--that this order refers to a personal communication which I gave to Himmler, and that this order is based on that personal communication, and that on the 26th of July, 1943, I approaches him for the first time for the easing or relaxation or changing of conditions, that in such cases in which up to now people were, committed to concentration camps that they would not be committed any longer, They were minor cases. They were to be committed to labor education camps and there was to be a differentiation between concentration camps and labor education camps. Therefore, in my opinion it was the result of ray first speaking with him against the system of concentration camps.
I would also like to point out that this decree has Roman No.20. It is not a decree which came from the police executive offices but from the administrative level. elements. Now many concentration camps, after your appointment to chief of the RSHA, did you know of?
Q And which were they? twelve.
Q How many were there in all?
A There was a thirteenth. That was the SS punishment camp at Danzig. But in total there were thirteen concentration camps in the Reich. which were alleged to be concentration camps?
A That picture is completely misleading. I saw this chart hanging on the wall. There must be all of those armament centres, factories, etc., in which internees from concentration camps were used for manpower purposes. These must have been characterized as concentration camps on this chart. As for as the ion camps and if so, why?
worked in armament industries, that is, each internee worked in the same enterprise, in the same concern as every other German or foreign worker. The differentiation of difference consisted only that the German worker at the conclusion of his working hours, at the end of the day, returned to his family, but the internee of the labor camp returned to the camp. visited this camp regularly. The witness Hoellriegel testified having seen you in this camp and further testified having seen you at the inspection of gas chambers and while these gas chambers were in operation. There is an affidavit of Zutter's, which has already been mentioned today, who also allegedly saw you at Mauthausen. The Prosecution therefore concludes that you knew about the conditions which were beneath the human dignity and that you knew about them. I am asking you now, are these pieces of evidence correct or wrong? When did you inspect these camps, and what observations did you make?
A The testimony is wrong. In the after years, until 1943, I did not establish any concentration camp. Beginning 1943, I did not establish a single concentration camp in the Reich. Every concentration camp in the Reich, of which I know, and has been shown here, they were established by Himmler thorough Pohl; this also applies to Manthausen and also I must especially emphasize this, the latter, camp Manthausen, about the establisment of this camp, every Austrian office or department was excluded but they were surprised because neither the coception of a concentration camp was known in Austria, in that sense, nor the necessity for establishing concentration camps anywhere in Austria.
A What do you mean by that?
gradually step by step and, of course, by way of intelligence through the Reich I heard about these things.
Q Bid you testify that you saw gas chambers in operation? see a gas chamber.
THE PRESIDENT: You are going too fast. Make pauses between your questions and answers and don't speak too fast. He said that he had gradually by way of intelligence, heard of the concentration camps in the Reich. Is that right
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. BY DR. KAUFFMANN: in the concentration camps.
Q Do you recall my last question?
Q Whether you saw the gas chambers inspection and operation? operation or at any other time. is entirely wrong. The detaining center at Mauthausen, I never set feet in it. I was at Mauthausen but not at this camp, but in the labor camp. The total complex of Mauthausen, as I remember it today, extends over an area six kilometers and within, there is a space of perhaps five or perhaps four and a half kilometers of working centers. There are granite quarries, the largest granite quarri in Austria, and they were owned by the City of Vienna.
and Ziehreiss, you were shown.
A I was just coming to that. The quarry belonged to the City of Vienna and the City of Vienna had a vital interest in this quarry, to use granite to pave their city and they did not want to be excluded from the use of this and according to a Reich law, as I knew later, with the WVHA, Pohl, this large quarry was expropriated from the City of Vienna and through it the City of Vienna was excluded from the suppy of granite. Now, the city turned to me, that I should approach Himmler on this, and that is how it came about, that when Himmler was visiting and inspecting Southern Germany, he visited Mauthausen and Austria and asked me to accompany him and in that way, it came about that I was with Himmler at this quarry, and whether I was photographed at that time, I don't know. At any rate, I have not seen the picture and I couldn't identify my person, anyway. I might add something. Himmler, neither at this time nor at any ether time did Himmler ever take me into a concentration camp or suggested that I do so and as I learned later, he had certain reasons for his not doing so, but I would not have attended such an inspection for I knew very well that as far as I was concerned, he would do with me like he did with others, people whom he invited to such visits, show them imaginary things like "Potemkin villages" and not conditions as they actually were; there were just a few people in the WVHA, who knew how things really were in concentration camps. handful of men. You did not belong to this group?
A No, I did not. This handful was Himmler, Pohl, Mueller and Gluecks, and the camp commanders, as far as concentration camps at Mauthausen is concerned. which we would like to have your views, 1560-PS, which has already been submitted, dated March 1944, the so-called "Kugel Erlass" (Bullet Decree). It deals with the Camp III. "Measures against recaptured prisoners of war, officers and non-commissioned officers, with the exclusion of British and American prisoners of war."
This document is known to the Tribunal in its contents. I do not believe that I need to read it. The defendant Kaltenbrunner is to give a statement, whether he knew.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't hear the reference to it, the number.
DR. KAUFFMANN: 1650-PS, US 246.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps that would be a good time to break off for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHALL: May it please the Tribunal, a report is made that the defendant Goering is absent from this session of the Court.
BY DR. KAUFFMANN:
Q Have you yet the document 1560-PS, and have you read it?
Q This, as emphasized, is the famous Decree Bullet. When did you hear of this?
A I did not know the actual decree; this must have been a decree made long before I came into office. And this copy here, of a teleprint, I have not seen either.
Q I am now drawing your attention to the signature. What is it?
A Mueller. Actually, the man was entitled to give such a signature if such a decree did in fact exist. But I would like to say, to supplement my statement, that in 1944-1945 the liaison officer between Himmler and Hitler, who was Fegelein at the time, attended a meeting when I made a report to headquarters, and I heard him mention the name "Decree Kugel", which is "Bullet". The word, as such was absolutely strange, and so I asked him what it was. He replied that this was a Fuehrer order and that he knew no more than that, except that he had heard that this was a special typo of prisoner of war. I sent a teleprint message to Himmler in which I asked him to look into an order of the Fuehrer which was called "Bullet". At that time I did not know either that the State Police had concerned themselves with the Decree Bullet. Himmler's behalf, and he gave no a decree to read which did not come from Hitler, however, but from Himmler, and in which Himmler stated that he was transmitting a verbal Fuehrer order in this connection. Consequently, I replied to Himmler that this Fuehrer decree was once more indicating to no that the most primitive principles, or the most basic principles, of the Geneva Convention were being infringed, that this was goi ng back to a time long before my activities, and that there had been other violations following that.
I asked him to intervent with the Fuehrer, and I attached to this letter the draft of a letter from Himmler to Hitler, in which Himmler is asking the Fuehrer (a) to cancel that decree, and (b), at any rate, to inform subordinate departments, or rather, to relieve then of that considerable burden on their soul.
Q What was the success of that?
A It was positive. The Decree Bullet was not cancelled, nor were a number of other equally depressing orders, but, as I said, it was positive inasmuch as in February 1945 there was the first ease where Hitler permitted a contact with the International Red Cross to be made. I know that it had been strictly prohibited before.
Q This action on the part of the Red Cross was started by you? And did this action refer to the inspection of concentration camps?
A In that connection I must answer yes and no. The timing did not coincide with the request made in turn by the Rod Cross and its President Burckhardt. He had requested immediate contact. Both attempts, I think, coincided, more or loss.
But please don't misunderstand me. Apart from that, there were, of course, numerous attempts to got in contact with the Rod Cross. I would almost like to say, behind Hitler is back. I am thinking, for instance, of the continuous contact the Foreign Office had with them. hardt's request to visit, or rather, the request put to Burckhardt-you are citing that so as to alleviate your position? However, I don't want to do it at this stage.
Q The prosecution have stated that during the time you were in office two concentration camps had been newly established, Lublin, and Herzogenbusch.
Did you hear anything about that? Who could have ordered the establishing of these two camps? informed about that. First, Lublin, and second, Herzogenbusch, so far as orders were concerned, were subordinate to the Chief of Economic Administrative Division, and were under the Higher Police SS Fuehrer, so that in Berlin we had nothing to do with them.
Q Now, will you please answer this question with "yes" or "no"?
Had the concentration camp at Auschwitz been known to you as such?
A No, I didn't know about it until November of 1943. existed, did you also learn of the significance attached to this camp, namely, that it was distinctly an extermination camp for Jews delivered there by Eichmann?
A No, and it couldn't have been known to anybody as such since the question put to Himmler, why such a large camp was being installedthere, was always answered by him "because of the proximity of the large armament works." And I think he mentioned some. a complete secrecy regarding the facts connected with Auschwitz which he arranged for, that the statement, not only of the prosecution but by anybody else who might have been asked by the Americans "That do you know?"-he could answer with no such statement which might be called credible. I have mentioned, Auschwitz. This affair Auschwitz was under the spiritual leadership of the infamous Eichmann. I am asking you, when did you meet Eichmann?
A I knew Eichmann from my home town, Linz. The prosecution have stated -- and they have tried to construct this in an affidavit--that I was a friend, or at least a close acquaintance of Eichmann. I would like to make the following statement on this, with particular reference to my oath. My conception of a close acquaintance or friendship is different.
I knew of Eichmann's existence in Linz, because his father, the director of the electrical construction company at Linz, had to consult my father in his capacity as a lawyer, and they knew each other.
And, of course, he, as his father's son, attended the same school which was attended by my brothers.
in an SS platoon at Linz, is wrong. When I joined the SS, Eichmann had long gone into Germany, or had escaped into Germany, as I heard later. Possibly I saw him once in Linz in 1932, but the second time I saw him was in February or March of 1945. Therefore, for 13 years I did not see him at all. And after that last meeting I didn't see him again either, was neither a friend of his nor were we closely acquainted. It is true that on that second occasion he accosted me and said, "Obergruppenfuehrer Eichmann is my name; I come from Linz too." I said, "Pleased to meet you. How are things back home?" There was no official contact. conference regardin the so-called "final solution." Did you know about it?
A No. I think that the witness hammers, and an other witness too, stated that Eichmann, possibly under my name, had called a meeting at the RSHA in Berlin, during February or March 1943, a so-called discussion of department chiefs. I have to say to that, to begin with, that I did nominally commence my services on the 30th of January, but that in fact, until May, I was not in Berlin except for certain official visits. I was down in Vienna, where I was creating the basis of an intelligence service, which I was going to take to Berlin on bloc.
Q One further question here. when did you hear for the first time that the camp at Auschwitz was an extermination camp?
Q What was your attitude?
A That is to say, he didn't tell me, he admitted it,
Q After you hoard this, what was your attitude in that respect?
A Hitler's order to Heydrich regarding the final solution of the Jewish problem was unknown to me at the time I took up my office. In the summer of 1943 I gathered from the foreign press and through the enemy radio -
THE PRESIDENT: This isn't an answer to your question. You asked him what he did when he found out that Auschwitz was a concentration camp. He is now making a long speech about Heydrich. You asked for his attitude. I suppose you meant what he did, when he first heard that Auschwitz was an extermination camp, in February or March, 1944. He is now telling us a long story about something having to do with Heydrich.
Q Please try to give me a direct answer to that question. What was your attitude after you heard about that, and quite briefly and very concisely, please? previously, not so much to find a final solution, but particularly because I disliked this type of treatment for the Jews, I interfered just as I had before. That is why I wanted to explain how I had been taken to the questions regarding the Jews, how I had learned about them, and what I had done against them. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q We still don't know what you did -BY DR. KAUFFMANN:
Q That did you do? I am asking you that. the facts and my reactions to them, just as I have to tell you what I heard about it.
Q You told us that. Just explain to us your reactions. afterwards, for technical reasons, I protested to Himmler, but not only did I draw their attention to my personal views and attitude and my completely different conception, which I had brought over from Austria, and my humanitarian qualms that I had, but immediately on the first day in practically every one of my foreign intelligence reports right to the very end I said there was no hostile power that could in any way have any negotiations with a Reich which had burdened itself with this guilt.
Those were the demands I put to Himmler and Hitler. And particularly through the intelligence sector it would have been necessary to create conditions which could have served discussions with the states of the enemy.
Q When did the Jewish persecution end? intervention? this is mine, although a number of other personalities too worked in the same direction. But I do not think that there was anybody who on every occasion reproached Himmler in that connection and I don't think either that there was anybody who would have spoken as openly and frankly and with so much denial to Hitler as I did. Hitler and Himmler to the RSHA and then to Eichmann, or did this order have a personal character outside the competence of the RSHA? wasn't there when these orders were issued; but I have clues which make me believe that the channel for this order was: Hitler, Heydrich, Eichmann, and that Himmler was informed shortly after Heydrich and that Himmler after Heydrich's death, together with Eichmann, and probably often excluding Mueller, cooperated directly -to put to you -- stated on the 3rd of January that between April, 1942, and October, 1944, there had been a practical execution of that final solution. Wisleceny stated -- referred to a personal order from Himmler and he also stated that Eichmann was the person who was personally directly charged with the task, but he also goes on to say, "The extermination of Jews continued under Kaltenbrunner without any reduction or alleviation. Correspondence with thoughts from Eichmann at regular intervals went through Mueller and Kaltenbrunner. In 1944 Eichmann personally had called on Kaltenbrunner in such reports to Himmler."
That was Wisleceny's statement. And now my question: Is this statement the truth in principle?
A This statement, is wrong, but I can clarify it. So as to begin with the end of the story; Wisclocony may have seen my signature but not that report to Himmler which I had received from Eichmann at Wille. It was on a letter which I have written to Himmler and a copy of this I had passed on to Mueller and Eichmann for their information and in which I referred to my last report--verbal report-- to Himmler, regarding the Jewish question, which was the first time that I heard that Eichmann was being active in that respect, and so as to clarify it from the beginningwith Eichmann that I did not want to be associated with that activity I wrote via Mueller who was given a copy of the letter to Himmler, given to Eichmann, and in that it said I now asked him to define his attitude so that since the Fuehrer had ordered me to go to see him and since I wanted to report Himmler's activities and wanted a find solution from the Fuehrer on the whole subject. heard from Eichmann that a total number of four to five million Jewish persons had been exterminated and about two million of them in Auschwitz. Have you heard any such figures? that subject and asked him whether he had any idea of all those crimes. That is the reason I put that question to him, so that he would understand the extent of the catastrophe which was going on. He replied to me that he had no figures at his disposal. I don't believe it. I am convinced he did have them. you re fuse it? he able to prove through Burckhardt that there was nobody who exposed himself more on this question in favor of another solution. 289. It is a letter from the Reich Commissar for Riga and dated 13 June 1943. It refers to the Jewish attitude, action at the prison in Minsk. It is a letter from the commandant of the prison, addressed to the Gen eral Commissar for White Ruthenia at Minsk.
Please will, you make a statement based, on that document. that this letter could not have been brought to my knowledge. But I can also see from its contents, which I don't know. Presumably these are events which occurred before I came into office, because if the person is reporting in June, 1943, then this must refer to events which occurred previously to that date and which would have taken a certain amount of time to reach him.
Q Now, Exhibit 473, U.S.A. Exhibit 542, is a letter from the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, dated December 4 1944. This is used by the Prosecution too to make it the basis of severe accusations against Defendant Kaltenbrunner. It refers to the combatting of criminals amongst the Polish and Soviet Russian civilian workers, and as a means for their apprehension the Criminal Police have at their disposal police detention and their transfer to a concentration camp on the charge of being anti-social or dangerous. The document has the signature, "Dr. Kaltenbrunner" What are your views on that?
Q Do you deny having signed this letter at all; or, to be more accurate, did you have any knowledge of the situation?
Q I now submit document 1276-PS, USA Exhibit 525. The Prosecution has referred to this document. This refers to the effects of Hitler's order dated 18 October 1942, and according to this, parachutists and sabotage troops are to be exterminated and commandos are to be surrendered to the SD. In a letter which has a signature "Mueller", dated 17 June 1944 addressed to the Supreme Command, it says that such parachutists in British uniform, in accordance with Hitler's order, are to be treated in that manner. I am now asking you if you knew of this document signed by Mueller, dated 17 June 1944, and did you in any way know of this affair at all which is the basis of this document? should like to say in this connection that this order of Hitler's and his basic attitude to the whole question became known to me later. I think this happened at the headquarters in February 1943 and there, before witnesses and publicly, I stated that such treatment of soldiers and prisoners would not only be refused by me, but that any such order from Hitler would not be carried out by me. I think another defendant here is calling a witness by the name of Koller, and I ask you to ask this witness, who was at that time the Chief of Staff of the Air Forces, how I stated in Hitler's personal presence what my attitude was regarding that question, which I heard of for the first time in 1943 as being his personal opinion. I cannot do more than to state before the strongest and most mighty man, who said that anyone who would not obey an order would be shot -- I cannot do more than to say in his presence to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force that I will not obey such an order.
Q I now come to document 2990-PS, US Exhibit 326. This is an affidavit from the witness Schellenberg. According to it, in 1944 a meeting took place between Kaltenbrunner and Mueller. Kaltenbrunner is supposed to have stated that actions of the populations against terrorist fliers must not be interfered with and that, to the contrary, the hostile attitude of the population must be supported. I shall quote a few sentences from the examination of the witness Schellenberg on 3 January 1946, where he says:
"In 1944 on some other occasion I heard fragments from a conversation which was taking place between Kaltenbrunner and Mueller. The following remark remains clearly in my recollection: 'All departments of the Security Police and the SD--'" This is what Kaltenbrunner said -- "'must be informed that actions on the part of the population against British and American terrorist fliers must not be interfered with.' An order was in existence in this respect from Himmler dated 10 August 1943, which was given to the SD, and in accordance with that order, it was not the task of the Police to interfere with such clashes."
Do you know Schellenberg? credibility with respect to this document. Schellenberg was under Heydrich's protection, and -
THE PRESIDENT: He wants to know whether you know Schellenberg. That is a question you can answer.
The question was, "Do you know Schellenberg." And he goes off into a long speech without answering the question.
Q Did you know Schellenberg? Yes or no.
A Yes, of course. He was the Chief of Department VI.
Q My second question: what was the relationship between you and the Chief of Department VI, and do you consider this statement of his as being true and correct? reasons so that the Tribunal can estimate the value of that statement. Schellenberg was Himmler's most intimate friend. By Himmler's order, he remained with him to the last day. He is a man who was acting on Himmler's behalf when contact was made with the Swedish Count Bernadotte. He was the man who at the very last minute, through Mr. Muehse in Switzerland, established a connection which was used to liberate a very few Jewish detainees who were sent to Switzerland and other countries abroad so that a favorable impression could be created for Himmler and Schellenberg abroad. He is the man who, together with another friend of Himmler's, carried out an action so as to use an organization of Rabbis to make a pact which was to be published in some large papers in America in headlines saying that there should be a better press for Hitler.
These tricks I have criticized before Himmler and Hitler and discredited them and said that it was unworthy of the cause and of the Reich that in so important a matter, this method should be used , such as were being used by Schellenberg. I said the only correct way would be the immediate taking up of connections with the Red Cross. Consequently, I prejudiced Himmler before President Burckhardt, and I forced him to adept a different attitude in this connection by asking Burckhardt personally to visit these camps. Himmler must be disappointed about what I was doing and why he is now interested in accusing me of breaking my word internationally; and is implicating you wrongly?
Q Now, then, in this document of Schellenberg's the events are referred to in connection with those 30 fliers, and Schellenberg reports that you, together with Mueller and Nebe, had a conference and that you, together, were trying to find an excuse so that the true events could be camouflaged from the public. I am asking you when did you first hear of the shooting of these 50 fliers?
Q No, when did you hear of it? A simple question, please. it happened.
Q My next question: Do you want to say with that that you were not participating in the shooting of these men in any way, but that to the contrary you were made acquainted with the matter much later? once more exclusively concerned with the later attempt to camouflage the matter?
Q I am now coming to document 835-PS, USA Exhibit 527. The Prosecution has used that document against the defendant. It is the so-called "Nacht und Nebel Decree" -- the "Night and Fog Decree", which is an order from Hitler dated 7 December 1941, Is the expression "Night and Fog Decree" familiar to you? Where did you hear of it for the first time? to you, is a letter from the OKW dated 2 September 1944, addressed to the German Armistice Commission. It is signed by Dr. Lehmann, and it says with reference to the decree that it is stated that all non-German civilians in occupied territories who could interfere with the security or readiness of the occupying forces by means of terror or sabotage or in any other way are to be handed over to the Security Police and the SD. In the case of so important a matter, it appears improbable that the matter and the decree were not known to you.
the situation. May I first of all say, please, that in no document is there better proof for the fact that the SD is wrongfully attributed an executive function. No document makes that clearer than this. It says here on line four:
"--in any other way should be handed over to the Security police and SD." thing, that matters should be handed over to two different authorities; either it is the Security Police or the SD. appeared in Fuehrer decrees which was because Heydrich's designation was Chief of the Security Police and SD and because this was always abbreviated as SD but it is a complete mistake. But I am not trying to save the SD from the consequences of other matters which it may have committed. I am merely trying to ascertain that its executive jurisdiction is wrongfully referred to. mentioned also.
A Yes and to that I want to say the following. This Fuehrer decree from the year 1941 was not known to me. I am asking you to put yourself in my position. At the beginning of 1943 I came to Berlin. With the exception of a few official visits I commenced by actual activity in May 1943. Reich and even in the executive sector arrived in thousands of numbers and were accumulating on the desks of the civil servants. It was absolute impossible for any man even to read them all within a year and it was quite impossible for me to know of the existence of all those orders even if I had considered it my duty to do so. But it was not my duty at all and then I am asking you to consider the following fact.