(The Tribunal reconvened at 1400 hours)
DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, I am going to leave out the section headed "Renaissance, Subjectivism, French Revolution, liberalism, National Socialism." The contents of that can be summarized in two or three sentences, and I merely beg you to take cognizance of it. I have pointed put that the causes in all these unfortunate movements were the spiritual attitude such as that of anthrocentric humanism as described by Jacques Maritain.
Is Kaltenbrunner Guilty? of the defendant, Dr. Kaltenbrunner. The fatherland was already bleeding from a thousand wounds of its sensitive soul and of its gigantic power. Is this man guilty. He has pleaded not guilty and yet guilty. Let us see which is the truth. was, in comparison with the other defendants at this trial, a man who was hardly known in Germany, at any rate the one who had hardly any association with either the German public or the high officials of the regime. In those days when the military, economic and political fate of the German people had begun to roll with crazy velocity towards the abyss, hate and abhorrence of the executive were at their climax, the more so, as the paralyzing sensation of the hopelessness of any resistance against the terror of the regime had disappeared; people had then definitely turned away from the legend of invincibility preached by propaganda. Suddenly, so to speak, and without the existence of any special ability nor of any application, Kaltenbrunner was drawn into the not of the greatest accomplice of the greatest murderer, from his secluded, and, nothwithstanding the Austrian Anschluss - from the viewpoint of international criminal law - untainted life. And here I add, he came from Austria. I would say born alomst on V-day, and he was drawn into this murder -- not voluntarily, on the contrary, against his repeated resistance, and against his exertions to be ordered to the fighting front.
I can well understand that I will be answered, that I should in view of the sea of blood and tears,refrain from illuminating the phsiognomy of this man's soul and character.
But deep in my heart - and I beg not to be misunderstand - I am, while exercising my profession as a counsel, even of such a man, moved by the universal thesis of the great Augustine hardly intelligible for the present godless generation: "Hate error, but love man." Love? Indeed, in so far as it should pervade justice; buecause justice without this nobility of love becomes plain revenge, which the prosecution explicitly contends to disavow. Therefore, for the sake of this justice, I am to show you that Kaltenbrunner is not the type as repeatedly described by the prosecution, namely the "little Hitler", his "confidant" the "second Heydrich." Dr. Gisevius, hasmade him out to be here in such an altogether negative manner, in fact from hearsay only. The defendant Jodl has testified before you that Kaltenbrunner did not belong to Hitler's confidants who always got together with him after the daily situation conferences in the Fuehrer headquarters. And the witness, Dr. Mildner, has stated on the basis of direct observation, without his testimony having been doubted by the prosecution:
"From my own observation lean confirm: I know the defendant Kaltenbrunner personally. In his private life he was an irreproachable man. In my opinion he was promoted from Higher SS and Police Chief to Chief of the Security Police and of the SD, because Himmler after the death of his principal rival Heydrich, in June 1942, did not want any man anymore or did not tolerate anybody under him who could have endangered him in his position. The defendant Kaltenbrunner was no doubt the least dangerous man for Himmler. Kaltenbrunner was not ambitious to bring his influence to bear through special deeds and to push finally Himmler aside. He was not hungry for power. It is wrong to call him the "little Himmler." The witnesses Eberstein, Wanek and Dr. Hottl have expressed themselves in the same manner. the RSHA, yes, he did indeed take it over to thefullest extent.
Today this man suffers a great deal under thecatastrophe ofhis people and under theuneasiness of his conscience; nothing is more understandable than that Dr. Kaltenbrunner, knowingly or unknowingly, can no longer face the fact that he actually was in charge of an agency under theburden of which rocks would talk if that could have been possible; personality and character of this man will have to be judged differently from the way the prosecution has been doing this.
normal civil virtues, could take an office under his control, which became the very sum total of human slavery of the 20th century,, as far as Germany is concerned. There may be two reasons for taking over this office, nevertheless: One is based on the fact that Dr. Kaltenbrunner, although closely connected with the political and cultural interests of his Austrian homeland; supported National Socialism in its large scope. Because before he turned into the sidepath with his secrets, he marched with thousands and hundred of thousands of other Germans, who desired nothing else than a solution from the unstable conditions prevailing at that time, on that wide road into which theeye of the entire world had insight. Therefore, he was, without a doubt a follower of anti-semitism, however, only in the sense of the necessity for retrograding the flooding of the German race with alien elements, he condemned just as harshly the mad crimes of physical annihilation of the Jewish race, as Dr. Hoettl definitely stated.
Kaltenbrunner surely affirmed also Hitler's personality as far as it did not, by and by become apparent in its absolutely misanthropic and thereby un-German nature. Also fundamentally he approved, as he himself admitted during his interrogation, measures which implied, more or less sever compulsion, as for example, the organization of labor education camps. Therefore, no sensible person will want to question the fact that he deemed the establishment of concentration camps quite proper, at least as provisional measure especially during the war as this had been the case for a long time on the other side of the German border. The establishment of concentration camps, or however one wishes to call those places, at mentioning of which thelistener involuntarily is reminded of words by Dante, is unfortunately not unknown to many states. History knows of them from South Africa for some decades, from Russia, England and America during this war, for the admission among others, of persons who for reasons of conscience do not want to serve with arms. In Bavaria, in the land in which the tribunal presently sits, these sort of camps are also known; known is also the so-called "automatic" arrest for certain groups of Germans. Under the heading: "Political Fundamentals" in item B-5 of the text of mutual declaration of the three leading statesmen about the Potsdam Conference of 17 July, 1945, the statement is contained that, among others, all persons who are dangerous for the occupation orits aims shall be arrested or interned.
The necessity of camps of this sort is thereby recognized. I myself hate the organization of human slavery, but I state openly, that these institutions lie on the way which when followed to the end can and will bring suffering to persons of a different opinion, then desired by the state. By this the crimes in the German concentration camps shall not in the least be diminished. As far as Kaltenbrunner is concerned this man, according to my conviction and as can be affirmed by many witnesses, is in his character and his attitude, apparent since 1943, basically a national socialistic leading personality, who only with disgust took notice of the general trend, of the continually growing wave of terror and enslavement in Germany. For this reason I deem it important to point to the statement of the witness Eigruber, according to which the statement of the prosecution is wrong, that Kaltenbrunner established Mauthausen.
Himmler, about which he testified. Thereby Kaltenbrunner was but prepared to take over the agencies of the domestic and foreign intelligence service, namely in the direction of absorbing and connecting the political intelligence service with the hitherto military one of Admiral Canaris. No doubt it is true the witnesses Waneck, Dr Hoettl, Dr Mildner and Ohlendorf and also the defendant himself have testified that Himmler in making allowance for Kaltenbrunner's wished, from the murder of Heydrich, interpolated himself into the executive body, so that nothing of some importance took place in any executive field in Germany without himmler haying had the final word and thus issuing the decisive order. Kaltenbrunner with Himmler in the following words, which I shall quote because of their importance: "When material problems arose Kaltenbrunner frequently remarked that he had come to an understanding with Himmler to work rather in the field of the foreign political intelligence service and that Himmler himself wanted to take more influence in the executive functions. To my knowledge Himmler agreed to these adjustments, the more so as he believed that he could depend on Kaltenbrunner's political instinct in foreign affairs, as this was apparent from various remarks made by Himmler." V arious witnesses testified that Kaltenbrunner predominantly and from inner necessity actually made himself over to the Intelligence service in domestic and foreign countries and more aid more approached an influence on domestic and foreign politics he was hoping for. I am calling attention to Waneck, Dr. Hoettl, but then also to the defendant Jodl and Seyss-Inquart and Fritsche. Dr. Hoettl testified: "In my opinion Kaltenbrunner never completely mastered the large agency of the Reichssicherheitshaputamt and, from lack of interest for police and executive problems, occupied himself far more with the intelligence servce and with the influence on the entire policy. This he considered his real domain." From the testimony by Generaloberst Jodl I am stressing the following sentences: "Before Kaltenbrunner took over the intelligence service from Canaris he sent to me, from time to time, very good reports from the Southeaster territory, through which I first noticed his experience in the intelligence service.
...I had the impression, this man knows his business; I now received currently reports from Kaltenbrunner, the same as before from Canaris; not only the actual reports from agents but from time to time he sent to me, I almost want to say, a political survey on the basis of his individual reports fromagents. I noticed especially these conddensed reports on the entire political situation abroad because they revealed, as never before under Canaris, a frank, sobriety, and the seriousness of our entire military position." The results therefore, which I must read from the evidence, is as follows: Kaltenbrunner on the basis of the separation of the intelligence service from the executive police functions desired by him actually hold a position in the Reichssicherheitshauptamt which was principally aimed at the intelligence service and its continuous development. I had this intelligence comprised in the meantime, in Europe, from Stalingrad to Leningrad, and on to the Balkans. Kaltenbrunner was the most capable of all the authorities who in Germany wished to find a place for the enemy nation. That was the lifework of this man as he himself wished it to be for the duration of the war. Personally he lived in small economic circumstances and it is the truth when I say, that he steps off the stage of political life just as poor as he ascended it. The witness Waneck once made the statement, characteristic for Kaltenbrunner, that he, Kaltenbrunner, will retire completely from office after the war and return to the land as a peasant. the political and military events this man did not observe theborder-line has desired by himself. His obedience toward Hitler and therfore also toward Himmler had submitted to the apparent necessity in the years 1943/45, to guarantee the stability of the inner-German relations through police compulsion Thereby he became involved in guilt; it is clear, that he can count on a milder judgement of his guilt before the world conscience only if he could have produced evidence that he actually undertook a strict separation from section (Amt) IV of the Secret State Police rightly called demoniacal, if he had in no way participated in the ideas and methods, whic, as I believe, eventually led to the institution o f this trial. I cannot deny that he did not undertake this separation. Nothing is clearly proven in this direction, even his own testimony speaks against him. Thus his statement before the should like to define as the thesis of his guilt:
Question: "Do you realize that very special accusations have been brought against you? The prosecution accuses you of crimes against the peace as well as of your role of an intellectual principal or of a participator in committing crimes against humanity and against the laws of war. Finally the prosecution has connected your name with the terrorism of the Gestapo and with the cruelties in the concentration camps. I now ask you: Do you assume the responsibility for these points of accusation in such manner as they are outlined and familiar to you?" And Kaltenbrunner answers: "First of all I should liketo state to the court that I am fully aware of the serious nature of the accusations brought against me, I know that the hatred of the world is directed against me, since I am the only one here, because a Himmler, a Mueller, a Pohl are no longer alive, to answer to the world and to the court . . . . I want to state at the very beginning, that from the time of my appointment as chief of the Central Reich-Security-Office (Reichssicherheitshauptamt) I assumed the responsibility for every wrong committed within the jurisdiction of this agency as far as it occurred under my actual command, and I thus knew or should have known of these occurrences." Thus the duty of the defense is automatically divided by asking the questions: 1. What did Kaltenbrunner do, good and evil, from his appointment as chief of the Reichssicherheitshuaptamt on 1 February 1943? 2. To what extent can it justly be said that in the essential points he did not possess sufficient knowledge about all the crimes against humanity and against the laws of war? 3. In how far can his guilt be established from the viewpoint that he should have known about the serious crimes against International Law in which Section (Amt) IV of the Reichssicheheitshauptamt (Secret State Police) was directly or indirectly involved? 1. What has Kaltenbrunner done? In this connection, I am passing over the accusation brought against him by the prosecution for his participation in the events of the occupation of Austria and Czecho-Slovakia; no matter with what energy he followed his goal to see his Austrian homeland incorporated into the German Reich, and to the end of this realization use the SS forces under his co mmand; this aim can not have been a criminal one according to the world-c onscience.
Just as little could one, because of the forcible means at that time employed to accomplish the annexation of Austria, which was historically due and desired by millions, reach a verdict of guilt.
Kaltenbrunner was still much too insignificant a man for that. Economic distress - Anschluss movement - National Socialism: This was the way of the majority of the Austrian people, not the National-Socialist ideology; for Hitler himself was from the standpoint of Austrianism a spiritual and political renegade. Yet the Austrian Anschluss movement was a peoples' movement before National Socialism had reached any importance in Germany. Austria wanted to protest against the Versailles and St. Germain ruling, which forbade the Anschluss, by holding a plebiscite in each "Land". After 90% had voted in Tyrol and Salzburg, the victorious powers threatened to discontinue the shipment of food supplies. Hitler's seizure of power paralyzed the desire for Anschluss among those not of the party, but the distress in Austria become still more acute and isolated during the DollfussSchuschnigg regime. The incorporation into the Greater-German sphere of economics, where the removal of mass-unemployment seemed to be the source of hope, appeared to the greatly distressed Austrian people as the only way out. The wave of enthusiasm which on 10 October 1938 went through all of Austria was real. To try and deny this today would be to falsify history. The Anschluss, and not the Dollfuss-Schuschnigg government, was based on democracy. Just as little can one, I believe, according to the reasons mentioned above, reach a verdict of guilty for Kaltenbrunner because of his alleged activity in the question of Czechoslovakia. In my opinion the question of guilt and expiation becomes acute only for the time after 1 February 1943. The indignation of the German people over one of the most infamous terroristic measures, the taking into protective custody, had already before this date become immense. Is it correct to say that Kaltenbrunner himself, of whom many orders for protective custody bearing his signature are in evidence before the court, inwardly abhorred this type of suppression of human liberties ?
May I refer to just a few sentences from his interrogations ?
Question : "Did you know that protective custody was at all permissible and was used frequently ?"
Answer : "As I have related, I discussed the idea of "Protective Custody" with Himmler already in 1942. But I believe, already before this time I had corresponded quite extensively on this subject with him, as well as once also with Thierack.
I consider protective custody, as applied in Germany, only in a smaller number of cases a necessity of state, or better, a measure such as is justified by war.
For the rest I often, and well founded according to the history of law, voiced my opinion and turned against this conception and against the application of any protective custody in principle. I had several discussion about it with Himmler and with Hitler also. I had publicly taken my stand against it at a meeting of prosecutors, in 1944, because I have always been of the opinion that a man's freedom is one of his highest possessions and only the lawful sentence of a regular court of justice rooted in the constitution may limit or take away this freedom. would have spared the German people and the world from untold suffering, and the non-observance of which constitutes the guilt of this man, who, in spite of his right perception, suited his actions to the so-called necessity of the State. He thereby, against his own will and knowledge, became subject to the principle of hatred, which sooner or later will always shake or shatter the foundations of the strongest state. "Right is what benefits the people", Hitler had proclaimed. I well believe that Kaltenbrunner today deeply regrets to have adhered too long to this maxim, and without putting up sufficient resistance. original signature of Kaltenbrunner in connection with orders for protective custody, and I do not think it incredible when Kaltenbrunner deposes that never did he himself put into effect such an order for protective custody by his signature, nevertheless, in view of the tragical results due to so many of these orders, I do not need to say even one word as to whether he is entirely blameless or is much less to blame because these orders had perhaps been signed without his knowledge; then of course the question arises immediately how such an occurrence could be possible in, it is true, an extraordinarily large office.Be that as it may; in affairs of such depth and such tragic outcome one does not feel inclined to make any difference between knowledge and ignorance due to negligence because one wants to hold everyone occupying a post in an office responsible for what happens there. This recognition is also the meaning of Kaltenbrunner's statement regarding his fundamental responsability as cited above. Where the happiness and fate of living men are involved it is impossible to retreat under the pretext of ignorance in order to avoid punishment, at best for the purpose of mitigation of sentence.
The defendant knows this too. Orders for protective custody were the ominous harbingers of the concentration-camps. And I am not giving out a secret when I say that the responsibility for issuing orders for protective custody includes the beginning of responsibility for the fate of those held in the concentration camps. I could never admit that Dr. Kaltenbrunner may have known of the excesses suffering of the thousands who languished in the camps; for, as soon as the gates of the concentration camps were closed, there began the exclusive influence of that other office, the frequently mentioned central department for economy and administration. Instead of referring to many statements of witnesses to this point, I refer to the one of the witness Dr. Hoettl who, when asked about subordination in rank, replied :"The concentration-camps were exclusively under the command of the SS-Central office for economy and administration, hence not under the central RSHA main office and there were not under Kaltenbrunner. In this sphere he had no authority of command and no competency." Other witnesses have said that of necessity Kaltenbrunner should have had knowledge of the sad conditions in the concentration camps, but there is no doubt that the commandants of the concentration-camps themselves deliberately concealed penal excesses of the guards even from their superiors. It is furthermore a fact, that the conditions found by the Allies upon their arrival were almost exclusively the results of the catastrophic military and economic situation during the last weeks of the war and which the world mistakenly took for general conditions of former times. The above statement is fully verified by the statements of the camp-commandant of Auschwitz, Hoess, who, because of his later activity in the system of concentration camps of the central office for economy and administration, had made an accurate survey. For Hoess there exists no inward reason whatsoever to give a false testimony. A person like him, who has sent millions of men to their deaths, comes no longer under the authority of human judges and considerations. Hoess stated : "The so-called mistreatment and tortures in the concentration camps were not, as assumed, a method. They were rather excesses of individual leaders, sub-leaders, and men who laid violent hands upon the inmates." These elements themselves were, according to the statement of Hoess, taken to task for that. I believe I need not go into any more details of how, according to various witnesses, visitors of the concentration camps were impressed and surprised by the good condition, cleanliness and order in the camps, and therefore non suspicion was aroused as to special sufferings of the inmates, put it would be worse than bad taste if I contested the fact that a chief of the intelligence service, if only on the basis of foreign news of atrocities, should not have felt the responsibility in the interest of humanity to clear up any doubts arising along that line.
This lack of knowledge seems to be confirmed by the statement of Dr. Meyer of the International Red Cross for the permission to have the International Red Cross visit the Jewish Camp at Theresienstadt and to allow food and medicalsupplies to be sent in, coming from Kaltenbrunner, seems to be proof of the bad conditions in the camps during the last months of the war; nobody would allow neutral or foreign observers to have insight into the camps, if it had been known that crimes against humanity occurred regularly in the camps, as is asserted by the prosecution. In any case, I do not come to the result that Kaltenbrunner had full knowledge of the conditions in the concentration camps, but that it was his duty to investigate into the fate of those who were imprisoned. Kaltenbrunner might have found out then, that a considerable number of the inmates were sent to the camps because they were criminals, a much smaller portion was there because of their political or ideological viewpoints or because of their race; but then he would have found out about those primitive offenses against humanity, about those excesses and all the distress of these people, that I do contest in agreement with Kaltenbrunner. even the chief of the RSHA found nearly unconquerable obstacles in the hierarchy of jurisdiction and authority of other offices and persons. The improvement of the sad lot of the internees was from 1943 a problem which could have been solved only through the dissolution of such camps. A Germany of the last 12 years without any concentration camps would, indeed, have been an utopia. On the whole, Kaltenbrunner was but a small wheel of this machinery. In the preceding paragraph, I spoke about the subject of the orders for protective custody and of their effect.
Dr. Kaltenbrunner has affirmed the necessity for work education camps, owing to - as stated by him during his examination - the conditions then prevailing in the Reich, to the short comings of the labor market, and to other reasons, and if I am not mistaken, no convincing proof was submitted of mistreatment and cruelties in such camps . The reason may well lie in the fact that these camps were in some respects only related to, but not on equal footing with concentration camps.
With all available means of evidence, Kaltenbrunner has opposed the accusation of having covered orders of execution with his signature. The witnesses Hoess and Zutter state that they saw such orders in isolated cases. The prosecution, however, does not seem to have proved that any such orders were issued without judicial sentence or without reasons justifying the death, with the exception of a particularly serious case reported from hearsay by the witness Zutter, adjutant of the camp commandant of Mauthausen. Thereby, a teletype, signed by Kaltenbrunner, is said to have authorized, in the spring of 1945, the execution of parachutists. An original signature by Kaltenbrunner is entirely lacking. I think I may assert that he did not sign any such orders concerning life and death, because he was not authorized to do so. Dr. Hoettl as a witness stated : "No, Kaltenbrunner did not issue such orders and could not in my opinion give such orders (for killing Jews) on his own accord". And Waneck explicitly confirmed as follows :
It is known to me that Himmler personally decided over life and death and other punishment of inmates of concentration camps. be considered proven. of Kaltenbrunner completely on this point. If such orders were executed on members of foreign powers, for example based on the socalled "Commando-Order" of Hitler of 18 October 1942, then there arises the question of the responsibility of that person whose signature was affixed to these orders, because the misuse of his name by subalterns was possible. It is certain that Kaltenbrunner had exerted not the least influence an originating the "Commando-Order". It can, however, hardly be doubted that this decree in itself constituted a violation of International Law. The development of the second World War into a total was by necessity created an abundance of now stratagems. Even where bona fide soldiers were employed in their execution, a motive of bitterness, humanly quite understandable, over the perhaps gangsterlike conduct of command troops concerned and other things could not justify the order. Fortunately but very few people fell victim to this order of Hitler as defendant Jodl has testified. Perhaps one would ask me whether it is my duty or whether I am only permitted to reiterate such points of incrimination as I have just done, since this seems to be the task of the prosecution. To this I reply: If the defense is so liberal as to admit the negative side of a personality, it surely is apt to be heard more readily when it approaches the Tribunal with the request to appraise the positive side in its full significance.
However, is there a positive side at all in the present case? I believe, I may answer that question in the affirmative. I already pointed out several facts which are connected with the time of the assumption of office by Kaltenbrunner. During the short time of 2 years of activity, this man has made himself a bearer of happy and humane ideas. I wish to remind of his attitude toward the lynch order of Hitler with respect to shot-down enemy aviators.
The witness, General of the Air Force, Keller portrayed the decent conduct of Kaltenbrunner which led to a total sabotage of this order. After first describing the contents of Hitler's order and Hitler's threat then pronounced during the discussion of the situation, namely that all and any saboteurs of this order shall be shot dead, Keller continues to repeat the assertions of Kaltenbruner "Kaltenbrunner said:
The tasks of the SD are continuously given a wrong interpretation. Such matters are not the concern of the SD. Moreover, no German's soldier will do what the Fuehrer demands. He does not kill prisoners and if a few fanatic partisans of Mr. Bermann try to do so, the German soldier will interfere.... Furthermore, I myself will do nothing in this matter...." on that matter. This positive action of Kaltenbrunner, important for the judgment of the actual nature of his personality, does not stand alone. Witness Dr. Hoettl confirmed the fact that in questions of the future fate of Germany, Kaltenbrunner went, if not beyond, at least up to the borderline of high treason. This witness for example confirms that Kaltenbrunner in March 1944 caused Hitler to moderate the plans concerning the Hungarian question, and that he succeeded in preventing the entry of Rumanian units into Hungary.
Dr. Hoettl then says literally:
"Since 1943. I advocated towards Kaltenbrunner that Germany must attempt at all cost to and the war. I informed him of my connections with an American authority in Lisbon. I also informed him that by way of the Austrian resistance movement I had taken up now contacts with an American authority abroad. He declared to be prepared to go to Switzerland with me and there to take up personally negotiations with the American representative, in order to prevent further useless bloodshed."
The depositions of witness Dr. Neubacher run along the same lines. This witness testified to an important positive human action of Kaltenbrunner.
Upon the question whether Kaltenbrunner had assisted the witness in moderating, as much as possible, terror policies in Serbia, Dr. Neubacher answered--and I quote--:
"Yes, in this field I owe much to the assistance of Kaltenbrunner. The German police agencies in Serbia knew of no and of Kaltenbrunner that he, in his capacity as Chief of the Foreign Intelligence Service uncompromisingly assisted my policies in the southeastern territory. Thereby my ability to influence the police offices was accomplished. Kaltenbrunner's assistance was of value in my aspirations to overthrow the then prevailing system of collective responsibility and repression with the aid of judidious officers." Cross, which is duo to the initiative of Kaltenbrunner. The activity of the defendant with respect to this, was portrayed by the witness Professor Burckhardt, Dr. Bachmann and Dr. Meyer. As a consequence many thousands were able to exchange their captivity for liberty. I should like to draw your attention to a few words submitted by the defendant Seyss-In*uqrt on two points. He mentioned that Kaltenbrunner worked for a complete autonomy of the polish state as well as for the reintroduction of the independence of both Christian Churches. I might add that Dr. Hoettl testified that right from the beginning of his activity Kaltenbrunner took care of that position, during which he overcame the energies and resistance put up by Bermann. in this field. Therefore, it seems to me to be of significance to point and his efforts to make Austrian Gauleiters understand that any resistance against troops of the Western powers would be senseless, and that in view of this, irresponsible orders for resistance were not to be issued. This was confirmed by the witness Waneck. The prosecution held Kaltenbrunner responsible for the evacuation and planned destruction of certain concentration camps. I believe this proof may not only be considered as unsucessful, but rather as a proof for the contrary.
Upon the question addressed to Dr. Hoettl, whether Kaltenbrunner had instructed the Commandant of the concentration camp Mauthausen to surrender the camp to the advancing tropps, Dr. Hoettl answered:
"It is correct that Kaltenbrunner issued such an order. He dictated it in my presence for transmission to the Camp Commandant." declared very logically: with professional criminals, was not to be evacuated, an order to evacuate Dachau was devoid of any basis by reason of its -compared with Mauthausen--harmless inmates, according to the testimony of Freiherr von Eberstein, the destruction of the concentration camp Dachau with its two secondary camps was the wish dream of the then Gauleiter of Munich, Giessler. order of Kaltenbrunner had not become known to him; that, however, duo to his position with Kaltenbrunner he would have known it had such an order been issued by the latter or oven if the issuance of such an order had been taken into consideration. with certainty. The witness House in his examination, mentioned an order of evacuation by Himmler as well as directly by Hitler. In this connection it seems appropriate to me to point to Kaltenbrunner's participation in the sad case of Sagan as charged by the prosecution. With reference to Kaltenbrunner's statement, confirmed by the examination of the witness Wielen, it appears to me to be a proven fact that this matter camp for the first time before Kaltenbrunner only several weeks later, after the conclusion of this tragedy. the Einsatz group, deployed upon the basis of Hitler's "Commissar Order" of 1941, were still in existence and functioning after the appointment of Kaltenbrunner. Some facts speak for it; others against it.
Kaltenbrunner denied the existence of those groups for the period of his office as Chief of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt. I do not want to lose myself in details but I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to those doubts. The same applies, for example, to the bullet decree, the Kugelerlass, Document PS 1650, which confirms that it was not Kaltenbrunner but Mueller, the infamous Chef of Amt IV who signed the instructions involved, while document PS 3844, deals with personal signatures of the defendant. It appears to me that the first document deserves preference. May I finally draw your attention to such documents, which are rather inconclusive, insofar as they are based upon indirect observation.
I trust that the Tribunal possesses sufficient experience in evaluating evidence so that I do not have to argue about this any further.
I may be the more justified,in emphasizing the positive in Kaltenbrunner's personality. In how far, however, will I be justified in stating that Kaltenbrunner had actually insufficient knowledge of many war crimes and crimes against humanity which in the course of the last 2 years of war were committed with some kind of participation of the Section IV (Gestapo)? exculpating the Chief of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt? Kaltenbrunner admitted during his examination that he received knowledge of orders, instructions and directives, unmindful of their originating long before, in some instances even several years before his assumption of office, only very late, sometimes as late as 1944 or 1945. particularly, that those orders, contrary to international morals and decency, do eventually go back to a time during which Dr. Kaltenbrunner was still living in Austria. I will not at this moment try to prove in detail those statements of Kaltenbrunner. orders, decrees, directives, etc., were also executed during the period of time in which the defendant was in office as head of the Reich Security Main Office. It is also often very difficult for the defense counsel to follow up the secret channels of knowing or not knowing the defendant. Perhaps the defense counsel sometimes lacks the necessary distance for a free judging in view of the hecatombes of victims spread out across a whole continent and he is unjust. I add that we may leave the character formation of the defendant to history as, even if it is too late, the defense counsel may fail if he wishes to draw the picture of his client.
At his interrogation at Court Kaltenbrunner once ex-
plained the difficult position he was in when he took over his office on February 1st 1943, and I hope that nobody will misjudge this situation. The Reich was still fighting and even in 1943 still dangerous for any adversary colliding with it. But it was already clear that it was a fight for a goal in the infinitely far away and out of reach. Who tries to hold back the spokes of the wheels of a carriage railing into an abyss at top speed will perish. Couples with these conditions, from which there was no way of escaping, there was an officiousness, uncreative are caused by nervous insecurity in all areas of private and public life. Kaltenbrunner said with regard to this situation:
"I beg you to put yourself into my situation. I came to Berlin in the beginning of February 1943. I began my work in May 1943, except for a few visits of introduction. In the fourth year of the war the orders and decrees of the Reich had piled up also in the executive sector already to many thousands on the tables, and in the filing cabinets of the civil service. It was quite impossible for a human being to read through all that, even in the course of a year. Even if I had felt it to be my duty, I could never possibly had made myself acquainted with all these orders". according to the evidence given by the witness, Dr. Hoett and others, the REHA in Berlin had 3,000 employees of all categories when Kaltenbrunner was in office, and that according to the statement of the name witness, Kaltenbrunner never dominated this office completely. whether it was Kaltenbrunner's duty to have himself informed in the shortest possible time about the most essential proceedings, at least in all the offices of the main Office for Reich Security and whether he would not then very soon, after all, have obtained knowledge of, for example, Himmler's and Eichmann's Jewish operation and many other serious terrorist measures.
I may remind you that Kaltenbrunner, in answering my question, declared repeatedly and emphatically before this Tribunal, that he protested regularly every time he heard of such occurrences, addressing himself to Himmler and even Hitler, but that he had had but little success and that only after a long while. The defendant, for example, traces back the stopping of the extermination of Jews by a n order of Hitler in October 1944, to his personal initiative. However difficult it may be to judge whether the power and influence of a single would have been sufficient to bring about the suspension of a program of extermination, already in its final phase, I believe I may say, without being incorrect, that many tens of thousands of Jews owe it to this man that they escaped the hell of Auschwitz and still see the light of the sun. From the statements of Messrs. Dr. Brachmann and Dr. Meyer of the International Red Cross, it appears that Kaltenbrunner asked the International Red Cross to organize relief-shipments to a large Jewish camp at Unskirchen near Wels.
Witness Wanek has charaterzied Kaltenbrunner's attitude towards the question of Himmler's Jewish policy as follows: He says: and discussions, we did not touch the problem of the Jewish policy any more. At the time Kaltenbrunner came into office this question was already so far advanced that Kaltenbrunner could not have had any more influence on it. If Kaltenbrunner expressed himself at all on the subject, it was to the effect that mistakes had been made here that could never be made good." conducted independently of this enterprize, owing to, and through the direct channel of the command of Himmler-Eichmann and says that the position of Eichmann, which already had been a dominating one when Heydrich was still alive, had increased steadily, so that eventually he would have acted completely independently in the entire Jewish sphere.