ask immediately now that these witnesses be heard. It could be that the Prosecution later on -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, what is the point of delaying the trial? I have just said that you might make application and you know perfectly well that application has to be made in writing.
I have said twice to the witness than you, Dr. Kauffmann, his counsel can apply for the calling of any witnesses you like in in rebuttal.
What is the good of delaying the trial by getting up and making your application verbally now?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Far be it from me to delay it but I wanted to
BY COLONEL AMEN:
Q Did you understand the question, defendant?
A Yes. You had asked me who had given the order for the ill-treatment, to be surrendered to the enemy.
This order was given in the presence of the witness Dr. Hoettl where it was
Q I did not ask you about that order. I asked you about shortly before the end of the war.
Who was responsible for that order?
Were you?
the story, Ziehreis. You are acquainted with him Ziehreis?
which is now in evidence before this Tribunal. Do you recall that
A I have not seen the picture. It was handed to the
COLONEL AMEN: I ask to have the defendant be shown docu ment number 3870-PS, which will be 797 U.S.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a new document?
COLONEL AMEN: A new document, your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it in German?
COLONEL ALIEN: Yes.
(witness handed document)
BY COLONEL AMEN:
"There was one SS man for ten prisoners. The highest number of prisoners was about 17,000, with the exception of the branch camps.
The highest number in Camp Mauthausen, the branch camps included, was about 90,000.
"The total number of prisoners who died was 65,000. The complement was made up of Totenkopf units, strength of 5,000 men, which were made up of guards and the command staff." begins:
"According to an order by Himmler, I was to liquidate all prisoners on behalf of SS Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Kaltenbrunner; the prisoners were to be led into the tunnels of the factory Bergkristall and only one entrance was to be left open."
A Mr. Prosecutor, I haven't yet found the passage.
Q It's in the middle of page 2. Do you have it?
Q "Then this entrance was to be blown up by the use of explosives and the death of the prisoners was to be effected in this manner. I refused to carry out this order. This matter was the extermination of the prisoners of the so-called mother camp, Mauthausen, and of the camps Gusen I and Gusen II. Details of this are known to Herr Wolfram and SS Oberstrurmfuehrer Echermann.
"A gassing plant was built in Concentration Camp Mauthausen by order of the former garrison doctor, Dr. Krebsbach, camouflaged as a bathroom. Prisoners were gassed in this camouflaged bathroom. Apart from that a specially built automobile commuted between Mauthausen and Gusen, in which prisoners were gassed while traveling The idea for the construction of this automobile was Dr. Wasicki's, SS Untersturmfuehrer and Pharmacist.
I, myself, never put any gas into this automobile; I only drove it, but I knew that prisoners were being gassed. The gassing of the prisoners was done on the urging of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Krebsbach.
"Everything that we Carried (put was ordered by the Reich Security Main Office, furthermore, by SS Obergruppenfuehrer Mueller or Dr. Kaltenbrunner, the latter being Chief of the Security Police."
page, the paragraph commencing "In early summer of 1943." Do you have the place?
Q "In early summer of 1943, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Kaltenbrunner visited the Concentration Camp Mauthausen. The Camp Commandant Ziereis, Gauleiter Eigruber, first leader of the Protective Custody camp Bachmeyer and several others accompanied Kaltenbrunner. I saw Dr. Kaltenbrunner and the people who accompanied him with my own eyes. According to the testimony of the 'Corpse Carriers' of that time, the former prisoners Albert Tiefenbacher,"-whose affidavit has been read--"present address Salzburg; and Johann Polster, present address Pottendorf near Wiener Neustadt, Austria; about fifteen prisoners of the arrest class were selected by Unterscharfuehrer Winkler, in order to show Dr. Kaltenbrunner there ways of extermination, by a shot in the neck, hanging, and gassing. Women whose hair had been cut were among the executed and they were killed by shots in the neck. Above-mentioned 'Corpse Carriers' were present at the execution and had to carry the corpses to the Crematorium. Dr. Kaltenbrunner wont to the Crematorium after the execution and later went into the quarry.
"Baldur von Schirach visited the camp in fall of 1944. He, too, went to the arrest building and also to the Crematorium." referred to or the matters set forth in the affidavit? to draw your attention to the fact that you, Mr. Prosecutor, have stated that this statement was taken when Ziereis was on his death bed, but you do not say something which has been read from page 7 and 8, and which does not come from Ziereis, but comes from Marsalek, who is the basis for the statement, and this man, Hans Marsalek, whom, of course, I have never not at any time, is just like the other witnesses, an ex-detainee, protective custody detainee from Mauthausen.
The value of a statement from a former concentration camp detainee to me, considering the impossibility of talking to the witness, which has been referred to by me previously, once again, I must ask that Marsalek be confronted with me. Marsalek cannot know of any such order. In spite of that, he states that he did. the dying confession from Ziereis. Do you understand that?
A No, I don't, because so far it was new to me that the Prosecution were interrogating detainees from concentration camps and using them for the interrogation of a man who had been shot into the stomach three times and was dying. I thought that such interrogations would have been carried out by a man who was legally trained and who would be in a position to attach the necessary value to such statements.
you would do it differently; but, in any event, your testimony is that everything in that affidavit which was read to you is false; is that correct?
A It is false. I have never given an order, to the Camp Mauthausen, with the exception of that one order, which I was entitled to do on the strength of special powers, and for the contents of which and its transmission I can offer sufficient evidence. Mauthausen was never under my juridiction in any other way, and I could not give any such orders. The Prosecution know perfectly well, and must find in proved by dozens of witness statements that there was never another a relationship of my giving orders to Mauthausen
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you do not seen to understand what this document is. It is an affidavit of Hans Marsalek; and paragraph2 shows the fact that he made the interrogation of Ziereis, who was about to die, in the presence of the Commander of an Armored Division, and he then sets out what Ziereis said, and then he goes on to declare, in addition, what is contained in paragraph 3; and it is perfectly obvious to the Tribunal that what is said in paragraph 3 is not what Zeireis said, but what Marsalek said, the per son who was making the affidavit.
A (Continuing) My Lord, to that I can say that Marsalek could, of course, as a detainee never know that Ziereis was never under my command. For that reason alone, it appears likely that Marsalek, when he questioned Zeireis could not possibly know the relationship and the connection of the case. I have proved to the Tribunal, and proved it to the Prosecutor, that an authority on my part wasn't given until 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know; that is only a matter of argument. I was only drawing your attention to the fact that it is perfectly abvious from th document itself that what Colonel Amen was reading was a statement of Marsalek and not a statement of Ziereis, which was the point you were making. BY COLONEL AMEN: thausen Concentration Camp on the 27th of April, 1945, that at least 1,000 persons should be killed at Mauthausen each day?
Is that true or false?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I have never given such an order.
Q Well, you knew. Were you acquainted with SS Colonel Ziereis,the same person we have just been speaking of? in the SS?
Q I ask to have the defendant shown Document No. 3762-PS, which will become U.S.A. Exhibit No. 798.
A You asked, Mr. Prosecutor, whether I know Colonel Becker, and I answered "No", but the man is Kurt Becher.
Q That's all the better. You do know him then, do you ?
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, have those documents been translated into all languages?
COLONEL AMEN: I believe they have every one of them, yes. No, I am told that all of them have not; some of them have. This one is in English and German Your Lordship. We did not have time to get them translated into the Russian and French, although it is now in progress.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, then it will be done?
COLONEL AMEN: Yes, sir, it is being done, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
A May I reply to it?
THE PRESIDENT: In order that the record should be properly complete, the Tribunal would like the Prosecution to state when the translation has been done so that the matter should be thoroughly in order.
COLONEL AMEN: Precisely.
Q Defendant, we will now read this document together;
"I, Kurt Becher, formerly a colonel in the SS, born 12 September 1909, at Hamburg, declare the following under oath:
"Between the middle of September and October 1944 I caused the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler to issue the following order, which I received in two originals, one each for SS Generals Kaltenbrunner and Pohl, and a carbon copy for myself:
"Effective immediately I forbid any liquidation of Jews and order that, on the contrary, hospital care should be given to weak and sick persons. ( hold you (and here Kaltenbrunner and Pohl were meant personally responsible if this order should not be strictly adhered to by lower echelons.'
"I personally took Pohl's copy to him at Ids office in Berlin and left the copy for Kaltenbrunner at his office in Berlin.
"In my opinion Kaltenbrunner and Pohl bear the full responsibility after this date for any further killings of Jewish prisoners.
"When visiting the concentration camp Mauthausen on 27 April 1945 at 9:00 a.m. I was told under the seal of strictest secrecy by the commandant in the camp, SS Colonel Ziereis, that 'Kaltenbrunner gave me the order that at least a thousand persons have still to die at Mauthausen each day.'
"The facts mentioned above are true. This declaration is made by me voluntarily and without coercion. I read through them, signed them, and confirmed the statement with my oath."
Is that true or false, Defendant?
A In part it is correct and in part it isn't. I shall explain it sentence by sentence.
Q No. Suppose you simply tell us what you claim to be false, because we must get on with this.
establishing if the guilt in this connection is mine or not, and to do that I must be given an opportunity to state my statement in detail. Otherwise neither you nor the Tribunal would know the truth, and that is what we want here, isn't it? I am glad that this witness was found and that this statement is available, because it proves, first of all, that in September or October 1944 Himmler was forced to issue this order and that Himmler, about whom it has been ascertained that since 1939 or 1940, and on the largest scale, was a criminal who was responsible for the killing of Jews. given such an order. Before I had seen this document, yesterday and today I have stated that this order, through my intervention, was gotten from Hitler, and obviously this order from Himmler is based on another order which he in turn received from Hitler. as the responsible person for concentration camps, and that he has given the information to me as the person who was Himmler's opponent in this case, and that is this man Kaltenbrunner. As far as Becher is concerned, I should like to go into that a little more. which could possibly be done under the circumstances. It is through Becher and the Joint Committee in Hungary and Switzerland that he first of all exchanged for raw materials foreign currency and other goods he received from Jews. I heard about this through the intelligence service and immediately attempted to stop this -- not with Himmler, because I would have failed, but with Hitler. At that moment any personal credit Himmler might have had with Hitler night have been undermined, and this action damaged the reputation of the Reich abroad in the most serious possible manner. and now you can understand why Schellenberg said that he had been told by Himmler "I am afraid; I am scared now. Kaltenbrunner's got me under his thumb. This means that now this man Kaltenbrunner has quite clearly proved what the things were that I was doing in Hungary and he has told Hitler about it."
out of the whole thing by pretending before Hitler as if the possibilities were with Kaltenbrunner and Pohl. And according to this document the responsibility was with Himmler and Pohl, but Kaltenbrunner had to be included and be told about it because otherwise he would continually talk to Hitler about it every day. That is the content of that document.
Please, Mr. Prosecutor, if this witness Becher is in Nurnberg will you confront him with me here. I am perfectly in a position on the strength of that witness to prove to the public just how the matter in Hungary was the beginning of a matter which up to this day Himmler and Pohl were doing this business. And I can prove how I fought against it. the 27th of April I am supposed to have given a strictly secret order to Ziereis that a thousand persons a day had to be destroyed in Mauthausen every day. I am telling you that the witness Hoettl, who is also present here, should be brought in here at once so that I can ask him on what day I had dictated the written order and sent it by courier to Mauthausen in which I stated that the entire camp with all its inmates was to be surrendered to the enemy, and the witness will then confirm it to you that this order was given several days before the 27th of April and that I couldn't have ordered the contrary, the opposite, on the 27th. under which I can collapse, Mr. Prosecutor. I am not going to collapse. I swear it to you and I have sworn it that I am determined to establish what is true. the meaning of the phrase "special treatment," have you not?
Have you heard that in this courtroom?
Q It can only be assumed, although I can't give a detailed explanation, that this was a death sentence, not through an open court but through an order by Himmler. common knowledge. Have you not at all times known what was meant by special treatment? Yes or no, please.
A Yes. I have told you an order from Himmler--I am referring you to Hitler order of 1941 and Himmler's order that executions should be carried out without legal procedure. dividuals with Gruppenfuehrer Mueller of Amt IV? Yes or no, please.
A No;no. I don't know even if Schellenberg said so.
Q I ask to have the defendant shown Document No. 3839-PS which will become USA 799. By the way, were you aquainted with Joseph Spacil?
THE PRESIDENT: Answer the question.
Q Were you aquainted with Joseph Spacil?
A Spassp? No. "In regard to special treatment," Do you have the place?
A Not yet, no. So as to comprehend the document I shall have to read all of it. never got through, because the first part has nothing to do with the part which I am interested in or with you.
A I beg your pardon, Mr. Prosecutor. I am sure that you are interested in expeditious procedure, but as Defendants, we are just as interested in our defens and we are just as anxious not to delay the proceedings; but those things which are necessary for my defense--at least I must be able to read a document to which I have to make a statement.
and I am sure that whatever is there which should be brought out on your behalf He will see to it that it will be brought out at the proper time, which will be after I get through asking you these questions. Isn't that satisfactory?
A No, that is not enough for me. I must know at any rate what is contained in that document, since you are asking me to make a statement on it now.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, not only your own counsel will look after your interests but the Tribunal will look after your interests, and you must answer the question, please.
Q Very well. Now let's read along in the center of the page, commencing with "inregard to special treatment I have the following knowledge:
"On occasion of the meetings of the section heads Gruppenfuehrer Mueller frequently remarked to Kaltenbrunner if the one or the other case should receive special treatment or if special treatment was to be considered. The expressions were the following for example:
"Mueller: Obergruppenfuehrer, please Case B, special treatment or not?
"Kaltenbrunner: Yes, or to be presented to the Reichsfuehrer for decision.
"Or "Mueller:
Obergruppenfuehrer, no answer has arrived from the Reichsfuehrer in regard to special treatment of Case A.
"Kaltenbrunner: To be traced.
"Mueller handed a paper to Kaltenbrunner and requested instructions, as described above.
"If such a conversation between Mueller and Kaltenbrunner took place, only the initials were mentioned, so that the persons present at the table never knew who was involved."
And then the last two paragraphs:
"Mueller as well as Kaltenbrunner have proposed, special treatment, r-es-p, period". I do not know just what that means Your Lordship. "presentation to RFSS for approval of special treatment in my presence for special cases, which I can not identify. I estimate that in approximately 50 per cent of the cases, special treatment was approved."
Is the contents of that affidavit true or false, defendant? is not correct. You will see immediately that that tragic expression "special treatment" in the connection will change and be rather funny and humorous. Do you know Winzerstube, Godesberg, which are cases of your so-called "special treatment"? Walzertraum, in the smartest and most fashionable Alpine hotel of the whole German Reich, and the Bergerstube is a very famous hotel. I can not quite remember its name at the moment. It is Godesberg in which international meetings were held. On both these hotles especially qualified and respected personalities were found. I think of M. Ponset, M. Heriot, and many more. They were accomodated there, and they had three times the diplomatic rations, which is nine time the rations of the ordinary German during the war. They were daily given a bottle of champagne. They were allowed to have free correspondence with their families, free personal postal service to their families in France and there were various visits to these detainees, and their wishes and requirements were cared for, and that is what you are understanding to be special treatment in this connection.
since this would interest me to an extreme degree from the point of view of foreign policy and intelligence, whether the Reich was following my tendencies now, which were that humane contacts with foreign persons should now be established, and in that connection Mueller may have talkd to me about it, but Winzerstube and Godesberg are the end goals, the final goals of this special treatment here, and they were special and preferential accomodations allotted to foreign persons, as indicated in this document?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I stated yesterday and today that, of course, I had meetings with Mueller when we were lunching together, which we had to do because all our thirty buildings in Berlin had been destroyed by bombs or damaged, and I talked to him, but I talked to him not about matters which are of Department IV, and it becomes clear from this document that these were matters which were extremely interesting to me as intelligence chief, but may I ask you not to leave this document just yet. ments were used for the special--nine times better--treatment which I had desired --nine times better than the treatment allotted to Germans. That is of importance to me for my defence, and I am asking you-- I shall ask you through my solicitor-- that you make detailed quoting as the leading one of the French detainees M. Ponset, Southern Germany or be shot?
And for your assistance, I will armies were closing in on Berlin.
Yes or No, if you can.
Berlin. I think military persons would be able to give you information as to how things stood at the time.
I do not believe Leader VIa of the RSHA?
COLONEL AMEN: I ask to have the defendant shown the of that affidavit:
"In my capacity as group leader VIa at the RSHA, the follow ing became known to me;"In February 1945, I was told by group leader SS Standarten daily Section Chief meetings.
On that occasion, Mueller, Section on Berlin.
Steimle did not know who was concerned. Kalten the frivolity of the procedure.
I assumed that Kaltenbrunner frivolity of the procedure."
Is that affidavit true or false?
me, I can immediately counter it. Perhaps I may draw attention to the following points:
It originated from a witness called Sandberger. In the second half of the first paragraph he states-- No, I beg your pardon.
He states this in the second paragraph, "As I was informed by on the occasion of a walk.
.." You can gather from the second discussions, and this is of importance, because something more will have to he said about this man Schellenberg.