I did not authorize him and it would be an impossibility for him to do that, but that is the way I must picture the events that have taken place. signature, is that correct?
A It would to most unusual to have a stamp made with the word, "Dein." It would be entirely impossible. Therefore the official himself must have put or fixed the signature.
That I was on familiar terms with Blaschke, everyone knew, and therefore the word, "Dein", had to be used, if he used my signature at all.
Please look at the figure 30 also. From samples of my writing you can see that I do not write like that at all. official -- as you term him -- in signing such a letter on your behalf would try to imitate your signature?
A Not that, but, Mr. Prosecutor, it would be a matter of course as far as the Lord Mayor of Vienna is concerned, and a man of whom the official knew that I was on familiar terms, to put a signature -- a typewritten signature -- under a personal letter. That would be equally impossible. When I was not in Berlin he had two possibilities, either to typewrite or to act an though Kaltenbrunner had been actually there. letter, in the same way that you are lying to this Tribunal about almost everything else you have given testimony about? Isn't that a fact?
A Mr. Prosecutor, these insults which you are tossing at me, I am used to these insults, since for one year I have been interrogated hundreds of times. I have been insulted much worse. My mother, who died in the year 1943, was called a where, and other accusations were hurled at me. This term is not knew to me, but I would like to state that in a matter of this kind I certainly will not tell an untruth, because I want credibility before this Tribunal. contrary to that of twenty or thirty other witnesses and far more documents, It is almost incredible that you should be telling the truth and that every witness and every document should be false. Don't you agree to that proposition?
A No. I cannot say that. Up to now I have always had the feeling that every document which you submitted to me today, at first glance, could be refuted by me immediately in its most vital points and I ask and I hope to be successful with the Tribunal, that I may refer to single points and I may be confronted with individual witnesses, so I may fight.
In your preliminary interrogations your collaborator has in my opinion, had the wrong impression of me, it is completely wrong that he believes I was refuting and fighting insignificant things, but the concept of this proceeding was unknown to me, but I believe if he talked about more important matters then more important matters would have been established and I am perhaps the only defendant who immediately stated, when he received the indictment, when I was asked "are you ready to make further statements to the prosecution?!! I said "immediately", and with my own signature, which you may produce, and I, as such, was at your disposal immediately in every way and at anytime. Is it not so? Please confirm that? I have asserted that up until today -an additional five months -- I was always ready to answer every question put was not asked.
THE PRESIDENT: Restrain yourself. And when you see the light, speak slower. You know about the light, don't you? BY COLONEL AMEN: interrogation, you stated that you did not wish to be interrogated any more because the questions seemed to be designed to help the prosecution rather than to help your case and that you were told that in that event, you were not being questioned any more; that you were also informed that there were other documents and other material with which you had not been confronted and that if you desired at any time to come back and be interrogated with respect to those matters, you should tell your lawyers so and send a note and that the interrogator would be very happy to continue interrogating you? Is that not a fact, yes or no?
A No, Mr. Prosecutor, it did not happen that way, but I repeatedly stated on that thing, and it was early in the evening, I believe about eight, and I can describe the room upstairs. I was led out of the room. The interpreter which I saw here this morning wasthere and several other officials were in the room.
They asked if I received the indictment today and I said "yes, I have". They said, "Did you take notice of it?"
and they said, "From now on, you will have to speak with the General Secretary about your defense. Do you wish to be interrogated further?", at which I said, "yes, I am always at your disposal, at any time." but this officer here looked at me rather dismayed; for he did not expect that statement on my part; obviously all others seemed to have said, "no, we are glad that these interrogations are at an end and now we can work on our defense."
Q Now, defendant, I want to read to you from your last interrogation; after a question as to whether the testimony is being helpful to you sufficiently so that you want to continue, you spoke as follows:
"This would at least be as important for my defense as that term which is helping the prosecutors case and by which the interrogator has asked me repeatedly; therefore, I have the feeling that I am still in the hands of the prosecutor and not in the hands of a judge in charge of a preliminary hearing and as the indictment has been served, I find myself now in the state of preparation for my defense and I do not find it appropriate that you continue to look formaterial which would incriminate me. Please do not regard this as any criticism or rebuttal because I have never been informed about the procedure to be fell wed in these hearings and I do not know them but according to my knowledge of lawful procedure, this state of affairs is incorrect. I never had the possibility of confronting other witnesses and of reminding them that this and that happened differently and so forth.
"Q Is your statement made in the form of an objection to further questioning?
"A In that sense, as I stated it right now, if there is a possibility to be confronted with witnesses and do some thing about testimony in my favor, I would be very glad to continue but even there I have the feeling that it would be better to do this during the evidence at the trial itself. I believe I should discuss this first with my defense attorney.
"Q Well, if there is any question in your mind about whether you should go further in any interrogayion by the Office of Chief of Counsel, or the U. S. representative to the International Military Tribunal, I think you should talk to your counsel, too.
You have never been under any compulsion to answer either before or since this indictment was served.
I think you will agree your treatment has been fair in all circumstances, "A Yes," and so on.
Is that not correct?
A Mr. Prosecutor, that is just the kind of information that I have been telling you; the material that you justread says that I had not agreed with the stopping of the interrogations, that I said that I had never had any opportunity to be confronted with the witnesses on what I was charged with. It was a confirmation that I asked you to put the witnesses before me so that I might talk with them and I also said that I was glad. Now, I may start with the beginning of my defense. I do not deny that but I wish to deny that because actually that is so, but in this statement which wasnot read to me, I wasnever aware of the meaning. I never said that I would never be at your disposal. I always said that I would be at your disposal, and that I would be at your disposal and I have always said that.
Q Defendant, let us get to the Warsaw Ghetto. Do you recall from the evidence before this Tribunal, that some 400,000 Jews were first put into the Ghetto and then in the final action, SS troops cleared out about 66,000 of which more than 14,000 were killed. Do you recall that evidence? already stated. murdered at the extermination plant at Treblinka? Did you know that? nothing as usual?
Q I ask to have the defendant shown document No. 3840-PS, which will become US Exhibit 803. Were you acquainted with Karl Kaleske? adjutant of General Stroop?
A I do not know the adjutant of General Strupp; the name which you just mentioned to me, "Kaleske," that I do not knew either.
Q Let us get to his affidavit. Do you have it before you now?
Q "My name is Karl KALESKE. I was Adjutant to Doctor von SAMMERNFRANKENEGG from November 1942 until April 1943, while he was SS and Polizeifuehrer of Warsaw. I then was Adjutant to SS and Polizeifuehrer STROOP until August 1943. The action against the Warsaw Ghetto was planned while von SAMMERN-FRANKENEGG was SS and Polizeifuehrer. General STROOP took over the command on the day of the commencement of the action. The function of the Security Police during the action against the Warsaw Ghetto was to accompany the SS troops. A certain number of SS troops were assigned the task to clear a certain street. With every SS group there were from four to six Security policemen, because they know the Ghetto very well. These Security policemen were under Doctor HAHN, Commander of the Security Police for Warsaw. HAHN received his orders not from the SS and Polizeifuehrer of Warsaw, but directly from KALTENBRUNNER in Berlin. This pertains not only to the Ghetto action but to all matters.
Frequently Doctor HAHN came to our office and told the SS and Polizeifuehrer that he had received such and such an order from KALTENBRUNNER about the contents of which he wanted to inform the SS and Polizeifuehrer. He would not do this with every order, but only with certain ones.
"I remember the case of three hundred foreign Jews who had been collected in the Polski Hotel by the Security Police. At the end of the Ghetto action KALTENBRUNNER ordered the Security Police to transport these people away.
"During my time in Warsaw the Security police had been in charge of matter concerning the underground. The Security Police handled these matters independently of the SS and Polizeifuehrer, and received its orders from KALTENBRUNNER in Berlin. When the leader of the underground in Warsaw was captured, in June or July 1943, he was flown directly to KALTENBRUNNER in Berlin."
Are those statements true or false, defendant? been read to you today? Is that correct?
A The statement is not correct. It is not true and can be refuted. you today, is that not so?
A Mr. Prosecutor -
Q Is that so?
A I must say yes. If you give me wrong accusations I have to declare them wrong. I cannot because the Prosecution is wrong in this case say yes to everything of which you accuse me. problems of subordination of all higher police leaders and SS leaders concerning occupied territories. All of them were directly responsible to Himmler. The SS and police leaders were subordinate to him and under its exclusive command jurisdiction the Order Police and Security Police and the entire instrument, the entire system which was active in the occupied territories was excluded from the command jurisdiction of the Reich Central Office. have said. Bach-Zelewiski who was questioned was only in occupied territories and knowns conditions there. There is also the defendant Frank who worked with the SS leader who later became Secretary of State.
Q Your lawyer can call these people. All I am asking you is whether or not this document is true or false and then asking you to make any brief pertinent explanation that you might wish to. these defendants in the box have knowledge about most of those affairs but that is not what I am asking you about. and you have said it is false. Now, is there anything else you feel you have to say about it?
Q Well, how about General Stroop? Did he know anything about it? yes. Troops were subordinate to the higher SS and police leader. Stroop had to execute -
THE PRESIDENT: The translation is not coming through to me.
A (continuing) Your Lordship, I beg your pardon.
Q Stroop was a pretty good friend of yours, was he not? the truth, would he not, about this Warsaw ghetto affair? to the higher SS and Police Leader and that he was not subordinate to me. I would be vary glad if he could confirm that immediately. From your words I must assume that the man is in custody here. from him on exactly these matters about which I have been questioning you.
COLONEL ALIEN: I ask to have the defendant shown document number 3841-PS, which will become U.S. Exhibit 804. BY COLONEL ALIEN: the Tribunal. You will accept what Stroop says, will you witness? you do not question but what he would tell the truth about the happenings in the Warsaw ghetto, isn't that what you have just said, in effect?
A The truth of a witness's testimony has been questioned before but I just said I do not know the document and therefore I cannot define my position as far as Stroop is concerned in this matter.
"My name is Juergen STROOP. I was SS and Polizeifuehrer of the District of WARSAW from the 17th or 18th of April, 1943, until the end of August, 1943. The action against the Warsaw Ghetto was planned by my predecessor, SS Oberfuehrer Doctor von SAMMERN-FRANKENEGG. On the day of the commencement of this action I took over the command and von SAMMERN-FRANKENEGG explained to me what was to be done. He had the order from HIMMLER before him, and in addition I received a teletype from HIMMLER which ordered me to clear the Warsaw Ghetto and raze it to the ground. To carry this out, I had two battalions of Waffen-SS, one hundred army men, units of Order Police, and seventy-five to a hundred Security Police people.
The Security Police had been active in the Warsaw; Ghetto for some time, and during this program it was their function to accompany SS units in groups of six or eight, as guides and experts in Ghetto matters. Obersturmbannfuehrer Doctor HAHN was commander of the Security Police of Warsaw at this time. HAHN gave the Security Police its orders concerning their tasks in this action. These orders were not given to HAHN by me, but came from Kaltenbrunner in BERLIN. As SS and Polizeifuehrer of Warsaw I gave no orders to the Security Police. All orders came to HAHN from Kaltenbrunner in BERLIN. For example, in June or July of the same year, I was together with HAHN in Kaltenbrunner's office and Kaltenbrunner told me that while HAHN and I must work together, all basic orders to the Security Police must come from him in BERLIN.
"After the people had been taken out of the Ghetto, numbering from fifty to sixty thousand, they were brought to the railroad station. The Security Police had absolute supervision of these people, and was in charge of the transport of these people to LUBLIN.
"Immediately after the Ghetto action had been completed, about three hundred foreign Jews had been collected at the Polski Hotel. These people had partly been here before the action, and partly brought here during the action. Kaltenbrunner ordered HAHN to transport those people away. HAHN himself told me that he had received this order from Kaltenbrunner.
"All executions (Interpreter's Note: Carrying out death sentences) were ordered by the Reich Main Security Office, Kaltenbrunner.
"I have read this statement over and I have understood it completely. I have made the statement freely and without compulsion. I swear before God that this is the full truth."
Do you say that that statement of Stoop is true or false?
firms in substantially every detail the story told by Kaleske, who was Stoop's adjutant at the time. Isn't that true, defendant? to my position, in that on page one he declares he had received the orders regarding that ghetto from Himmler, something which Kaleske never did say and that is of value to me. definitely that Hahn, of course, had received orders from Berlin but I do not know as a matter of course the officers of the Security Police worked together with AMT IV, as far as legal matters were concerned. But this is a matter of the Government General taking place in Warsaw. In what complex and in what sphere this happening took place, that is a question all expert witnesses will have to agree to a man that this was in the sphere of the activity of the Government General not of the Reichs Sicherheits Haupt Amt. It is completely wrong that the Sicherheitspolizei members at Warsaw, such as Hahn, were not subordinate to the SS and Police Fuehrer. especially when an action of this kind was concerned, had only one leader and head and that was the local leader. But, Mr. Prosecutor, if as you said you would give me the possibility of defining my position more comprehensively, then I would like to refer back to this matter. is already in evidence as G.B. 306, whichare notes of a conference in the Reichschancellery on 11 July 1944, signed by Lammers and the subject of testimony before this Tribunal the other day. You recall having attended that meeting I presume.
(witness handset document)
Q You do not deny that you were there, do you? here now.
"In Paris, the evacuation of which was considered--"
DR. KAUFFMANN (Counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner): Mr. President, for the clarification of this question, I ask whether it might not be appropriate if the Prosecution questioned Lammers about this matter when Lammers was here in the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Was this put to Lammers?
COLONEL AMEN: Frankly, Your Lordship, I do not know. The document was introduced and identified, and I am not sure whether he was asked about it or not, sir. Sir David says that he introduced the document with Keitel, at the foot of page 9.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, go on. BY COLONEL AMEN:
Q Do you find the place, defendant?
Q "In Paris, the evacuation of which was considered, 100,000 to 200,000 workers could be seized. In this connection--"
A No, I have not found that place, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q Well, it's just above the pharagraph which commences "The chief of the security police Dr. Kaltenbrunner". Do you find that spot?
Q Well, passing to that sentence:
"The chief of the security police Dr. Kaltenbrunner declared himself willing, when asked by the GBA, to place the security police at his disposal for this purpose, but pointed out their numerical weakness. For all of France he had only 2,400 men available. It was questionable whether entire age classes could be seized with these weak forces. In his opinion, the Foreign Office must exercise a stranger influence on the foreign governments." explanation that according to the introduction on page 1, we are concerned with a Chef Besprechung (discussion of chiefs), and by that term we do not mean me, for I was the Chief of the Reichssicherheits-Hauptamt; the highest ministry and the highest departments are meant by that.
determined whether I was there on the orders of the Ministry of the Interior and of Himmler -- and that could be possible -- and whether that was the case; that I was there on the order and instruction of Himmler seems to be evident from the number mentioned here. It is mentioned here that only 2,400 men were to be at our disposal. As far as that figure is concerned, neither the Security Police nor the SD over had any number like that; rather, all forces, even of the Higher SS and Police Leader, and other small organizations, which are subordinate to Himmler, would have to be included in this figure, and I'm sure they were meant by it. explanation, that is, that Kaltenbrunner, on orders of Hitler, is giving Himmler's views; and that is the least which is lacking. But through a questioning of the witness Dr. Lammers, I'm sure we can clarify this matter. question that I could not be helpful because, first of all, negotiations by the Foreign Office and the jurisdiction by the French Government, and competence on my part would have to be considered. Measures to be taken there could not be taken without the agreement of the French Government.
Q All right, defendant. Now, do you recall evidence given before this Tribunal about efforts made by Germans- to incite the Slovaks to revolt against Czechoslovakia and that Hitler used the insurgency of the Slovakians, as well, as one of the excuses for occupying Czechoslovakia in March of 1939?
A I do not know; who testified to that. it not, that you were the State Secretary for Security in Austria? Is that right?
A No, I was not State Secretary for Security. I was State Secretary for the security system of the Austrian Government at Vienna, and that is an entirely and vitally important difference because the Security Police in Austria was instituted and was led from Berlin. not even did my minister.
with your headquarters in Germany?
A That is a completely wrong picture. In Upper Austria there was no Higher SS and Police Leader; only for Austria that is true.
Q Well, when was it? the completion of the business; and that should be able to be traced by looking through the Reichsgesetzblatt. It seems to be in the summer of '41.
Q And isn't it a fact that you, yourself, directed the activity of the Slovakian rebels and assisted them with explosives and ammunition? Answer that yes or no, please. Do you recall having participated in any conference with respect to a plan for instigating this revolt of Slovakia?
A It is not correct; it is false. I did not participate in instigating anything like that. I did take part in conferences at the Czechoslovakian Government, and in the presence of the plenipotentiary of the German Reich.
Q Did your friend Spacil assist you in carrying out these plans?
A That I do not recall today. In any case, they were not German plans. If you recall and investigate political conditions in Czechoslovakia at that time, you will see that it did not need any institution on the part of the German Reich in this movement, which was led by Dr. Tucka. It already made its own decisions of its own accord.
Q Were you acquainted with Obersturmbannfuehrer Fritz Mundhenke?
Q Well, you'll see it on this exhibit which I ask you to be shown now, Document No. 3842-PS, which will become US Exhibit No. 805.
Defendant, this is a fairly long; exhibit, which I don't want to go through in detail; but I first call your attention to the opening lines; "With respect to the occupation of Czechoslovakia two different actions were taken: The first one: Occupation of the Sudetenland and the Border Districts inhabited by German Nationals. The second one: Occupation of Czechoslovakia proper."
And the following lines:
"Some time before the second action, officers of the 'Hlinka Garde' (the illegal or underground para-SS organization in the Slovakian part of the former Czechoslovakian Republic) used to come to the in premises of SS-Oberabschnit Donau (which at the time may still have had its original name of SSOberabschnitt Cesterreich)."Then follow the details of the plans for inciting this revolt.
Then, coming to the end of the first paragraph, you will find the following:
"There secret meeting in which I did not take part. I felt that I was not fully trusted. I saw the gentlemen in Kaltenbrunner is anteroom only and, as far as I can remember, in the dining room. The discussions, the topics of which I was not aware, referred without doubt to the action planned."
Then he gives his reasons. And, passing to the second, page, in the center, you will find the following:
"Kaltenbrunner alone was responsible for these actions. In charge of the actions from the side of the Allgemeine SS was SS-Standartenfuehrer Spacil (nicknamed shortly Spatz). He was chief of the administration of SSOberabschnitt Donau and was called later on by Kaltenbrunner to Berlin and made chief of staff at the Reichssicherheits-Hauptamt.
Spacil was one of the most intimate friends of Kaltenbrunner."
Then, at the close, paragraphs 1 and 2, and sub-divisions:
"I have made this statement:
(1) not from the feeling of hate or just because I like to be a squealer, but from understanding that in so doing I can serve in detecting crimes which I as a German am ashamed of.
(2) being fully convinced that on account of my statements I will be slandered by the other side. I know quite well the men who are trying to make trouble for me and that for a long time. But this shall not deter me from helping the spirit of justice to a victorious end." you, is true or false?
A Both, no. Only someone who knows the circumstances. It is nonsensical and of course untrue.
The document can be characterized best that on the first page in the introduction it says:
"The second one: occupation of Czechoslovakia proper (called afterwards the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia in the Slovakian state)." place by the German Reich in history. The witness cannot be familiar with history or tradition. In this document so many details can he explained in a humorous manner that the worth of this document is equal to zero. I would like to call your attention to page 3 of the German text and to name the men who were readying the occupation and give a clarification to that first of all.
There is mentioned Franz Hourik. He seems to have been a chauffeur. The second is Karl Spitt. He seems to be a chauffeurs. The third is an SS man by the name of Apfelbeck, son of an inn-keeper and a butcher by trade, who was an auxiliary. He had a serious auto accident. He was an auxiliary in theadministrative department. Then we come to Stadler, who was a small bookkeeper. And the man Petenka is unknown to me. by the Reich. That is pure andutter nonsense.
Q Very good, Defendant. All right. That is nonsense. of the Hlinka-Garde in this house at this address at Vienna and I did have a conference with them. This dealt with the unification of the Volksdeutsche, the racial Germans, in the Slovakian State and the Hlinka-Garde. We nominated joing candidates for the Slovakian Government. You can prove my statement. You can find them in the press look, and my name was known there. They can all testify to the truth. But as for as an occupation of Slovakia is concerned, it never took place at all. I believe I do not need to take account of it to justify myself. effect that the civilian population should not be punished for lynching allied fliers has been introduced in evidence, and you have heard the sworn statement of Schellenberg and Gerded to the effect that you in your capacity
ERRATTA SHEET
Subject: Treatment of enemy fliers who have bailed out.
Reference: None fliers who have been shot down need clarification: This measure is necessary and is executed with full consent of the Chief of the Supreme command of the Armed forces
a) in order to prevent frequent escapes, and
b) in view of the severe shortage of personnel in the
a) offer resistence when captured, or
b) wear civilian clothes under their uniforms, are to be mostly carry escape bags with them, filled with daggers, all sorts of maps, ration coupons, tools for escapes, etc. agencies as they represent most important means of assistance for seizure. Forwarding to the air Force is required.
Partly, the order of the Reichsfuehrer SS of 10.8.1943" --which I believe also you testified you know nothing about -- "is not being followed , as it has probably not been disseminated orally - as ordered - to the subordinated police offices.
It is therefore repeated:
"It is now the duty of the police to interfere in conflicts Terror fliers."
inscription "Deutsche Wehrmacht" and a valid seal was found. This brassard is only worn by combat troops, and it gives the bearer access to all militarily and strategically important points in the various operation zones. Parachuted enemy agents are probably going to make use of this new means of camouflage.
During the past months individual cases have shown that the German population does arrest enemy fliers, but then, until their delivery to the Police or the Armed Forces, it does not keep the proper distance.
Too strict measures on the part of the State Police against these citizens, would keep them from arresting enemy fliers without reservation, since these cases must not be confused with the criminal act of helping escaped enemy fliers. applied to citizens who conduct themselves in a dishonorable manner towards captured enemy fliers either out of bad intentions or misunderstood pity:
1) In especially severe cases, transport into a concentra tion camp.
Announcement in the Newspapers of the district.
2) In lighter cases, protective custody not less than 14 days at the competent State Police office.
Employment to within theterritory under the jurisdiction of one State Police Office, the short timed protective custody sentence is to be carried out at the nearest State Police station. The Reichsfuehrer SS has contacted Reichsleiter Bormann in this matter and has pointed out that it is the task of the party officials to instruct the population to preserve the absolutely necessary distance towards enemy fliers. SD with the task to notify in writing thesubordinated offices and sections V and VI of the above degree.
Signed: Dr. Kaltenbrunner Certified:
Rose Office Clerk."
Do you deny thatyou signed it?
A I have never seen this document before. It has never been submitted, to me. As far as my responsibility is concerned, which I mentioned yesterday, regarding problems of direction, Amt IV seems to be the author of this decree, and in these questions this Amt was under thedirect jurisdiction of Himmler.
THE PRESIDENT: I haven't heard the answer to the question. Did you sign it? BY COLONEL AMEN: document bearing your name, is that correct?
A Mr. Prosecutor -
Q Will you answer that, Defendant? You deny this document just like you have denied every other document that has been shown to you today, is that correct? me. Yesterday in my testimony I stated again that I knew that such document were never submitted to me. I must know it today. And perhaps I am guilty of a small offense, that I did not pay more attention whether above my signature things like this were given out. I never denied yesterday that I had a little guilt, but my position can be seen from the testimony of Koller.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand. Are you saying that the signature on the document is not yours, or that you may have signed it without looking at the decree? Which are you saying?
A Your Lordship, this decree was never submitted to me. As far as the signature is concerned, that would have been completely against my inner attitude, for my attitude in this matter can be seen from the testimony of Koller.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not asking you what your inner attitude is: I am asking youwhether the name on it is written by your hand.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to look at the document.
COLONEL AMEN: It is a typewritten signature, Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't want to see it. Yes, let us lock at the document.