I had enough money for my own purposes, but show me the letter. It is perfectly possible. I had enough finance at my disposal to run that intelligence service. interrogation of Ribbentrop. This is only a copy but, of course, the original of it can be found. It said that in order to exert an influence on the elections they need 400,000 for Teheran and at least 600,000 Tumans for Iran. The last sentence says "I beg you to tell us whether it is possible to get one million Tumans from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We will be able to transfer this money with people who had been sent there. (Signed* Heil Hitler, yours faithfully, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Kaltenbrunner." Ribbentrop admitted that. Do you deny this evidence?
A I wouldn't dream of it but I want to add that as far as this document is concerned, I can't recollect it as easily as all that because it was written in, I think, 1936. I didn't know the contents or can remember it and I know that it was certainly -- it is a letter to the Minister in the Reich which, for reasons of fact, I would have had to sign myself personally. On the subject as such, I am grateful that the last question in this cross-examination is a question which actually refers to my own sphere of activities. You are the first prosecutor to whom I have to express my thanks in this connection and who can at least no longer conceal that my activities extended as far as Iran, that my agents and my activities extended as far as Iran.
Q Is that your signature?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to put to this defendant, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What document is that you put to him?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: This is document USSR Exhibit 178, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: 178?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: 178, yes; that is Kaltenbrunner's letter to von Ribbentrop, Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated 28th of June 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you. Now, the Tribunal will deal with Dr. Thoma's documents for Rosenberg. Is the prosecution ready? Are you ready, Mr. Dodd?
MR. DODD: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be convenient for Mr. Dodd to tell us how the position stands? Would it be agreeable to you, Dr. Thoma, if Mr. Dodd tells us how the position stands?
DR. THOMA: Yes.
MR. DODD: Dr. Thoma has presented three documents and there are two volumes to the first book -- two parts, two volumes, and I should like to take up first, volumes one and two of the first document book. In the first volume one -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already looked at these volumes.
MR. DODD: Well, there is contained in the book and there has been submitted to you a number of authorities, starting with that first document by Falkenberg, "The History of Modern Philosophy" and running down to the "Introduction to National Psychology", by Hellpach, and really, as we understand the ruling of the Court, on the 8th of March it stated that these books could be used, as far as is appropriate for the purpose of argument and to this end, they should be produced and made available to defense counsel; and the Court went on to say that any particular passage which counsel for the defense wish to quote should be incorporated in the document book for translation. and I think I can discuss them as a group rather than individually.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, I don't think we need trouble you upon these documents. We have read them and we only wish to hear any arguments which Dr. Thoma desires to make comments upon.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I would like to stress only the legal point of views.
I would only like to introduce the legal point of views. The Tribunal has to decide whether there is any connection between Rosenberg's idology and the crimes against Jews. As such, I assert that besides that ideology, there are other connecting conditions which have contributed to the establishment of this historical situation, but the main question is this: Did Rosenberg become partly guilty and did he realize the possibility of the dangerous character of his works?
The next question is what is the form, the character of his guilt; if Rosenberg was convinced of the correctness of his deas and if the dangerous result of those ideas was not known to him. Thus I propose to quote facts fr which it becomes apparent that his ideas were backed and represented and see. from the view point of exact science. national socialist demands, for instance regarding the privilige in connecti with the growing of worthless life. They did so before Rosenberg appeared and introduced such demands. Furthermore, I want to point out what the results were of biological investigation of the natural basis of making and the results which this had inhibiting the liberty of man. I want to point out the consequences of that period. I want to draw your attention to irrational views even in the empirical rational time and I want to put out to you what the laws were regarding philosophical conceptions and political movements which were partly forseeable. These facts, established by science, may prove that Rosenberg did not realize the danger of his idealogy or that he underes timated that and that he could not have known about it at the time, namely what the charecter of these ideas were. This probably alters his guilt to a considerable extent. vestigated. These theses should be proved on the basis of the scientific wo of the authors which I am porposing to quote, from the philosphical works various philisphers nal may have been employed for political purposes may appear nonsensical bu I point out that as late as fifteen years ago there were preachings in Ger saying that politics which were infringing on the ethical demands of Chris andom should be considered nonsenical because Christianethics did not beco applicable to the political atmosphere. We know today that this is possible and that is the reason why I am pleading before the Tribunal and because o the difficult considerations they are justified in being here, in my opini That is only one example of the significance of the irrational in poli tics, the belief in the power of the ideal and the moral power. But the qu tion of the casual connection between Rosenberg's idealogy and war crimes may not be mistaken ot mixed up with the accusation of the actual participation of Rosenberg in the murders of Jews and the crimes in the East.
As to that the situation is different. The actual participation of Rosenberg in these matters will have to be proved wrong by me by another special effort. The organizations, too are indicted, the members of which had originally stood under the influence of Christiandom and the so-called youth movement and who allowed themselves to be won over the National Socialism because they believed that in that they would see the possibility for exercising their Christian ideas. ple believed in and what these people were taught. not trying to deliver an empirical lecture but that these are important legal questions before this Tribunal. quoting them. Perhaps Lapouge may not be suitable at all and I will withdraw him. But he particularly proves that certain idealogical laws, even in the legislation of other states, have been employed but Mr. Justice Jacks on objected to a passage from Lapouge and I am prepared to withdraw it. But I wanted to use Martin Buber particularly to prove that we are here concerned with principles which have nothing to do what soever with anti-semitism but this is merely a philosophy which is just as justified as the philosphy of instruction during the last centuries. real spiritual factsconnected with the trial. If I did state these things in my presentation then I would not present it of my own knowledge but I do not want to do that and so I need these books.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr.Dodd, we understand that you object to all up to that book of Hellpach.Then, with reference to the other volumes, the others are all Rosenberg's documents are they not ? The two last are in the same category I suppose as the ones down to Hellpach, are they not? MR.DODD: Yes, There are also some quotations from newspapers.
contained in the document book on pages 182 to 185. We also object to them.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they in volume two?
MR. DODD: Yes, they are in volume 2 of book 1.
THE PRESIDENT: I was dealing, at the moment, with volume one of document book one.
MR. DODD: Those are the objections in volume one.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, you are not objecting to his other books?
MR.-DODD: No, your Honor, we are not.
THE PRESIDENT: In book 2 there is not an index, is there?
MR. DODD: We have no objection to anything that is contained in book 2.
THE PRESIDENT: In volume two of book one?
MR. DODD: We were talking about volume two, book one, is that right?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, yes I see. Then in book two you do not object to book two?
MR. DODD: No, we do not.
THE PRESIDENT: Nor book three?
MR. DODD: We have no objection to book three. I think our Russian colleagues have an objection to the affidavit of Dr. Denker. I would prefer, however, that they address the Tribunal on that subject themselves.
THE PRESIDENT: And then, is there is fourth book?
MR. DODD: No, your Honor, there is not but we have not talked about the second part of the first book.
THE PRESIDENT: Iwas told that you had.
MR. DODD: No, I think not. I did mention the newspaper articles.
THE PRESIDENT: Where are these documents that you are referring to? Are they in the second volume of the first book?
MR. DODD: The first one will be found beginning on page 182 of that second volume of the first book.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, those are the last two in the index.
MR. DODD: Yes they are.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand that you are objecting to them.
MR. DODD: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: But the index in the first volume of the first book is the index for both the volumes.
MR. DODD: Yes, it is.
THE PRESIDENT: What is your objection to all his documents up to Hellpach and the last two?
MR. DODD: Yes, that is exactly right.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand. Soviet Union wish to offer an objection to this affidavit by Professor Denker.
MR. DODD: That is exactly right, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better hear what the Soviets say about that.
GENERAL RAGINSKY: I beg the Tribunal to pay attention to document Rosenberg 38. This is in the third book of documents, page 29. This document is a latter, dated 24 August, 1931.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, is it not an affidavit?
GENERAL RAGINSKY: No. I am referring to two documents, your Honor, document Rosenberg 38 and the second one concerns the affidavit of Denker.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we will deal with document 38 first, that is page 29.
GENERAL RAGINSKY: Yes, that is right, page 29. Rosenberg, concerning some sort of newspaper article. We do not know this paper as defense counsel Dr. Thoma hasnot submitted it and therefore we believe it is not relevant, all the more so that in one of the applications and in one of the explanations submitted, Dr. Thoma did not explain what this document was supposed to prove.
This affidavit is also in book 3, from page 8 to 11, and is Rosenberg Exhibit No. 35. We see that Dencker is a former member of our staff and took part in the commission of war crimes in the territory occupied by the German troops. Dencker took part in the plundering of the occupied territories of the Soviet Union.
I wish to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that Dr. Thoma on the 6th of April of this year, requested the Tribunal to allow the admission of this document. The general undersecretary of the Tribunal asked the opinion of the Prosecution. However, before the Prosecution had taken the stand, these affidavits were put into document book and translated. What are those affidavits? We consider, and it is very easy to prove, that all the information given in these affidavits are false or give an inexact picture of actual facts. They contain a number of false statements, which, of course have already been refuted in documents submitted to the Tribunal, and are read into the record. the possibility of cross-examining him. We consider that these documents should not be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Thoma.
DR. THOMA: Gentlemen, I am agreeable that Dr. Dencker, who states that 180,000,000 tractors and other agricultural material was taken to the Ukraine should be called as a witness. But this document is of incredible significance to prove what was constructed; that the land was not stupidly exploited, but that long term plans were being made in the interest of the country and the population. I therefore ask the Tribunal that this affidavit be admitted in evidence, and, if necessary, I would make an application that Professor Dencker be called as a witness, in case the Tribunal should be impressed by the statement of the Soviet Prosecutor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. THOMA: Furthermore, Mr. President, I want to apologize as to the previous objection to document book No. 3. It was not understood, by me because I do not have my document book No. 3 with me, and I do not know what it is all about.
THE PRESIDENT: The other thing was, on page 29 is a letter, addressed to Rosenberg by somebody without any signature. It is Rosenberg's speech-
DR. THOMA: Oh yes, but that document has been passed by the Tribunal, and the signature is "Adolph Hitler" Apparently, the typist had not been able to read that.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is a Hitler letter, is it?
DR. THOMA: Yes, sir; it has been granted me. It has already been granted to me, gentlemen.
I beg to apologize; I am still quite clear. Is Hellpack the only document granted me in my Hellpack document book or does this mean that only Mr. Hellpack may be quoted, as to Mr. Dodd's objection, and nothing else at all, in which case I should like to have an opportunity to speak in detail about the other offers so I can tell you what I am trying to prove with them?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, we have not made any decision yet.
DR. THOMA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We thought that you had given us the reasons in support of the documents in book 1, volume 1 and 2
DR. THOMA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have given us the reason, it is not necessary for you to say anything further.
DR. THOMA: Yes, but, Mr .President, I thought that, with reference to the individual books, I ought to say very briefly what I am going to use them for; what I am going to prove with then. With Messer, Tillich, Leeuw and Bergson, I am trying to prove that the new romanticism, that is this national philosophy, did with elementary forces break out in Germany, and that it was influenced by philosophers of a French origin -- or French or American. but that it is to the contrary. Martin Buber not only speaks for its employment in practice but also orders it. Particularly, in Martin Buber's works have we got those decisive expressions, which are playing an important part in this trial, the significance of blood, the connections of the blood, the connections of national characteristics in living space, the conception of movement, the figure of inheritage, and so on and so forth. And then, gentle men of the Tribunal, these quotations from Bergson, Buber, Keiter; I want to state in connection with then that these personalities are not National Socialists, but that, in fact, some of them were fighting.
against the ideology of Rosenberg's; but they are the proof for the fact that the ideas of race, people, nation, blood, and soil, are recognized by expert scientists on biology. And Hellpach, in the introduction of world pschology, makes that terribly important statement-and Hellpach is a very famous name in the whole German literature--that every theses will lead to a super-theses and a degenerati.
Gentlemen, I have only; one brief remark to make on the subject. In the last number of the "Die Neus Zeitung" it states that in the French paper "Constitution --and there was a basic argument, an important argument, in this present time; namely, that "we are here concerned with the rights of mankind", and that "one has not investigated which inner attitude men had who were members of the resistance movements"; and one had stated certain theses regarding the liberty and the crisis in human right and certain contradictions were, pointed out. And, gentleme something was stated which was as follows:
"There is a contradiction between the announcement of liberty and the increasing technique of slavery; and we believe in that there is a contradiction between the growing of material richness and the spiritual consumption; and, third there is a contradiction in every shape of progress, since every completion and perfection appears after certain sensations of diffidence have also appeared. Fourthly, there is a contradiction between a humane ideal of the Eighteenth Century and the discoveries of science of man, regarding biology, the deep psychology which represent his ties to the laws of nature. Fifthly, there is a contradiction between the situation created by superficial influence, as paper, pree, radio, and all means of propaganda, which would have lead to an influencing of the masses on one side, and the disappearance of the thinking and highly educated elite." discussed in recent days, and that is why I am asking you, gentlemen, that such questions should be discussed in this trial, since they are decisive for the political and spiritual attitude for our people. points of views, and whether they have deteriorated; that is important and biological development which, of course, includes a certain amount of guilt.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished, Dr Thoma? Have you finished what you want to say?
DR. THOMA: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, of course, has not made its decision yet and it will consider your arguments. But I am bound to point out to you that there is no charge in the indictment or made in this case against the Defendant Rosenberg either that he invented his philosophy or that he held certain philosophical ideas The charge against him is that he made a certain use of his philosophical ideas. That is all I have to say. The only other matter which I want to mention to you is an application you made for calling Rosenberg, not first, but at some other point in the course of his case. As to that, if the Tribunal should come to the conclusion that these other philosophical works are not matters which ought to be considered, is it not really unnecessary to put off the calling of the defendant Rosenberg to some later stage? Would it not be in the interests of extradition that he should be called first?
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, two points I would like to mention on that. I wasunder the impression that any evidence must begin with the calling of the defendant. I assumed that no documents could possibly be read previously, and that is why I made that application that I might first of all produce some introductory documents so that the examination of the defendant could then take place smoothly. The documentswill probably produce speedy evidence. quick introductory to the Eastern question and particularly to the army question, also could be expedited if he would be heard before Rosenberg. That is how I worked it out, so that I would first of all like to read the most important documents--not the ideological ones but those that refer to the administration of the East, and then I would like to call Riecke, and then the defendant Rosenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already indicated that, in its opinion, in every ordinary case, it tends to expedition if the defendant is called first, and, of course, any documents which are material can he put to the defendant in the course of his evidence for any explanation that he may have to give upon them.
DR. THOMA: I believe, High Tribunal, that if I could make quite brief remarks in connection with the documents, it would be even more expeditious than if Rosenberg were to make lengthy statements on these documents of his. That is why I thought I would introduce some of the documents, at any rate, at the beginning--only to save time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, in order that you should be prepared and able to go on on Monday morning, The Tribunal, having considered this matter, rules that Rosenberg should be called first. That is the ruling of the Tribunal. to the documents that are objected to.
I said Monday morning. I beg your pardon. I meant at the end of the defendant Kaltenbrunner's case.
DR. THOMA: High Tribunal, just one brief argument with reference to the question of the ideology of Rosenberg. I am asking the Tribunal to read the statement by M. Menthon, who states that that ideology was criminal since it was interconnected with his activity, not only as the editor of the Voelkisher Reobachter, but he is referring to the mythology that he had as bringing about the pyschological preparation of the German nation.
THE PRESIDENT: I said that it was not a question of what was the origin of his philosophy or the mere holding of his philosophical idears, but the use to which he put these philosophical idears that is charged against him.
MR. DODD: If Your Honor please, I want to make it clear that we do object to the works of Hellpach.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, absolutely.
MR.DODD: Dr. Dix had asked me that his documents be heard today.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is too late now, but we will consider them shortly if Dr. Dix wishes it. We will consider them very soon.
DR. DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): We have discussed it , Your Honor, first of all with Sir David and then I have discussed it with Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Albrecht, and those gentlemen have decided that they should be brought before the Court, but translations have not yet been made, and a decision would have to be made soon so that the necessary work could be carried out. I would be grateful if on Monday we could come to that.
THE PRESIDENT: We will try to do it on Monday.
(Thereupon the Tribunal adjourned at 1320 hours, to reconvene at 1000 hour, 15 April 1946.)
THE MARSHALL: May it please the Tribunal: The report is made that the Defendant Ribbentrop is absent from this session of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: I will deal first of all with the documents of the Defendant Rosenberg. volume II, should be denied, up to and including the book by Hellpach--that is to say, Exhibits 1 to 6; and also Exhibits 7E and Exhibit 8. Exhibits 7A, 7B, 7C, and 7D. I should have said of Exhibit 7 and 7A to 7D. But it rules that those Exhibits, 7 to 7D, are not to be read at the present stage but may be quoted by Counsel in his final speech.
Thirdly, the Tribunal allows Books 2 and 3; and called first and any documents which have been allowed may be put to him in the course of his examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Kauffmann.
DR. KAUFFMANN (counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner): With the permission of the Tribunal, I now call the witness Rudolf Hoess.
RUDOLF HOESS, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Stand up. Will you state your name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me. I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.) BY DR. KAUFFMANN:
Q Witness, your statements will have considerable significance. You are perhaps the only man who knows a situation which so far is unknown and can clarify it, and who can state which circle of persons gave the orders for the destruction of European Jewry, and can also state how these orders were carried out and to what degree that carrying out was kept a secret.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, will you kindly put questions to the witness.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. BY DR. KAUFFMANN: Is that true? to their death in that camp. Is that correct? the figures of the number of those victims because you were forbidden to make them?
the organization and the collecting of these people?
in Auschwitz a sum total of more than two million Jews had been destroyed?
Q Men, women and children?
Q You were a participant in the World War?
Q And then in 1922, you entered the Party?
Q Are you a member of the SS or were you?
because you participated in a so-called murder, political murder?
Dachau?
Q What task did you receive?
Q And how long did you stay there?
Q And from 1938, what job did you have then and where were you?
where, to begin with, I was adjutant of the commandant and later on I became the head of the protective custody camp.
Q During what period were you commandant at Auschwitz? of December 1943. when it was most strongly filled? 140,000 internees at Auschwitz, women and men. Himmler? Please, will you briefly state the content of that conference?
A Yes. In the summer of 1941, I had the order to see the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler in Berlin personally. He told me, in its approximate sense -- I can't repeat it verbally -- "The Fuehrer has ordered the final solution of the Jewish question. We, the SS, must carry out that order. If, now, at this moment this is not being carried out, then Jewish people will later on destroy the German people." "Auschwitz, "he said, "had been chosen because from the point of view of railway connections, it was most favorably situated and also because the extensive sitewas most suited for the purpose of guarding." planned action was to be treated as a "secret Reich Hatter"?
A Yes. He pointed that out particularly. He told me that I would not be allowed to talk to my direct superior Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks about the matter. "This conference," he said, "was one between the two of us only," and that I would, have to observe the strictest secrecy before everybody. mentioned?
Camps at that time and he was a direct subordinate of the Reichs-
fuehrer.
Q Does the expression "Secret Reich Matter" mean that no one can make the slighest hints towards referring to that without endangering his own life,
A Yes, "Secret Reich Matter" means that everyone -- that he was not allowed to speak about these matters to anybody and that he himself was responsible with his head that nothing would leak out about these matters to anybody else.
Q Did you ever break that promise towards any third persons?
Q Why do you mention that date? Did you tell third persons after that date? Silesia, made remarks about the events in my camp to my wife. Later, she asked me whether this was the truth and I admitted that to my wife. That was my only broach of the promise I had given to the Reichsfuehrer. I have never talked about it to anyone else.
Q When did you meet Eichmann? I had received that order from the Reichsfuehrer. He came to Auschwitz, that is, to discuss with me the carrying out of the order I had received. As the Reichsfuehrer had told me during our discussion, Eichmann had been given the task by him to discuss the carrying out of the order with me and I was told that he, Eichmann, would give me any further instructions that were necessary. situation, the position, or that Auschwitz was in a completely isolated position and that if there were any measures taken to insure the carrying out of the task which had been given to you, that all these measures could be kept as secret as possible.
A That was the case in Auschwitz. The camp as such was about throe kilometers from the town, about 20,000 morgans of its surrounding country had been cleared of all inhabitants and the entire area could only be entered by SS men or civilian employees who had special passes.