Do you say that that statement of Stoop is true or false?
firms in substantially every detail the story told by Kaleske, who was Stoop's adjutant at the time. Isn't that true, defendant? to my position, in that on page one he declares he had received the orders regarding that ghetto from Himmler, something which Kaleske never did say and that is of value to me. definitely that Hahn, of course, had received orders from Berlin but I do not know as a matter of course the officers of the Security Police worked together with AMT IV, as far as legal matters were concerned. But this is a matter of the Government General taking place in Warsaw. In what complex and in what sphere this happening took place, that is a question all expert witnesses will have to agree to a man that this was in the sphere of the activity of the Government General not of the Reichs Sicherheits Haupt Amt. It is completely wrong that the Sicherheitspolizei members at Warsaw, such as Hahn, were not subordinate to the SS and Police Fuehrer. especially when an action of this kind was concerned, had only one leader and head and that was the local leader. But, Mr. Prosecutor, if as you said you would give me the possibility of defining my position more comprehensively, then I would like to refer back to this matter. is already in evidence as G.B. 306, whichare notes of a conference in the Reichschancellery on 11 July 1944, signed by Lammers and the subject of testimony before this Tribunal the other day. You recall having attended that meeting I presume.
(witness handset document)
Q You do not deny that you were there, do you? here now.
"In Paris, the evacuation of which was considered--"
DR. KAUFFMANN (Counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner): Mr. President, for the clarification of this question, I ask whether it might not be appropriate if the Prosecution questioned Lammers about this matter when Lammers was here in the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Was this put to Lammers?
COLONEL AMEN: Frankly, Your Lordship, I do not know. The document was introduced and identified, and I am not sure whether he was asked about it or not, sir. Sir David says that he introduced the document with Keitel, at the foot of page 9.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, go on. BY COLONEL AMEN:
Q Do you find the place, defendant?
Q "In Paris, the evacuation of which was considered, 100,000 to 200,000 workers could be seized. In this connection--"
A No, I have not found that place, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q Well, it's just above the pharagraph which commences "The chief of the security police Dr. Kaltenbrunner". Do you find that spot?
Q Well, passing to that sentence:
"The chief of the security police Dr. Kaltenbrunner declared himself willing, when asked by the GBA, to place the security police at his disposal for this purpose, but pointed out their numerical weakness. For all of France he had only 2,400 men available. It was questionable whether entire age classes could be seized with these weak forces. In his opinion, the Foreign Office must exercise a stranger influence on the foreign governments." explanation that according to the introduction on page 1, we are concerned with a Chef Besprechung (discussion of chiefs), and by that term we do not mean me, for I was the Chief of the Reichssicherheits-Hauptamt; the highest ministry and the highest departments are meant by that.
determined whether I was there on the orders of the Ministry of the Interior and of Himmler -- and that could be possible -- and whether that was the case; that I was there on the order and instruction of Himmler seems to be evident from the number mentioned here. It is mentioned here that only 2,400 men were to be at our disposal. As far as that figure is concerned, neither the Security Police nor the SD over had any number like that; rather, all forces, even of the Higher SS and Police Leader, and other small organizations, which are subordinate to Himmler, would have to be included in this figure, and I'm sure they were meant by it. explanation, that is, that Kaltenbrunner, on orders of Hitler, is giving Himmler's views; and that is the least which is lacking. But through a questioning of the witness Dr. Lammers, I'm sure we can clarify this matter. question that I could not be helpful because, first of all, negotiations by the Foreign Office and the jurisdiction by the French Government, and competence on my part would have to be considered. Measures to be taken there could not be taken without the agreement of the French Government.
Q All right, defendant. Now, do you recall evidence given before this Tribunal about efforts made by Germans- to incite the Slovaks to revolt against Czechoslovakia and that Hitler used the insurgency of the Slovakians, as well, as one of the excuses for occupying Czechoslovakia in March of 1939?
A I do not know; who testified to that. it not, that you were the State Secretary for Security in Austria? Is that right?
A No, I was not State Secretary for Security. I was State Secretary for the security system of the Austrian Government at Vienna, and that is an entirely and vitally important difference because the Security Police in Austria was instituted and was led from Berlin. not even did my minister.
with your headquarters in Germany?
A That is a completely wrong picture. In Upper Austria there was no Higher SS and Police Leader; only for Austria that is true.
Q Well, when was it? the completion of the business; and that should be able to be traced by looking through the Reichsgesetzblatt. It seems to be in the summer of '41.
Q And isn't it a fact that you, yourself, directed the activity of the Slovakian rebels and assisted them with explosives and ammunition? Answer that yes or no, please. Do you recall having participated in any conference with respect to a plan for instigating this revolt of Slovakia?
A It is not correct; it is false. I did not participate in instigating anything like that. I did take part in conferences at the Czechoslovakian Government, and in the presence of the plenipotentiary of the German Reich.
Q Did your friend Spacil assist you in carrying out these plans?
A That I do not recall today. In any case, they were not German plans. If you recall and investigate political conditions in Czechoslovakia at that time, you will see that it did not need any institution on the part of the German Reich in this movement, which was led by Dr. Tucka. It already made its own decisions of its own accord.
Q Were you acquainted with Obersturmbannfuehrer Fritz Mundhenke?
Q Well, you'll see it on this exhibit which I ask you to be shown now, Document No. 3842-PS, which will become US Exhibit No. 805.
Defendant, this is a fairly long; exhibit, which I don't want to go through in detail; but I first call your attention to the opening lines; "With respect to the occupation of Czechoslovakia two different actions were taken: The first one: Occupation of the Sudetenland and the Border Districts inhabited by German Nationals. The second one: Occupation of Czechoslovakia proper."
And the following lines:
"Some time before the second action, officers of the 'Hlinka Garde' (the illegal or underground para-SS organization in the Slovakian part of the former Czechoslovakian Republic) used to come to the in premises of SS-Oberabschnit Donau (which at the time may still have had its original name of SSOberabschnitt Cesterreich)."Then follow the details of the plans for inciting this revolt.
Then, coming to the end of the first paragraph, you will find the following:
"There secret meeting in which I did not take part. I felt that I was not fully trusted. I saw the gentlemen in Kaltenbrunner is anteroom only and, as far as I can remember, in the dining room. The discussions, the topics of which I was not aware, referred without doubt to the action planned."
Then he gives his reasons. And, passing to the second, page, in the center, you will find the following:
"Kaltenbrunner alone was responsible for these actions. In charge of the actions from the side of the Allgemeine SS was SS-Standartenfuehrer Spacil (nicknamed shortly Spatz). He was chief of the administration of SSOberabschnitt Donau and was called later on by Kaltenbrunner to Berlin and made chief of staff at the Reichssicherheits-Hauptamt.
Spacil was one of the most intimate friends of Kaltenbrunner."
Then, at the close, paragraphs 1 and 2, and sub-divisions:
"I have made this statement:
(1) not from the feeling of hate or just because I like to be a squealer, but from understanding that in so doing I can serve in detecting crimes which I as a German am ashamed of.
(2) being fully convinced that on account of my statements I will be slandered by the other side. I know quite well the men who are trying to make trouble for me and that for a long time. But this shall not deter me from helping the spirit of justice to a victorious end." you, is true or false?
A Both, no. Only someone who knows the circumstances. It is nonsensical and of course untrue.
The document can be characterized best that on the first page in the introduction it says:
"The second one: occupation of Czechoslovakia proper (called afterwards the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia in the Slovakian state)." place by the German Reich in history. The witness cannot be familiar with history or tradition. In this document so many details can he explained in a humorous manner that the worth of this document is equal to zero. I would like to call your attention to page 3 of the German text and to name the men who were readying the occupation and give a clarification to that first of all.
There is mentioned Franz Hourik. He seems to have been a chauffeur. The second is Karl Spitt. He seems to be a chauffeurs. The third is an SS man by the name of Apfelbeck, son of an inn-keeper and a butcher by trade, who was an auxiliary. He had a serious auto accident. He was an auxiliary in theadministrative department. Then we come to Stadler, who was a small bookkeeper. And the man Petenka is unknown to me. by the Reich. That is pure andutter nonsense.
Q Very good, Defendant. All right. That is nonsense. of the Hlinka-Garde in this house at this address at Vienna and I did have a conference with them. This dealt with the unification of the Volksdeutsche, the racial Germans, in the Slovakian State and the Hlinka-Garde. We nominated joing candidates for the Slovakian Government. You can prove my statement. You can find them in the press look, and my name was known there. They can all testify to the truth. But as for as an occupation of Slovakia is concerned, it never took place at all. I believe I do not need to take account of it to justify myself. effect that the civilian population should not be punished for lynching allied fliers has been introduced in evidence, and you have heard the sworn statement of Schellenberg and Gerded to the effect that you in your capacity
ERRATTA SHEET
Subject: Treatment of enemy fliers who have bailed out.
Reference: None fliers who have been shot down need clarification: This measure is necessary and is executed with full consent of the Chief of the Supreme command of the Armed forces
a) in order to prevent frequent escapes, and
b) in view of the severe shortage of personnel in the
a) offer resistence when captured, or
b) wear civilian clothes under their uniforms, are to be mostly carry escape bags with them, filled with daggers, all sorts of maps, ration coupons, tools for escapes, etc. agencies as they represent most important means of assistance for seizure. Forwarding to the air Force is required.
Partly, the order of the Reichsfuehrer SS of 10.8.1943" --which I believe also you testified you know nothing about -- "is not being followed , as it has probably not been disseminated orally - as ordered - to the subordinated police offices.
It is therefore repeated:
"It is now the duty of the police to interfere in conflicts Terror fliers."
inscription "Deutsche Wehrmacht" and a valid seal was found. This brassard is only worn by combat troops, and it gives the bearer access to all militarily and strategically important points in the various operation zones. Parachuted enemy agents are probably going to make use of this new means of camouflage.
During the past months individual cases have shown that the German population does arrest enemy fliers, but then, until their delivery to the Police or the Armed Forces, it does not keep the proper distance.
Too strict measures on the part of the State Police against these citizens, would keep them from arresting enemy fliers without reservation, since these cases must not be confused with the criminal act of helping escaped enemy fliers. applied to citizens who conduct themselves in a dishonorable manner towards captured enemy fliers either out of bad intentions or misunderstood pity:
1) In especially severe cases, transport into a concentra tion camp.
Announcement in the Newspapers of the district.
2) In lighter cases, protective custody not less than 14 days at the competent State Police office.
Employment to within theterritory under the jurisdiction of one State Police Office, the short timed protective custody sentence is to be carried out at the nearest State Police station. The Reichsfuehrer SS has contacted Reichsleiter Bormann in this matter and has pointed out that it is the task of the party officials to instruct the population to preserve the absolutely necessary distance towards enemy fliers. SD with the task to notify in writing thesubordinated offices and sections V and VI of the above degree.
Signed: Dr. Kaltenbrunner Certified:
Rose Office Clerk."
Do you deny thatyou signed it?
A I have never seen this document before. It has never been submitted, to me. As far as my responsibility is concerned, which I mentioned yesterday, regarding problems of direction, Amt IV seems to be the author of this decree, and in these questions this Amt was under thedirect jurisdiction of Himmler.
THE PRESIDENT: I haven't heard the answer to the question. Did you sign it? BY COLONEL AMEN: document bearing your name, is that correct?
A Mr. Prosecutor -
Q Will you answer that, Defendant? You deny this document just like you have denied every other document that has been shown to you today, is that correct? me. Yesterday in my testimony I stated again that I knew that such document were never submitted to me. I must know it today. And perhaps I am guilty of a small offense, that I did not pay more attention whether above my signature things like this were given out. I never denied yesterday that I had a little guilt, but my position can be seen from the testimony of Koller.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand. Are you saying that the signature on the document is not yours, or that you may have signed it without looking at the decree? Which are you saying?
A Your Lordship, this decree was never submitted to me. As far as the signature is concerned, that would have been completely against my inner attitude, for my attitude in this matter can be seen from the testimony of Koller.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not asking you what your inner attitude is: I am asking youwhether the name on it is written by your hand.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to look at the document.
COLONEL AMEN: It is a typewritten signature, Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't want to see it. Yes, let us lock at the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, who is Rose?
A I don't know, Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, can you give any idea how long you will be with your cross examination?
COLONEL AMEN: Perhaps half an hour, depending on the answers of the Defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then the Tribunal will adjourn. We will sit tomorrow at 10 o'clock to continue this part of the case, and will adjourn at half past twelve in order to hear Dr. Thoma and the Prosecution upon his documents.
as chief of the security police and SD issued such instructions to your subordinates.
Do you deny these statements? Yes or no, please. ask the permission of the High Tribunal that my counsel will read the paper which I gave to him at the beginning of the session in which the testimony of Koller, the state chief of the Luftwaffe is given, which defines my attitude towards this problem--that even in the presence of Hitler I stated, "I will not obey such an order." And this was my own inner position. I told my counsel about thismatter yesterday.
Q All right, defendant. Now take a look at Document No. 3855-PS, which will become U.S. Exhibit No. 806, carrying your own name on the bottom of it, whether it be signature, fascimile, or anything else you choose to call it. Do you have the document before you? and of the SD, and according to the notes in the upper left-hand portion was prepared for your signature by Amt IV A 2 B Nr.
A That is the first and very brief mistake, Mr. Prosecutor.
"a) To all (for oral information to the subordinated offices)
b) To the
c) To
d) To BY COLONEL AMEN:
no knowledge of the Hitler Commando Order of 8 October 1942, until some time in ;945. Is that not correct?
A I can't think so. I can't think I did say that. I think that this is the order-the record, that you had no knowledge of the Hitler Commando Order of 8 October 1942 until some time in the year 1945. Is that not correct? Is that not now your position?
A I don't think I did reply in that form.
Q Well, what is the fact? When did you first have knowledge of the Hitler Commando Order of 8 October 1942? 8 October. When did you first have knowledge of that?
A I can't tell you that exactly. probably find that it would be the same as was mentioned in the Armed Forces Report.
Q All right. And you have also denied the testimony of your own witness, Mildner, concerning the existence of a decree issued in July or August 1944, under which the Security Police were to execute members of allied commando groups after questioning them. That is correct, is it not?
USA Exhibit 807, and, before anything else, I want to ask you another it is your own signature, in your own handwriting, that appears at the bottom of that document.
(The document was submitted to the witness.)
Q Oh, it is your signature, is it?
Q Y ou admit that? Is that a fact?
Q And there is no doubt about it in your mind?
Q Now, when you more interrogated before this trial you denied that that was your signature, did you not?
A I don't believe so, no. whether that helps you to remember whether you denied it or not.
"Answer: From that it can only be seen that the Armed Forces intended to write a letter to no; whether rightly or wrongly, and whether I was the right authority to write to, is open to question. In any case, the Armed Forces wanted to got in touch with the Gestapo, as can been seen from this exchange of letters, and I am convinced, that an officer of the Gestapo, namely, that one mentioned on top of the letter, has written this document -- pointing to 535-PS.
"Question: Well, this is the letter that you know nothing about, but that, nevertheless, established just how you accomplished your desire by writing to the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces. That is very clear.
"Answer: But I deny that I have written this letter.
"Question: No, you just didn't know about it, but now do you deny it?
"Answer: I not only did not know the Hitler Order, but I also did not know this letter.
"Question: But you acknowledged your signature?
"Answer: I did not say this is my signature; I only said it I resembles my signature; and I also said it is possible that a rubber stamp bearing my signature was used."
Q "I cannot recall a letter of such contents signed by myself.
"Question: Would it be any more convincing to you if you saw the original letter, signed in ink?
"Answer: I could be more convinced, but it would still not prove that I signed in ink."
Did you make these answers to these questions, defendant?
A Naturally, I don't remember it in its wording, but, Mr. Prosecutor, I would like to reply to you this way. The question of my signature is, of course, always used to get me muddled, and it has been put to me hundreds of times during interrogations, This is the first time I have seen this document, and I have immediately stated, "Yes, this is my signature."
I know my signature; I know what it looks like. However, you have also put signatures to me which certainly did not originate from me. 23rd of January, 1945--it is correct that in 1945, as you put it to me, I did have knowledge of the matter, but a Hitler order issued in 1942 could not possibly be known to me. And if, in your interrogation, I have stated that I have not written this letter, then that is confirmed by the fact that a figure appears on the top, IV-A-2-a, which figure makes it clear that the le tter was written in the department by some official or other. letter, that it may have been submitted to me for signature, together with thousands of other letters. That is, of course, something that I cannot deny. But you can't draw the conclusion from that, that I must have had certain knowledge of the whole affair. You have the wrong conception of thework in that department, and you are obviously ignorant of the scope of the office that I took over, without knowing police work; and it was not to carry out police functions, but to organize the intelligence service and to run it. However, you have no conception of that work.
THE PRESIDENT: Answer questions and don't make speeches.
Q Defendant, isn't the signature on that document before you, No. 535-PS, US 807, precisely the same and identical with your signature as it appears'on Exhibit No. 3803-PS, US 802? Just look at the two signatures, and tellthe Tribunal if they are not identical.
A No, I have never signed like this. I have always sign ed like that--Doctor K--as it is on the document.
Q How about the handwriting? Does that look the same to you, Defendant, or does it look different? to everybody in this courtroom that in his absence one of his officials signed a letter with his own signature.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be able to see the signatures and judge for themselves.
COLONEL AMEN: Very good, sir.
Q Now, do you have the exhibit before you--535-PS? upper corner under Chief of the Security police and of the SD.
A Yes. That letter originated from me, you said?
Q That is addressed to the High Command of the Armed Forces, right?
Q And that it refers to the Fuehrer's order of 18 October 1942, as well as to the other Fuehrer orders referred to in the testimony of Mildner, namely, the Fuehrer orders of 18 August 1944 and 30 July 1944; correct?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I didn't know that Mildner made a statement in this connection. Neither is such a statement known to me nor has it been put before me.
Q All right. Do you note that this document refers to the Fuehrer decrees of 18 October 1942, 18 August 1944 and 30 July 1944? Yes or no, please.
A Yes. It says so in this letter. had knowledge of those decrees, right?
A That is incorrect insofar as the leading point--as far as I am conerned--in this letter is contained in the fifth and sixth last lines, where it says that there cannot be any claims in favor of PW's according to the Geneva Convention.
If, therefore, in an extreme overload of a working day of my activity I really have had this letter put before me, then it would be clear that my first glance would go to the spot where I would have to sign, and then -
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, that is not an answer to the question. The question was whether you knew of the order of the 18th of October, 1942, of the 30th of July, 1944, and the 18th of August, 1944, when you wrote this letter. Did you know?
A No, I did not, Mr. President, but I should very much like to clarify the point. It is clear to me that this was a letter dealing with agents who cannot come under the Geneva Convention because of their not being prisoners of war, and you can't deny the privilege of a power which is at war that men who do not fall under the regulations of the Geneva Convention should be treated by security police authorities. That is the right of any power that is at war, and that includes Germany; and these were rights which had been exorcised in England and other countries.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not here to argue your case now; you are here to answer questions. BY COLONEL AMEN: knowledge of the case of the British fliers who escaped from Stalag Luft 3 in March of 1944 some six weeks after the escape occurred; isthat not correct?
A Yes. I assume it was about six weeks afterwards, at any rate. It was at the time that the foreign office demanded information on it, when the department chiefs came to me and I in turn told them to go and see Himmler. you testified as follows, did you not:
"Question: You remember the case of the eighty British fliers who escaped from Stalag Luft 3 that took place in March 1944?
"Answer: That case is unknown to me.
"Question: General Westhoff attempted to find out from the Gestapo what had happened to these men?
"Answer: If he had negotiations with the Gestapo he did not negotiate with me.
"Question: What do you say about the general proposition that the escaped prisoners were turned over to the Gestapo?
"Answer: Such cases and not known to me."
Did you make those answers--yes or no? obviously misleading. I have never heard of eighty escaped fliers, for instance. We are only talking about fifty now. stated that he didn't discuss the Sagan case with me but that it reached him through the state police and that he has negotiated regarding the taking over of the prisoner of war system, and in that connection during those negotiations Sagan was referred to. ever of the fact that Einsatz groups of the security police and SD were operating in the USSR until long after you had become chief of the RSHA in January, 1943, is that not correct?
Q And you still any that is correct? out the extermination of Jews in the USSR until long after you had become chief of the RSHA?
A It wasn't clear to me until I had the differences with Himmler and Hitler late in 1943. That was when I heard about it. police leader in Austria in 1942, right? time, was he not?
A I don't know when he became such, but I must point out that authoritative powers of higher SS and police leaders were divided into three different classes. In 1941, when I became higher SS and police leader, the jurisdiction was very much smaller than it was, for instance at the end of the war.