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.
by airplane yesterday of which there is only one original copy and which therefore we have not been able to get translated, so I have arranged, if it is satisfactory to the Tribunal, for the interpreter to read the excerpts from that original document, which was taken from Schirach's personal files in Vienna, and then submit the original document to the Court and have it processed just as quickly as we are able to do so. Or perhaps the Tribunal would like to see the document first. It is an original document.
THE PRESIDENT: You will read it so that it will go through into German?
COLONEL AMEN: Yes, Your Lordship,
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COLONEL AMEN: This is Document No. 3876-PS. It is a report issued by Heydrich to all the higher SS and police leaders and Reich defense commissioners on the activities of the Einsatz groups in the USSR during the month of January, 1942, and on the distribution list appears the name of this Defendant. Will you read it? It will be US 808.
THE INTERPRETER: On the right-hand side the document bears the initials in ink SDH, and then several symbols; VR, VH, 403L-519-4BG. And below that 13AOG. At the left top: at Vienna, upper and lower Danube, and in the armed forces district No.17.
The document bears the heading "Secret".
THE PRESIDENT: Is that right--14th of October, 1941?
THE INTERPRETER: Yes, 14 October 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: The previous date that was given was January 1942. That is the explanation of that?
COLONEL AMEN: It covers the month--I think there are two different documents. You are giving the date on one. There is a different date on the other. Is that not correct?
THE INTERPRETER: That is correct.
COLONEL AMEN: Well, give us the date on the other document so the record win be clear.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, we shall be able to understand when we see the document.
COLONEL AMEN: Yes, Your Lordship.
THE INTERPRETER: The date of the second document is April 23, 1942.
COLONEL AMEN: Go ahead.
THE INTERPRETER: "Subject: Report on experience regarding rights in the East. -- Reference:" and then come a number of reference numbers and initials.
"The above decree of the Fuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police in the Minister of the Interior, together with one copy of the experience reports of the Army Group Commander North (?), and the SS police Division, is herewith handed to you for your information and exploitation." The order is signed "Nigel."
COLONEL AMEN: Willyou just go on to the distribution list and read if you find it on the list, this defendant'sname.
THE INTERPRETER: The name of the defendant is not on the distributor. I am coming to the next document. It is not contained in this document and I am now reading the second document.
"Berlin, 27 February 1942. The Chief of the Security police and the SD, 4-A-1," and then several different file references. "Secret Reich Matter. Subject: Activity and situation report No. 9 of Special Action Groups of the Security Police and the SD in the USSR. Attached hereto--
COLONEL AMEN: Just a minute. He is reading thewrong document, your Lordship. We willhave it straight in a minute.
THE INTERPRETER: I am told we are reading the right document. It is the right document, I continue.
"Herewith attached, I submit to you the Reich activity report of the situation regarding activities of Special Action Groups of theSecurity Police and of the SD in the USSR. Situation reports in the future will be sent to you currently. (Signed) Heydrich."
Then there is a stamps "The Commissar for the Reich Defense for the Armed Forces, District 17, received 5 April 1942," and then follows the distributor and the 13th name on it states "To the Higher SS and Police Leader, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Kaltenbrunner."
COLONEL AMEN: No, if you will skip to "C" on that document --
THE INTERPRETER: I now read from page 9 of the document, an extract from the heading "C-"."The attitude of the Jews is still clearly hostile to the Germans and criminal.
We are aiming at cleansing the Eastern countries completely of Jews, Shootings are carried out everywhere in such a manner that they are hardly noticeable to the public. The population, and even the remaining Jews, are frequently becoming convinced that the Jews are merely being resettled. Estonia has already been cleared of Jews. In Lithuania, the number of Jews in Riga, of which there were 29,500, has now been reduced to 2,500. In Dueneberg there are still 962 Jews living, who are urgently needed for labor purposes."
I am now skipping several paragraphs and I continue:
"In Lithuania there are now at Kauen still 15,00, in Schaulen 400,500, and in Wilna another 15,000 Jews who are also required for the purpose of labor. In White Lithuania the cleansing is continuing. The number of Jews in the part which has been handed over to the civilian administration amounts to 139,000. 33,210 Jews have, in the meantime, been dealt with by the Special Action Group of the Security police and the SD and were shot." ment. This is dated "Berlin, 23 April 1942", and the signature or the initial is illegible. It has the heading of the"Chief of the Security Police and of the SD, IV-A-1, and several file references. It is a secret Reich matter. This document, which is signed by Heydrich and which was received on the 20th of April, 1942, states on the distributor, under No. 14, "To the Higher SS and Police Leader, SS Gruppenfuehrer, Dr. Kaltenbrunner -- Vienna."
I now read from page 11 of the report and I read an extract headed "'C-Jews The manner and system, the method used in connection with the cleansing of the Jewish problem was in the territories, in the report, very different. Since the Eastern Territory is mostly free of Jews and since the few remaining Jews, who are urgently required for labor purposes, have been put into a ghetto, it was for the task of the Security Police and the SD in this connection to round up these Jews who were concealing themselves in the country districts, a Repeatedly, Jews were apprehended who had left the ghetto without permission or who weren't wearing the Jewish Star. In Riga, there were throe Jews who had been sent to the ghetto from the Reich, who had escaped. They were apprehended and they were publicly hanged in the ghetto. During large-scale anti-Jewish actions, in Minsk 3,412 Jews, in Wilecka 312, and in Barabowitschi 2,007 Jews were shot."
I now skip three paragraphs and continue:
"In the remaining territories of the Eastern Front, it was the task of the Security Police and the SD, apart from action against individual political or criminally prominent Jews, to generally clean up larger dwellings, larger places and towns. In Rakow alone 15,000 and in Artenowsk 1,224 Jews were shot, so that these places are now free of Jews. In the Crimea 1,000 Jews and Gypsies were executed." BY COLONEL AMEN: you knew nothing about the operations of these Einsatzgruppen?
Q Until after you took over as Chief of the RSHA? Higher SS and Police Leader -
THE PRESIDENT: Answer the question and then you can look at the document afterwards. Do you still say that you knew nothing about these Einsatzgruppen?
THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of the contents of this document. I want to point out that the Inspector of the Order Police is the department which, on the 22nd of October 1941, dispatched this letter -- Reports on experiences in the battle at the Eastern Front and the use of the Security Police and SD, which had been compiled during that period, firstly by order of Himmler or Heydrich and not due to my orders.
This document can in no way prove just what my attitude was to that whole question. If it says on the distributor that the General Higher SS and Police Leader and all service departments were included in it, to whom, those reports were sent, then I do not regard that as proof that those departments -- that is to say, all men who were working in these departments, must necessarily have had knowledge of this report. You can't assume that reports referring to territories, in which the official in question had no jurisdiction whatsoever or no influence, were actually taken cognizance of; that such crimes were committed in the East, that cannot today be doubted at all but what you have to investigage is whether intellectually and legislatively and from the point of view of jurisdiction, I have to stop them, and all that I must definitely deny. BY COLONEL AMEN: copy of which went to you every single month; isn't that a fact? Yes or no?
A I don't know. I don't know how often they did come. This is the first time that I see that report here today. The fact that such reports were made regarding all battle zones cither by the Security Police or by the Order Police or by the Armed Forces, that they were distributed all over the Reich, that of course cannot be denied.
Q That is enough for me.
on your behalf at this trial? at least he has not informed me. Mayor in Oranienburn near Berlin and received a reply to that letter to be used on your behalf?
A No. Please ask him and he will tell you he has not informed me of that.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, are you entitled to go into professional matters between the defendant and his counsel?
COLONEL AMEN: I believe in this instance, your Lordship, because the letter was sent to us deliberately by the recipient of the letter with the expectation that it would be used by us. This is no confidential communication. It was a letter -
THE PRESIDENT: Will you let the Tribunal see the letter?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, this is the first time that I hear of this matter. If the document was supposed to have been addressed to me would it be possible for me to have a look at it before it becomes a subject of this trial?
COLONEL AMEN: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, let him look at it first.
COLONEL AMEN: If your Lordship please -
DR. KAUFFMANN: May I clarify it, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had better hear from Colonel Amen first because he is wanting to introduce the document.
Yes, Dr. Kauffmann, what do you want to say now?
DR. KAUFFMANN: No doubt the Tribunal will havenoticed -
THE PRESIDENT: We have not seen the document.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I have seen the document, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I say we have not seen it yet. We have allowed you to see it first in order that you may make any objection to it that you want to make before we see it and then we will look, at it.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I see.
Mr. President, I am of the opinion that this is an unfair intervention and and infringement of the rights and duties of the German Defense. The whole world may read this document. It is an inquiry made to the mayor's office at Oranienburg.
Oranienburg was a large concentration camp. Since, in particular after consulting with my colleagues, I had the task of clarifying the question of how much the German people knew, for instance. I had written to the Mayor's office and asked questions which everybody may read and I have asked that these questions be answered and I had intended that, if possible, the answers would be submitted to the Tribunal. The same questions have been sent out to other towns and I have already submitted these documents for translation and shall submit them to the Tribunal later. and the reply given to that defense counsel should be submitted here by the Prosecution and disclosed.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, Dr. Kauffmann. What the document that Colonel Amen was offering in evidence was not your letter to the Mayer of Oranienburg nor his answer to you.
COLONEL AMEN: Yes, it was.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon, I thought you said it was a letter that was sent to the Prosecution.
COLONEL AMEN: I said a copy was sent to the Prosecution, as I understand it, not only by the person who received it, there was no covering letter, but also turned over to the British Prosecution in a letter dated 2 April, 1946 from Major Wurmser.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand now. I do not think you said before it is a copy. What I understood was it might have been sent to you by mistake. If it was a copy of a letter which was sent to Dr. Kauffman then the position is clear as to what it was.
COLONEL AMEN: That in my understanding of it, sir, and it is a copy of his letter but I know of no priviledge whatsoever or of any definition -THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by "a copy of his letters"? a copy of the letter sent to Dr. Kauffmann?
COLONEL AMEN : Sent by Dr. Kauffmann to the Mayor of Oranienburg and a copy of the reply made by the Mayor to Dr. Kauffmann, and I think you will see -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.
COLONEL AMEN: I think you will see if Your Lordship reads the communication how it is it came directly to our attention.
DR. KAUFFMANN: May I say one more thing, only two or three sentences, please? of the rights of defense to look into documents of the Prosecution and the thought would never have struck us that documents of the Defense, which were in favor of the Prosecution should be submitted to the Tribunal. answer to that letter and how is it possible that the Prosecution should interfere in such personal connection? I do not think it is fair.
COLONEL AMEN: If Your Lordship Pleases, I think I can clear the whole thing up. --- This is a letter dated 2 April, 1946 from Major Wurmser to the British Prosecution and it reads:
"Attached please find the original correspondence regarding Oranienburg. In accordance with your request I have ascertained that this correspondence was received in the following way.
"It came addressed to the Prosecution and was delivered to the General Secretary. The original was apparently sent directly to Dr. Kauffmann and the sender, the Mayor of Oranienburg, a Mr. Klausmann, dispatched a carbon copy to the Prosecution at the same time, which not only consisted of his answer but also of the letter which was sent to him by Dr. Kauffmann."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think we understand the circumstances now.
COLONEL AMEN: So I think it was sent to the Prosecution for the very purpose that I am now endeavouring to utilize it.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, apart altogether from the question of privilege between counsel and his client, how do you say that this document which is a latter apparently from a private individual addressed to Dr. Kauffmann a copy of which is sent to you is evidence at all?
COLONEL AMEN: Because your Lordship, there is included in the defendant's document book a letter which is on precisely this same point. In other words, this defendant has raised this point in his own defense.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not quite the point. This letter to Dr. Kauffmann, of which you have a copy, is not as I understand a sworn statement.
COLONEL AMEN: It is not sworn, no sir.
THE PRESIDENT: How does it become evidence then? The witness is not here.
COLONEL AMEN: It has the same probative value that many letters introduced here in evidence have. In fact, I think it has considerably more than many of them because it is a letter from an official, from the mayor, who has conducted an inquiry and has ascertained what I consider to be one of the most important matters of the case, namely whether -
THE PRESIDENT: No, I do not want to hear at the moment what is in the letter.
COLONEL AMEN: I cannot think of a thing that was more pertinent than this letter or more important to be brought out at this trial, particularly when it -- well, you do not want me to go into that, particularly when it is something which the defendant has sought to interpose as his own defense and which now turns out -
THE PRESIDENT: But he has not sought to introduce it for his own defense.
COLONEL AMEN: I say he has sought to introduce that issue with the letter in his document book so even if it were not otherwise perhaps relevant it surely becomes so when the defendant has raised that precise issue in his own document book. But even aside from that it seems to me that it is one of the most important issues in this case.