dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
KALTENBRUNNER: The contents are not correct, when given the interpretation you are giving to the document. You will see immediately that the tragic expression "special treatment" is given here an absolutely humorous turn. Do you know the meaning of Winzerstube in Godesberg, and of Walsertraum in the Walsertal, and their relation to the term "Sonderbehandlung"? Walsertraum is the smartest and most fashionable Alpine hotel of the whole German Reich, and the Winzerstube is a very famous hotel in Godesberg in which many international meetings were held. Especially qualified and distinguished personalities were accommodated there-I would mention M. Poncet and M. Herriot and many more. They had three times the normal ration for diplomats, which is nine times the ration of the ordinary German during the war. They were daily given a bottle of champagne. They were allowed to correspond freely with their families in France and to receive parcels. These internees were allowed to receive visits on several occasions, their wishes were cared for wherever they were. That is what is meant here by 'special treatment." I can only state here that it may well be that Muller may have talked about this to me, since I was extremely anxious from the point of view of foreign policy and intelligence that the Reich should now follow my suggestion and treat foreign persons in a more humane manner. It is in this connection that Muller may have spoken to me, but Winzerstube and Godesberg, these two final achievements of this so-called "special treatment," were the places where political internees upon parole were accommodated and received preferential treatment.
COL. AMEN: Did you have frequent meetings with your section heads, including Muller, as indicated in this document?
KALTENBRUNNER: I stated yesterday and today that, of course, I met Muller when we were lunching together, which we had to do because all our 38 buildings in Berlin had been destroyed or damaged by bombs, but I did not talk to him about official matters concerning Amt IV. This document makes it clear that these were matters of extreme interest to me as Chief of Intelligence. May I ask you not to leave this document just yet. It must be put on record before this Tribunal that these two establishments are used as I wished for the preferential and better treatment than that enjoyed by the Germans. That is of great importance to me for my defense, and I am asking you-I shall ask you through my counsel- that you make detailed inquiries about these two hotels, and I also request that you ask M. Poncet, as the leader of the French detainees, about the treatment he received there. He had such a good time there that he gave French lessons to the wife of a criminal investigation official, and taught her French when they went for walks for hours without being guarded at all.
COL. AMEN: Defendant, did you or did you not issue instructions to Muller, as Section Chief IV, as to whether certain individuals who were in confinement at Berlin should be transported to southern Germany or be shot? And for your assistance, I will suggest to you that it was in February 1945 when the Russian armies were closing in on Berlin. "Yes" or "no", if you can.
KALTENBRUNNER: No, the Russian Army was not very near Berlin in February 1945. I think military persons here would be able to give you more precise information as to where the fighting was going on at the time. I do not believe that there was a reason for the evacuation of any camps to the south at that time.
COL. AMEN: Were you acquainted with Martin Sandberger, Group Leader VI A of the RSHA?
KALTENBRUNNER: Yes. He was the first assistant of this Schellenberg who has been mentioned several times, and he acted as intermediary with regard to intelligence news between Himmler and Schellenberg.
COL. AMEN: I ask to have the defendant shown the Document 3838-PS, which will become Exhibit USA-800. [The document was submitted to the defendant.] I call your attention only to the first two paragraphs of that affidavit: "In my capacity as Group Leader VI A at the RSHA, the following became known to me: "In February 1945 I was told by Group Leader VI B. SS Standartenfuehrer Steimle, that he had to represent Schellenberg at the daily office chief meetings. On that occasion, Muller, Chief of Amt IV, presented to Kaltenbrunner a list of persons who were in confinement in or close to Berlin, for Kaltenbrunner to decide whether they were to be transported to southern Germany or whether they were to be shot, because the Russian armies were closing in on Berlin. Steimle did not know who these people were. Kaltenbrunner made his decisions in an extremely hasty and superficial manner and Steimle expressed his indignation to me about the frivolity of this procedure. From this I inferred that Kaltenbrunner had ordered a number of shootings, because if evacuation had been ordered there would have been no talk about the frivolity of the procedure." Is that affidavit true or false?
KALTENBRUNNER: The statement is not correct, and although it surprises me I can immediately refute it. Perhaps I may draw attention to the following points: First, the document was prepared at Oberursel on 19 November 1945 by the witness Sandberger. In the second half of the first paragraph he states that he had been in England together with Schellenberg. I beg your pardon; he states this in the second paragraph. "As I was informed by Schellenberg at an internment camp in England when taking a walk...." You can gather from the second part that he, together with Schellenberg, was in an interrogation camp near London, in which I also was kept for 10 weeks, where they had detailed discussions. Therefore it is important, because something more will have to be said about this man Schellenberg, to know whether Sandberger received this information from Steimle before February 1945, or whether he got it through Schellenberg in London when they were interned together. That can be ascertained only by having Sandberger questioned here directly through my defense counsel. Until then, I must refute this statement altogether.
COL. AMEN: All right.
KALTENBRUNNER: No, sir; I have by no means finished what I have to say. Secondly, Sandberger states that he had heard from Steimle what Steimle had heard. Personally I would not attach too much credit to any information at third or fourth hand, and I would strongly challenge a statement such as Steimle has made. I had not the authority to make such decisions; nor could Steimle, Sandberger, or Schellenberg ever have had any doubt of the fact that only Himmler could have made such decisions. Thirdly, only once did I hear of such treatment of witnesses. I personally intervened and made that known here. This was in the case of Schuschnigg, who was in one such camp which was threatened by the Russians. On 1 February 1945-I remember this date very well and it can be confirmed by another defendant here-I replied to this other defendant when he asked, "Could we not do something for Schuschnigg so that he will not fall into the hands of the Russians? Will you or shad I make the suggestion to the Fuehrer to have him released from detention or at least to take him somewhere where he will not fall into the hands of the Russians but rather into American hands?" Whereupon, one of us-I cannot remember who, possibly both of us-took this proposal to Hitler.
THE PRESIDENT: Surely you are going very far afield. The Tribunal quite understands that you point out, which is obvious, that this is hearsay evidence. The only question for you is whether Muller did on this occasion present a list of names to you, and we understand that you say he did not. We do not want to hear argument about it.
KALTENBRUNNER: No, Your Lordship, Muller did not submit such a list to me, but I must define in some way my attitude to this document which has just been shown to me for the first time. I do not want it to appear to the Tribunal that I can defend myself only after I have been in consultation with my lawyer for hours. I want to tell the prosecutor to his face that this is not true. And I do; somehow I must defend my veracity. I cannot give an answer straight away and I cannot make it easier for the prosecutor except by requesting him to bring this witness, Sandberger, into court; he can discuss with him at length in the meantime, so as to tell him why I do not consider it credible. I must tell the Tribunal beforehand why these things are untrue.
COL. AMEN: Defendant, are you familiar with the so-called "bullet" order that was directed to the Mauthausen Concentration Camp? "Yes" or "no"?
KALTENBRUNNER: I made a detailed statement on this bullet order yesterday and I stated that I did not know of that order.
COL. AMEN: Did you ever issue any oral orders supplementing the so-called "bullet" order-you yourself; did you ever issue any such?
KALTENBRUNNER: No.
COL. AMEN: I ask to have the defendant shown Document 3844-PS, which will become Exhibit USA-801. [The document was submitted to the defendant.] Were you acquainted with Josef Niedermeyer, Defendant? Josef Niedermeyer?
KALTENBRUNNER: No, I do not recollect having known him.
COL. AMEN: Well, perhaps this will bring it back to you-Paragraph 1: "From the autumn of 1942 until May 1945 the so-called call-barracks of the Mauthausen Concentration Camp were under my supervision. "2. At the beginning of December 1944 the so-called 'bullet' orders were shown to me in the political department of the Mauthausen Concentration Camp. These were two orders, each of which bore the signature of Kaltenbrunner. I saw both of these signatures myself. One of these orders stated that foreign civilian workers who had repeatedly escaped from labor camps were, when recaptured, to be sent to the Mauthausen Concentration Camp under the 'bullet' action. "The second order stated that the same procedure was to be followed with officers and noncommissioned officers who were prisoners of war, with the exception of British and Americans, if they repeatedly escaped from prisoner-of-war camps. These prisoners of war were also to be brought to the Mauthausen Concentration Camp. ~ "3. On the strength of the 'bullet' orders and the oral instructions of Kaltenbrunner which accompanied them, 1,300 foreign civilian workers, of ricers, and noncommissioned officers were brought to the Mauthausen Concentration Camp. There they were lodged in Block 20 and fed so badly, according to orders, that they had to starve. Eight hundred of them died from hunger and illness. The bad food and the lack of medical care were the result of the personal oral orders of Kaltenbrunner." Is that statement true or false, Defendant?
KALTENBRUNNER: No, sir, that is not correct. I believe that I can invalidate this document right now. May I draw your attention to Page 2. On Page 2, Paragraph 3, it says in the third lines "1,300 foreign civilian workers, of ricers, and noncommissioned of ricers were brought...." From the words "civilian workers" ...
COL. AMEN: Defendant, I am primarily interested in Paragraph 2, which has to do with the fact that the person who makes the affidavit saw two "bullet" orders bearing your signature. Is that, so far as you know, true or false?
KALTENBRUNNER: No; I said yesterday, and I repeat it today under oath that these bullet orders were not known to me. To dispute the veracity of the witness and the evidential value of the document, I must be able personally to raise my arguments on those points where it is particularly obvious that the Prosecution is wrong, that is, in the third line of Paragraph 3. Here the witness-whose signature differs completely from the writing of the statement, and this is a fact to which I would like to invite the attention of the Tribunal-the witness completely forgot that the bullet orders, the text of which has been read here repeatedly, referred to officers and noncommissioned officers, but not to civilian workers. How, on the basis of a false order, could such a thing happen at ad? I cannot pass the death sentence for murder on the strength of a civilian paragraph such as 820 of BOB (Code of Civil Law), nor can I on the strength of the bullet orders lock civilian workers up in a camp. The witness, in his haste and anxiety to oblige, had forgotten these details. Nor do I believe that this man has ever seen a document which bears my signature. Such a document was never submitted to me either. Once again, I must ask that this witness-and I am sure there will be others on the Mauthausen question-that this witness and all the others should be brought here and questioned as to how their statements came to be made.
COL. AMEN: Defendant, do you recall the testimony of the witness Wisliceny with respect to your participation in the forced labor program on the defenses below Vienna?
KALTENBRUNNER: I have not quite finished answering your last questions. Excuse me, but I still have something vital to say on this matter.
COL. AMEN: I thought you were through with that.
KALTENBRUNNER: Yes, I thought so, too, but I have just remembered something important.
COL. AMEN: All right.
KALTENBRUNNER: It is very relevant that I should refer you to what I said about the bullet orders yesterday. I stated that it became known to me in December or January 194445, and what my reaction was, and how I opposed it. These circumstances, too, explain the fact that I could not, shortly before that, have signed the order myself. Apart from that, it is totally impossible for a Kaltenbrunner to sign a bullet order, when it's clear to the Prosecution here that it was signed already in 1941 by Hitler. This is why I wanted to make that final remark about the document. Now, will you please be good enough to repeat the next question?
COL. AMEN: I want to call your attention to the testimony of Wisliceny with respect to your participation in the forced labor program on the defenses below Vienna. Are you familiar with what he said in this court?
KALTENBRUNNER: No.
COL. AMEN: Well, I will read it to you. It is very short: "Question: With reference to the Jews who were left in Budapest, what happened to them? "Answer: In October-November 1944 about 30,000, perhaps a few thousand more, were taken out and brought to Germany. They were to be used for work on the defenses in Vienna. They were mostly women. A large number of these people were put into the labor camps on the lower Danube, and they died there from sheer exhaustion. A small percentage, perhaps 12,000, were taken to Vienna, the western boundary, and about 3,000 were taken to Bergen and Belsen and then to Switzerland. Those were Jews that had come from Germany." Now, Defendant, do you recall having had any correspondence with the Burgermeister of the city of Vienna with respect to the assignment of this forced labor in the city of Vienna?
KALTENBRUNNER: I have never written a single letter to the Burgermeister of Budapest, and I should very much like to ask you to show me any such letter.
COL. AMEN: I did not say Budapest; I said the Burgermeister of the city of Vienna, or I intended to, if I did not.
KALTENBRUNNER: The Burgermeister of Vienna? I cannot remember having had any correspondence with him either. I think perhaps I can explain the matter to you by saying that these frontier fortifications which must be meant here did not come under the city of Vienna, but under the Gau of the lower Danube. I did not know that Vienna had a joint frontier with Hungary.
COL. AMEN: Well, you have already testified that you had nothing to do with participating in this forced labor program; is that not correct?
KALTENBRUNNER: Yes.
COL. AMEN: All right. I ask to have the defendant shown Document 3803-PS, Exhibit Number USA-802. [The document was submitted to the defendant.] I call your attention to the first three paragraphs. You will note that the letter comes from yourself, and reads as follows: "To the Burgermeister of the city of Vienna, SS Brigadefuehrer Blaschke. "Subject: Assignment of labor to essential war work in the city of Vienna. "Re: Your letter of 7 June 1944. "Dear Blaschke: For the special reasons cited by you I have in the meantime given orders to direct several evacuation transports to Vienna-Strasshof. SS Brigadefuehrer Dr. Dellbruegge had, as a matter of fact, already written to me concerning the same matter. At the moment it is a question of four transports with approximately 12,000 Jews. They will reach Vienna within the next few days. "According to previous experience it is estimated that 30 percent of the transport will consist of Jews able to work, approximately 3,600 in this case, who can be utilized for the work in question, it being understood that they are subject to removal at any time. It is obvious that these people must be assigned to work in large, well-guarded groups, and accommodated in secured camps, and this is an absolute prerequisite for making these Jews available. "The women and children of these Jews who were unable to work, and who are all being kept in readiness for a special action and therefore one day will be removed again, must stay in the guarded camp also during the day. "Please discuss further details with the State Police head office in Vienna, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ebner and SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Krumey of the Sondereinsatz kommando Hungary, who at present is in Vienna. "I hope these transports will be of help to you in carrying out the urgent work you have in view. "Heil Hitler. Yours, Kaltenbrunner." Now do you recall that communication?
KALTENBRUNNER: No.
COL. AMEN: Do you deny having written that letter?
KALTENBRUNNER: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Well, I think, Defendant, that this time your signature is affixed to the original of this letter. Have you the original?
KALTENBRUNNER: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Is that not your signature?
KALTENBRUNNER: No, that is not my signature. It is a signature either in ink or it is a facsimile, but it is not mine.
COL. AMEN: Defendant, I want to show you samples of your signature which you gave in the course of your interrogations, and I ask you to tell me whether or not these are your signatures. [Documents were submitted to the defendant.]
KALTENBRUNNER: I have already made hundreds of such signatures, and they are probably right. The one in pencil, the document signed in pencil, has been signed by me.
COL. AMEN: Well, will you indicate them in some way, so that the Tribunal can look at the signatures which you admit are your own, and compare them with the signature on this Document 3803-PS, Exhibit USA-802?
KALTENBRUNNER: The signatures on these papers which are written in pencil are mine; they are my own.
COL. AMEN: All of them?
KALTENBRUNNER: All three.
COL. AMEN: All right.
KALTENBRUNNER: But not those in ink.
COL. AMEN: Very good. [The documents were submitted to the Tribunal.] Shall I continue, Your Lordship?
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please. Go on, Colonel Amen.
COL. AMEN: Defendant, you have heard the evidence with respect to the establishment of the Warsaw Ghetto and the clearing of the ghetto. rim; PRESIDENT: Are you passing from this document?
COL. AMEN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE TRIBUNAL: We had better adjourn for 10 minutes. [A recess was taken.]
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I have to begin submitting my evidence in the next few days, and I do not know yet whether my Document Book 1 is admissible. Will you please also tell me on what day and at what time this can be discussed. [There was a pause in the proceedings.]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal think that, subject to anything you have to say, halfpast 12 tomorrow-that is Saturday morning-would be a good time at which we could decide The admissibility of your documents.
DR. THOMA: Thank you very much indeed.
COL. AMEN: If the Tribunal please, I want to revert for a moment to Document 3803-PS with the signature. Defendant, have you the original of that exhibit before you?
KALTENBRUNNER: Yes.
COL. AMEN: Will you look at the signature and tell me whether you do not find, written by hand just above the signature, the letters Dein?
KALTENBRUNNER: Yes.
COL. AMEN: And as I understand it, that word means "yours"; in other words, it is an intimate expression used only between close personal friends, is that not correct?
KALTENBRUNNER: In German there are only two forms of concluding a letter: either "Ihr," Ihr, or "Dein," Dein. We use the latter, "Dein," if we are on close terms, friendly terms. Blaschke, the Mayor of Vienna, is a friend of mine and apparently...
COL. AMEN: Now, would it not be an absolutely ridiculous and unthinkable thing that a stamp or facsimile would be made up which contained not only a signature but the expression "Dein" above the signature?
KALTENBRUNNER: That would be nonsensical, I wholly agree with that; but I did not say that it must be a facsimile signature. I just said that it is not my Signature. It is either a facsimile or it has been put underneath with another signature. The author of this letter-you did not allow me to finish before-as it can be seen from the code in the upper lefthand. corner, is to be found in Section IV A and B. Everyone in the department and the entire German Reich knew that the Mayor o, Vienna, Blaschke, and myself had been close personal friends since our common political activity in Vienna, that is for about 10 years, and had used the familiar form of address, "Du." Therefore, if, for instance, I had been absent from Berlin, and the letter was urgent- as I assume to be the case from the contents-the official might have considered it justifiable to write in this form. I did not authorize him and, of course, it is quite impossible, but that is the only way I can explain it.
COL. AMEN: Then, Defendant, at least you agree that it is not a facsimile signature, is that correct?
KALTENBRUNNER: It would be most unusual to have made a Ramp with the words, "Dein." It would be entirely out of the question. Therefore, the official himself must have written the signature. Everybody knew that I was on familiar terms with Blaschke and therefore the word "rein" had to appear, if he used my signature at all. Please look also at the figure 30 on the top. From many samples of my writing you can see that I do not write like that at all.
COL. AMEN: Defendant, is it not equally ridiculous to think that a person, or an official, as you term him, in signing such a letter on your behalf would try to imitate your signature?
KALTENBRUNNER: Quite right, but, sir, it would be a matter of course, when writing to the Mayor of Vienna, a man with whom the official perhaps knew quite well that I was on familiar terms, to put my name typewritten under a personal letter. That would be impossible as well. If I were not in Berlin he had only two possibilities open to him: either to type it in or to make it seem as though I, Kaltenbrunner, were actually there.
COL. AMEN: Is it not a fact that you are simply lying about your signature on this letter, in the same way that you are lying to this Tribunal about almost everything else you have given testimony about? Is not that a fact?
KALTENBRUNNER: Mr. Prosecutor, for a whole year I have had to submit to this insult of being called a liar. For a whole year I have been interrogated hundreds of times both here and in London, and I have been insulted in this way and even much worse. My mother, who died in 1943, was called a whore, and many other similar things were hurled at me. This term is not new to me but I should like to state that in a matter of this kind I certainly would not tell an untruth, when I claim to be believed by this Tribunal in far more important matters.
COL. AMEN: I am suggesting, Defendant, that when your testimony is so directly contrary to that of 20 or 30 other witnesses and even more documents, it is almost an incredible thing you should be telling the truth and that every witness and every document should be false. Do you not agree to that proposition?