wish me to but I can hardly think of anything more pertinent than the matter set forth there in the form of an official communication.
THE PRESIDENT: The only question I was asking you was how the particular document which is an unsworn document came to be competent evidence. Has it been seen by the witness who is under crossexamination?
COLONEL AMEN: Well, as an official communication, sir, to his counsel, in the course of discharge of his official duties as a mayor. It is a part of his job.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kauffmann.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, I do not want to talk about procedure. I do not want to go at great length into the question of procedure, which has been touched upon, but I wish to emphasi ze that these two documents have nothing to do with the case of Kaltenbrunner as such. As I have just said, everyone can look at the document but, because this document has nothing to do with Kaltenbrunner, it has right from the very beginning no value as evidence.
COLONEL AMEN: It has even further probative value, Your Lordship, in that if the matters referred to in this letter were known, as described in the letter, to the people in Oranienburg, surely the person who occupies the position as Chief of the RSHA in Germany must certainly have the knowledge which the smallest local civilian appears to have.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal rules that the document is inadmissible.
COLONEL AMEN: That was to have been my last document, Your Lordship, so that concludes the cross-examination, except for one point. There is a witness named Hoess, who is called on behalf of the defendant, and through whom I would like to introduce two exhibits. If he is not to be called, however, then I would like to introduce those exhibits through the defendant. Therefore, I am wondering whether we could obtain a definite statement as to whether or not the witness Hoess is actually to be called by the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, are you proposing to call Hoess?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You are Very well.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I have no further questions to put to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I did not hear what you said#
DR. KAUFFMANN: I have no further questions to put to the defendant.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, we have a few questions to put to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, we understood the other day that the counsel for the prosecution had agreed that there should only be one cross-examination of the defendant Kaltenbrunner.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. We only wish to beg the Tribunal to allow us to put a few additional questions to the defendant. They will not take very long, and they are quite indispensable.
THE PRESIDENT: In the opinion of the Tribunal, you know, counsel ought to settle before-hand what questions are indispensable and then have then put by the counsel who cross-examines. That is the whole object of the scheme. that all the prosecutors had agreed that so far as this defendant was concerned he should only be cross-examined by one?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that was the position. I understand that the Soviet Delegation have some special points, and they were going to ask, as a matter of grace of the Tribunal, whether they could put them.
That is what my Soviet colleagues have informed me.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost?
M. DUBOST: My explanation will be very brief, Mr. President. In principle, the prosecution entrusts one man to ask all these questions. However, it is impossible for the entire investigation and examination to be carried out by one member of the prosecution only, because we do represent four different nations which have, not varied interests, but very distinct ones. The only person whocan ask the question is the one who can represent the interest of the nation. I think, therefore, that the Tribunal should allow us to ask these questions when we wish to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, you aren't applying now, are you, for leave to have a third cross-examination, but you are just speaking on general principles?
M. DUBOST: Mr. President, it is a question of principle. The prosecution has limited itself in order to economize on time, but it requests the Tribunal for authorization to intercede, when it is necessary to do so, in order to represent the interests of a country. interrogation of my colleague of the United States; I do not wish to retard the proceedings. However, I think that the Tribunal could tell us that, in principle, we may remain free to ask questions which concern our countries, more expecially, when we alone are competent to represent the interests of our countries and we cannot transfer this confidence to one of our colleagues.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, could you inform the Tribunal as to what points you wish to cross-examine upon?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. Yesterday, when the defendant was replying to questions of Colonel Amen, he was denying his participation in the extermination of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. He stated then that the Police Fuehrer of occupied Poland, Krueger, was directly subordinated to Himmler and had absolutely nothing to do with Kaltenbrunner.
which have been entrusted to me by the Polish Delegation-
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that point. Are there other points?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Finally, the second point refers to one document which was submitted previously by the Soviet Delegation, and which was not taken up by the first prosecutor, but which is of special interest to us. defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: You are aware that we are going to adjourn at half past twelve for the purpose of dealing with the documents of the Defendant Rosenberg, but you may certainly cross-examine upon these points if you will do it as shortly as you can.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I believe, Mr. President, that we will be able to manage it. BY COLONEL SMIRNOV: document which disclosed your participation in the extermination of the Warsaw Ghetto. Rebutting this document, you stated in detail that the head of the police in occupied territories were directly subordinated to Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and had nothing to do with you. Do you confirm this statement?
A Yes. That requires supplementation. I said yesterday that the higher SS and police leader in the Government General was under Himmler and that in turn the SS and Police leaders were under Himmler. As far as smaller districts were concerned, the higher SS and police leaders were the commanders in the sectors or the security police and Waffen SS. The same applies to the SS and police leader in smaller districts.
Q Maybe you remember your second statement. Did I rightly understand you when you said that you were opposed to the so-called extreme tendencies of Krueger as regards the Polish Jews, and you even strove to hold him back? having Krueger relieved and transferred elsewhere from the Government General.
Q I would like to show the Defendant Frank's diary and will ask him to see page 13, where Krueger speaks, and then page 16. I will now read three paragraphs from this page, page 16. Read and tell us if that is rightly translated:
"There is no doubt", says Krueger, "that the extermination of the Jews influenced the pacification."
A That passage has not yet been put before me here. I am on page 13 of the document. "there is no doubt." I begin again:
"There is no doubt that the extermination of the Jews influenced pacification measures. The police were obliged to carry out the most difficult and most disagreeable tasks, but this was carried out under order of the Fuehrer in the interest of the defense of Europe. We are compelled to exterminate the Jews also in war industries."
"We are compelled to exterminate the Jews also in war industrial plants and from the sectors working for the war industry, if their utilization was not provoked exclusively by extraordinary arguments of military character. The Reichsfuehrer wishes too that even these Jews should also be exterminated. In that respect Zeireis (?) had talked with General Schindler, and we believe that this wish of the Reichsfuehrer cannot be carried out in full.
Among the Jewish workers there are specialists --mechanics and other qualified worker--who cannot be replaced by Poles."
I draw your attention to the next sentence:
"He therefore requests of SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Kaltenbrunner to report this to the Reichsfuehrer and to beg him not to insist on the extermination of these Jewish workers and to leave in the war industrial plants only those Jewish workers who are in good health--so-called "Maccabaeers." We have also came to the same conclusion while exterminating the Warsaw Ghetto. The fulfilling of this task entailed great difficulties."
I skip another sentence and read further:
"There is certain information that the Jews defended themselves to the last, weapons in hand, against the SS and police units." a greater part of the Polish Jews ware exterminated and only a few good specialists remained the extermination would have been harmful to the war industries and that Krueger wrote to you, SSpolice chief, to beg Himmler to let them live? Does this not show that Krueger considered you as his chief and anted through you
A No, Mr. Prosecutor. This document proves something quite different. He himself says that the clearing of the Ghetto at Warsaw had happened before that particular date, and that further he says that he requests that I should go to Himmler to intervene.
What I said there is not contained in the document. On that occasion I stated to Himmler for the first time, "Now I know what is going on." Just how I talked against that is not contained in your document. But I must be given the opportunity to state and prove here that I intervened against these actions and when you cross examine Frank and his witnesses you will come to the conclusion that I am right. I have not finished talking. you will most certainly find out exactly how at that opportunity I made my first and only visit to the Government General and that I made my experiences the subject of a conference and report to Himmler.
You can't accuse me here that on one side I am supposed to have had knowledge of all these things and on the other hand not give me the possibility to say how I reacted. In the last two years of the war I came into a position where I could begin to learn about the situation in the Reich and later on the situation in the Government General. But you aren't giving me a possibility to say, "How did this man react to what he learned, that man who, unfortunately, at the end of the war was a superior official."
Q Why did Kreuger act through you? had gone there. It merely mentions that I had been there as a police official It doesn't state that. The only thing he knows is, of course, that I as the chief of the intelligence service was there and that I had to report to Himmler in that capacity, and so he is asking me that I should report on this matter too. Krueger was secretary of state for the security system in the Government General. He was secretary of state there, and as secretary of state he was under the Government General.
THE PRESIDENT: You are going too fast and you are making far too much of a speech.
General, he was immediately subordinate to Himmler. That must be known.
Q I beg you to answer briefly. Did Krueger ask you to report to Himmler on this subject? That is the only thing I am asking you. administrative officials and everybody talked to everyone else, who was close to the Fuehrer or Himmler, and asked him to give an explanation.
Q Tell me yes or no. Did he ask you to speak to Himmler or not? Then I will put another question to you.
THE PRESIDENT: What did you say to the last question? Wasn't the question "Did you go there?" Colonel Smirnov?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I had another question to put, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you what your last question was
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I was asking the defendant to answer this question and to refrain from making speeches.
THE PRESIDENT: What was your last question?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: This was the last question: Did Krueger ask Kaltenbrunner to report to Himmler on this subject; and the second question Do you want me to tell you the second question?
THE PRESIDENT: I wanted him to answer your question. Will you tell him you want him to answer. Don't ask him two questions; ask him one question. Can't you hear what I said?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask him one question and see whether you can try and get him to answer it. BY COLONEL SMIRNOV:
Q Did Krueger ask you to report this to Himmler, or don't you remember this?
A It may be that he did ask me but not as a superior. You must put yourself in that situation and you must realize what number of people there were; that must also become apparent from the diary. I didn't go there as the Chief of the Security Police or as Krueger's superior but Krueger, like masses of other men, dozens of other men, made a speech regarding the food situation.
Q I would like you to refrain from further argument. You answered my question and that is enough.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the defendant Kaltenbrunner hashad a quotation from Frank's diary read to him. That diary consists of 42 volumes and I should like to suggest that the prosecutor mention the place and the volume and the date of the entry, so that one can establish in what connection the statement appears.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: It is an original copy of Frank's diary and, therefore, I think there can be no doubt as to the authenticity of this document. It is a working conference for 1943, and page 16, and the document is registered as US Exhibit 600.
THE PRESIDENT: He asked you if that has a date.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: This conference was the 31st of May 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what Dr. Seidl wants to know.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I have another short question to put to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on. BY COLONEL SMIRNOV: matters and had no other activity, did he consider the reception of one million Tumans for the buying of votes in Iran as a part of his activity?
A Tumans for the voting in Iran? That was certainly nothing I had to carry out but I admit that, of course, agents from my intelligence did work in Iran.
Q Did you beg one million Tumans from Ribbentrop? Did you ask Ribbentrop to give you one million Tumans? already submitted as USSR Exhibit 618. Ribbentrop admitted that matter regarding the one million Tumans. Does the defendant rebut this evidence of defendant Ribbentrop?
I had enough money for my own purposes, but show me the letter. It is perfectly possible. I had enough finance at my disposal to run that intelligence service. interrogation of Ribbentrop. This is only a copy but, of course, the original of it can be found. It said that in order to exert an influence on the elections they need 400,000 for Teheran and at least 600,000 Tumans for Iran. The last sentence says "I beg you to tell us whether it is possible to get one million Tumans from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We will be able to transfer this money with people who had been sent there. (Signed* Heil Hitler, yours faithfully, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Kaltenbrunner." Ribbentrop admitted that. Do you deny this evidence?
A I wouldn't dream of it but I want to add that as far as this document is concerned, I can't recollect it as easily as all that because it was written in, I think, 1936. I didn't know the contents or can remember it and I know that it was certainly -- it is a letter to the Minister in the Reich which, for reasons of fact, I would have had to sign myself personally. On the subject as such, I am grateful that the last question in this cross-examination is a question which actually refers to my own sphere of activities. You are the first prosecutor to whom I have to express my thanks in this connection and who can at least no longer conceal that my activities extended as far as Iran, that my agents and my activities extended as far as Iran.
Q Is that your signature?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to put to this defendant, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What document is that you put to him?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: This is document USSR Exhibit 178, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: 178?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: 178, yes; that is Kaltenbrunner's letter to von Ribbentrop, Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated 28th of June 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you. Now, the Tribunal will deal with Dr. Thoma's documents for Rosenberg. Is the prosecution ready? Are you ready, Mr. Dodd?
MR. DODD: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be convenient for Mr. Dodd to tell us how the position stands? Would it be agreeable to you, Dr. Thoma, if Mr. Dodd tells us how the position stands?
DR. THOMA: Yes.
MR. DODD: Dr. Thoma has presented three documents and there are two volumes to the first book -- two parts, two volumes, and I should like to take up first, volumes one and two of the first document book. In the first volume one -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already looked at these volumes.
MR. DODD: Well, there is contained in the book and there has been submitted to you a number of authorities, starting with that first document by Falkenberg, "The History of Modern Philosophy" and running down to the "Introduction to National Psychology", by Hellpach, and really, as we understand the ruling of the Court, on the 8th of March it stated that these books could be used, as far as is appropriate for the purpose of argument and to this end, they should be produced and made available to defense counsel; and the Court went on to say that any particular passage which counsel for the defense wish to quote should be incorporated in the document book for translation. and I think I can discuss them as a group rather than individually.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, I don't think we need trouble you upon these documents. We have read them and we only wish to hear any arguments which Dr. Thoma desires to make comments upon.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I would like to stress only the legal point of views.
I would only like to introduce the legal point of views. The Tribunal has to decide whether there is any connection between Rosenberg's idology and the crimes against Jews. As such, I assert that besides that ideology, there are other connecting conditions which have contributed to the establishment of this historical situation, but the main question is this: Did Rosenberg become partly guilty and did he realize the possibility of the dangerous character of his works?
The next question is what is the form, the character of his guilt; if Rosenberg was convinced of the correctness of his deas and if the dangerous result of those ideas was not known to him. Thus I propose to quote facts fr which it becomes apparent that his ideas were backed and represented and see. from the view point of exact science. national socialist demands, for instance regarding the privilige in connecti with the growing of worthless life. They did so before Rosenberg appeared and introduced such demands. Furthermore, I want to point out what the results were of biological investigation of the natural basis of making and the results which this had inhibiting the liberty of man. I want to point out the consequences of that period. I want to draw your attention to irrational views even in the empirical rational time and I want to put out to you what the laws were regarding philosophical conceptions and political movements which were partly forseeable. These facts, established by science, may prove that Rosenberg did not realize the danger of his idealogy or that he underes timated that and that he could not have known about it at the time, namely what the charecter of these ideas were. This probably alters his guilt to a considerable extent. vestigated. These theses should be proved on the basis of the scientific wo of the authors which I am porposing to quote, from the philosphical works various philisphers nal may have been employed for political purposes may appear nonsensical bu I point out that as late as fifteen years ago there were preachings in Ger saying that politics which were infringing on the ethical demands of Chris andom should be considered nonsenical because Christianethics did not beco applicable to the political atmosphere. We know today that this is possible and that is the reason why I am pleading before the Tribunal and because o the difficult considerations they are justified in being here, in my opini That is only one example of the significance of the irrational in poli tics, the belief in the power of the ideal and the moral power. But the qu tion of the casual connection between Rosenberg's idealogy and war crimes may not be mistaken ot mixed up with the accusation of the actual participation of Rosenberg in the murders of Jews and the crimes in the East.
As to that the situation is different. The actual participation of Rosenberg in these matters will have to be proved wrong by me by another special effort. The organizations, too are indicted, the members of which had originally stood under the influence of Christiandom and the so-called youth movement and who allowed themselves to be won over the National Socialism because they believed that in that they would see the possibility for exercising their Christian ideas. ple believed in and what these people were taught. not trying to deliver an empirical lecture but that these are important legal questions before this Tribunal. quoting them. Perhaps Lapouge may not be suitable at all and I will withdraw him. But he particularly proves that certain idealogical laws, even in the legislation of other states, have been employed but Mr. Justice Jacks on objected to a passage from Lapouge and I am prepared to withdraw it. But I wanted to use Martin Buber particularly to prove that we are here concerned with principles which have nothing to do what soever with anti-semitism but this is merely a philosophy which is just as justified as the philosphy of instruction during the last centuries. real spiritual factsconnected with the trial. If I did state these things in my presentation then I would not present it of my own knowledge but I do not want to do that and so I need these books.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr.Dodd, we understand that you object to all up to that book of Hellpach.Then, with reference to the other volumes, the others are all Rosenberg's documents are they not ? The two last are in the same category I suppose as the ones down to Hellpach, are they not? MR.DODD: Yes, There are also some quotations from newspapers.
contained in the document book on pages 182 to 185. We also object to them.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they in volume two?
MR. DODD: Yes, they are in volume 2 of book 1.
THE PRESIDENT: I was dealing, at the moment, with volume one of document book one.
MR. DODD: Those are the objections in volume one.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, you are not objecting to his other books?
MR.-DODD: No, your Honor, we are not.
THE PRESIDENT: In book 2 there is not an index, is there?
MR. DODD: We have no objection to anything that is contained in book 2.
THE PRESIDENT: In volume two of book one?
MR. DODD: We were talking about volume two, book one, is that right?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, yes I see. Then in book two you do not object to book two?
MR. DODD: No, we do not.
THE PRESIDENT: Nor book three?
MR. DODD: We have no objection to book three. I think our Russian colleagues have an objection to the affidavit of Dr. Denker. I would prefer, however, that they address the Tribunal on that subject themselves.
THE PRESIDENT: And then, is there is fourth book?
MR. DODD: No, your Honor, there is not but we have not talked about the second part of the first book.
THE PRESIDENT: Iwas told that you had.
MR. DODD: No, I think not. I did mention the newspaper articles.
THE PRESIDENT: Where are these documents that you are referring to? Are they in the second volume of the first book?
MR. DODD: The first one will be found beginning on page 182 of that second volume of the first book.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, those are the last two in the index.
MR. DODD: Yes they are.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand that you are objecting to them.
MR. DODD: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: But the index in the first volume of the first book is the index for both the volumes.
MR. DODD: Yes, it is.
THE PRESIDENT: What is your objection to all his documents up to Hellpach and the last two?
MR. DODD: Yes, that is exactly right.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand. Soviet Union wish to offer an objection to this affidavit by Professor Denker.
MR. DODD: That is exactly right, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better hear what the Soviets say about that.
GENERAL RAGINSKY: I beg the Tribunal to pay attention to document Rosenberg 38. This is in the third book of documents, page 29. This document is a latter, dated 24 August, 1931.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, is it not an affidavit?
GENERAL RAGINSKY: No. I am referring to two documents, your Honor, document Rosenberg 38 and the second one concerns the affidavit of Denker.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we will deal with document 38 first, that is page 29.
GENERAL RAGINSKY: Yes, that is right, page 29. Rosenberg, concerning some sort of newspaper article. We do not know this paper as defense counsel Dr. Thoma hasnot submitted it and therefore we believe it is not relevant, all the more so that in one of the applications and in one of the explanations submitted, Dr. Thoma did not explain what this document was supposed to prove.
This affidavit is also in book 3, from page 8 to 11, and is Rosenberg Exhibit No. 35. We see that Dencker is a former member of our staff and took part in the commission of war crimes in the territory occupied by the German troops. Dencker took part in the plundering of the occupied territories of the Soviet Union.
I wish to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that Dr. Thoma on the 6th of April of this year, requested the Tribunal to allow the admission of this document. The general undersecretary of the Tribunal asked the opinion of the Prosecution. However, before the Prosecution had taken the stand, these affidavits were put into document book and translated. What are those affidavits? We consider, and it is very easy to prove, that all the information given in these affidavits are false or give an inexact picture of actual facts. They contain a number of false statements, which, of course have already been refuted in documents submitted to the Tribunal, and are read into the record. the possibility of cross-examining him. We consider that these documents should not be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Thoma.
DR. THOMA: Gentlemen, I am agreeable that Dr. Dencker, who states that 180,000,000 tractors and other agricultural material was taken to the Ukraine should be called as a witness. But this document is of incredible significance to prove what was constructed; that the land was not stupidly exploited, but that long term plans were being made in the interest of the country and the population. I therefore ask the Tribunal that this affidavit be admitted in evidence, and, if necessary, I would make an application that Professor Dencker be called as a witness, in case the Tribunal should be impressed by the statement of the Soviet Prosecutor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. THOMA: Furthermore, Mr. President, I want to apologize as to the previous objection to document book No. 3. It was not understood, by me because I do not have my document book No. 3 with me, and I do not know what it is all about.
THE PRESIDENT: The other thing was, on page 29 is a letter, addressed to Rosenberg by somebody without any signature. It is Rosenberg's speech-
DR. THOMA: Oh yes, but that document has been passed by the Tribunal, and the signature is "Adolph Hitler" Apparently, the typist had not been able to read that.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is a Hitler letter, is it?
DR. THOMA: Yes, sir; it has been granted me. It has already been granted to me, gentlemen.
I beg to apologize; I am still quite clear. Is Hellpack the only document granted me in my Hellpack document book or does this mean that only Mr. Hellpack may be quoted, as to Mr. Dodd's objection, and nothing else at all, in which case I should like to have an opportunity to speak in detail about the other offers so I can tell you what I am trying to prove with them?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, we have not made any decision yet.
DR. THOMA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We thought that you had given us the reasons in support of the documents in book 1, volume 1 and 2
DR. THOMA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have given us the reason, it is not necessary for you to say anything further.
DR. THOMA: Yes, but, Mr .President, I thought that, with reference to the individual books, I ought to say very briefly what I am going to use them for; what I am going to prove with then. With Messer, Tillich, Leeuw and Bergson, I am trying to prove that the new romanticism, that is this national philosophy, did with elementary forces break out in Germany, and that it was influenced by philosophers of a French origin -- or French or American. but that it is to the contrary. Martin Buber not only speaks for its employment in practice but also orders it. Particularly, in Martin Buber's works have we got those decisive expressions, which are playing an important part in this trial, the significance of blood, the connections of the blood, the connections of national characteristics in living space, the conception of movement, the figure of inheritage, and so on and so forth. And then, gentle men of the Tribunal, these quotations from Bergson, Buber, Keiter; I want to state in connection with then that these personalities are not National Socialists, but that, in fact, some of them were fighting.