AThat proceedings as far as the Department of Justice corresponded with in me, but I believe nothing ever came of the matter.
QYou had no part in the drafting of that legislative, did you?
ANo, I did not know that, I believe there was no special laws issued to a recollection. The putting down of laws was left to the Gauleiter, but I do not know.
QThe laws were left to the Gauleiters, to the Koch's and the Frank's and the Rosenberg's; is that what happened?
ANow we are concerned with the Provinces of East Prussia and the Province of Posen and we corresponded to that.
QI now want you to answer some questions about Sauckel.
THE PRESIDENT:Shall we adjourn for ten minutes?
MR. ELWYN JONES:If Your Lordship please.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Lammers, can you hear what I say?
THE WITNESS:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, will you kindly try and answer the questions after they have been put to you and not break into the questions? Try and wait for a moment until the questions has been put because the interpreters and the reporters are finding it very difficult to take down what you say and to interprete what you say. BY ELWYN JONES:
QI want to deal with your relations for the moment with Seyss-Inquart. You were receiving reports from him as to his administration in the low countries, were you not?
AEvery quarter of the year or so a report did reach me, yes. I transmitted it to the Fuehrer. There were also individual reports.
QAnd in the low countries as elsewhere you know that the object of German administration was to extract and exploit that territory for the German advantage as much as possible, do you not? A The purpose in the occupied countries was to make them useful to us for the waging of the war; whether there was a question of exploitation, I don't know.
QTo reduce their standard of living, to reduce them to starvation; that was one of the results of the Netherlands policy; you know that, didn't you?
AI don't believe that we went as far as that. I have relations in Holland and know that people there lived much better than we die in Germany.
Q I want you to look at the document 997-PS, which is already Exhibit RF122, which consists of a letter which you sent to Rosenberg, th Defendant, enclosing a report given to you by Stabsleiter Schicketanz to the Fuehrer, together with a report delivered by Reich Commissioner Dr. Seyss-Inquart, about the period from May 29 to July 19, 1940.
If you look at page 9 of your text, page 5 of the English text, of 997-PS, you will see there is a first statement of the outlines of German economic policy in the Low Countries. You will see the paragraph is marked on your copy, so that your difficulty of finding where those passages are might be eliminated. You see it reads:
"It is a question here of reducing the consumption of the population in time of war as a matter of course. There is also a question here of getting supplies for the Reich."
Just one moment and I will read out the passage to you.
"It was clear that with the occupation of the Netherlands a large number of economic but also police measures had to be taken, the first ones of which had the purpose of reducing the consumption of the population in order to get supplie for the Reich, and, on the other hand, to secure a just distribution of the remaining supplies."
That is a very concise statement of the economic policy that Seyss-Inquart was pursuing towards the Dutch people, is it not?
A.It is also a very reasonable policy. The consumption had to be reduced so that the supplies can be equally distributed in order to have something for the Reich. This is not my report but rather a report of Mr. Schicketanz.
Q.But the object of this reduction of consumption of the population was to benefit the Reich so that the territory of the Low Countries should be robbed in order that the Reich should profit. That was the whole policy, wasn't it?
A.That does not stand in this report; it stands here that first the supplie should be aquired for the Reich; and, secondly, on the other hand there should be an equitable distribution of the supplies, that is to say, also among the Dutch people. there is nothing here about a policy of exploitation.
QIf it please the Tribunal, it has the document and can read the language in which it appears.
I want you now to turn your mind to the Defendant Sauckel. You, witness knew quite well of the vast program of enslavement of the people conquered by the Nazi forces that Sauckel was engaged upon, did you not?
AI had Sauckel's program at hand and also his explanation of it. I did not have the impression that this was an enslavement program. Sauckel was in his opinion very reflective and quite moderate, and he made all sorts of efforts to acquire labor forces by voluntary enlistment -- those labor forces that he felt to be necessary.
QAre you suggesting that you thought that the millions of foreign workers that Sauckel dragged into the Reich came there voluntarily?
AThey did not all come voluntarily. For instance, in the case of France they came from France because of a law passed in France for obligatory labor. That was a measure taken by the French Government.
QI want you to look at one of the first reports that you received from Saukel on his labor program. It is 1296-PS, Exhibit GB 325. It starts with a letter from Saukel to you dated the 29th of July 1942:
"Dear Reich Minister:
"I am taking the liberty of sending you enclosed the copy of a report to th e Fuehrer and to the Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich for your information. Heil Hitler.
"Yours faithfully, "Fritz Saukel,"
AYes, this report must have reached me, of course.
QYes. And you must presumably have examined it, did you not?
ANot right now; but it was submitted to me for me to look at.
QAnd you examined it at the time?
AI presume so. I may have just skipped through it quickly. It didn't have any further interest for me.
QYou will see in the first page of the report itself that it indicates, for instance, that in the period from April to July 1942, which was the first period of activity of Sauckel as plenipotentiary for manpower, he had obtained a total of 1,659,794 foreign workers, and of those you see that 221,009 were Soviet Russian prisoners of war. You saw that, didn't you?
AI probably did read it, yes; but I had no reason to object to it. Sauckel was not my subordinate. He was actually subordinate to the Four-Year Plan; for practical purposes he was subordinate to the Fuehrer.
This was not sent to me immediately and it was not given by me to the Fuehrer because I know that the same report had been submitted by Reichsleader Bormann to the Fuehrer. I had nothing to do with this matter.
QBut you know perfectly well that it was wickedly wrong, didn't you, to compel soldiers that had been captured in bottle to go to work against their own country?
AThat was Sauckel's job to arrange with the offices that it had to do with.
As I said, he should arrange this with the appropriate offices and with the Wehrmacht, and matters of international law with the foreign office.
Moreover, I don't see in this report any mention of prisoners of war.
QI don't went to suggest that you are--
AI haven't read anything here of prisoners of war so far.
QJust look at the first page of the report. There is no mystery about this, you know. You can read German perfectly easily.
ABut I can't read pages and pages of a long report in one minute.
QJust look at the first page of the report.
AOh, yes, now I see it.
QAnd you know it at the beginning of the questioning of this matter--- Just a minute, if you please. When I am speaking would you mind waiting until I have finished before you interrupt. Otherwise the translation machinery is not able to offer a prompt translation. You see from that report quite clearly, do you not, that in the very first four months of Sauckel's career as a slave driver he obtained 221,009 Soviet prisoners of war to work in this labor machine?
AThat didn't interest me in detail. I had no supervisory powers in this matter. The report as to whether he had done this or whether he might was turned in and was taken up by the authorized offices, and it wasn't my job,to examine this matter. I simply received this so that I should know about it.
QYou have testified on Sauckel's behalf that he resisted the suggestion that the SS should work in this sphere of labor personnel. Did you not say that ?
ANo, that I did not say. I said that he did not want exclusively the SS, but that he wanted sore support for the exclusive powers that he had at that time. This was particularly true in the partisan regions.
QYou knew that Sauckel was asking for more help from the SS to get more labor. That is what he was after, wasn't it?
AYes, Otherwise he couldn't work in these regions
QJust look at the Exhibit 1292-PS, whixh is Exhibit USA 225 and RF 68 That is the report of a conference on the allocation of labor in 1914, the 4th of January, the minutes of which you wrote yourself, so that if anything you say is to be relied upon that is your report. You will see that at that conference Hitler was there, Sauckel, Speer, Keitel, Milch, Himmler.
AThis was a new work program for 1944 in which I was commissionned to inform the proper offices. I took part in this only because it was a measure which covered a number of offices had to be made known to all of them Otherwise I never would have participated in this at all.
QAnd in that conference Hitler said that Sauckel must get at least another four million workers for the manpower pool, did he not?
AThat could be. The Fuehrer asked -- demanded -- more of Sauckel than Sauckel though he could provide.
QAnd Sauckel said that whether he could Go that depended primarily on what German enforcement agents will be made available; his project cannot be carried out with domestic enforcement agents. And then your record goes on:
The Reichsfuehrer SS explained that the enforcement agents put at his disposal are extremely few, but that he, that is to say, Himmler, would try helping the Sauckel project to succeed by increasing them and working them harder.
The Reichsfuehrer SS made immediately available 2,500 men from concentration camps for preparation in Vienna. That is to say, it is clear from that report, is it not, that Sauckel was seeking more help from the SS and that Himmler was saying he would do his best to help him? Is that not so?
A There can be no doubt of it, but Sauckel did not went to have exclusively the SS in the countries in question.
He wanted whatever help was necessary. In France, for example, the fort commanders.
QThere is a last document which I want to put to you on Sauckel. It is Exhibit 3819-PS, GB 306, a small part of which was read into the record by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. That is a report from Sauckel to Hitler, dated 17 March 1944. I take it that you probably saw a copy of that report, did you not?
AI do not know.
QJust look at it, because it is most illuminating on the attitude of Sauckel toward the assistance of the SS and the German police.
AThis is of the 11th of July, 1944. I have one in my hand of 11 July 1944.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Elwyn Jones, he is saying that he has in his hand a document of 11 July 1944.
The document you referred to was 17 March, was it not?
QYes. You have got your minutes of the conference. Is there not attached to it a report of Sauckel dated 17 March?
AThere is another report Here dated 5 April.
MR. ELWYN JONES:I shall not proceed with that part of the document, My Lord.
QIf you will turn to the document dated 12 July, that will do for my purposes. You remember that is your own report of the conference of 12 July 1944 on the question of the increased procuring of foreign manpower, and you opened that conference, witness, did you not?
AI was always on neutral ground at such conferences.
QWhat were you neutral about, witness?
AI had no office under me. The other departments had their departmental interests.
QYou were not being an honest broker between Sauckel and Himmler, were you?
AI had no department under me, I repeatedly made efforts to bring about a compromise between the Hitler genius sort of people, and also under such circumstance it might have happened that I did so between Himmler and Sauckel.
I do not think that can be referred to as playing the honest broker. I wanted to make efforts to bring these two together so that it would be possible to inform the Fuehrer of such differences of opinion.
QJust look at the manner in which youopened that conference. You said there--it is the second sentence under your name:
"He limited the theme of the discussion by saying that actually all possibilities would be examined by which the present deficit of foreign manpower could be covered."
Then you say in the next question:
"The primary consideration will, have to remain the solution of the question whether and in what form greater compulsion can be exercised to accept work in Germany."
The operative word is, you know, "compulsion".
AHere female labor was considered, the reduction of the age limits, and also the work of minors
QJust go on to the next sentence of your statement.:
"In this connection it must be examined how the executive forces, regarding the inadequacy of which the Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment raises lively objection, can be strengthened on the one hand through an influence on the Foreign Office and on the other through building up the indigenous administrative executive, whether by an increased use of the Wehrmacht, of the police or other German agencies."
That is how you opened that conference, you know.
AThat is quite correct. Those were the problems that had to be discussed.
QTo produce more forced labor and discover by what terrorizing by the police and what pressures by Ribbentrop the results could be achieved? That was the object of the conference, was it not?
ANo, that was not the object. We did not consider how we might terrorize but how we could, through some sort of of official action, get our hands on the labor forces which we needed. Itis a matter of course that there had to be some enforcement agency behind this which did not have to be called a terror. I could describe the situation in France, for example. The workers whom Sauckel had recruited were, because of the French enforced labor law, brought to the railroad station by the French government for transportation.
Q Just answer my questions, will you? You are going on to a different matter.
AI did not suggest terrorist measures. There must be some enforcement agency in every state, and if one talks of compulsion, that is by no means terrorism or a crime.
QI just draw your attention to the contribution of General Warlimont in this discussion, where he said that:
"The troops employed in fighting partisans are to take over, in addition, the task of acquiring manpower in the partisan areas. Everyone who can not fully prove the purpose of his stay in these areas is to be seized forcibly."
And you said:
"On further inquiry by the Reich Minister, Dr. Lammers,"--This is on page 10 of the English record--"whether with the withdrawal of the troops in Italy the population suitable for recruiting could not be taken along, Colonel Sahs, plenipotentiary general for Italy, stated that Field Marshal Kesselring had already decreed that the population in a depth of 30 kilometers behind the front area was to be captured."
The whole emphasis of that conference was on the use of force, was it not, and the collaboration of the executive agencies of the state to procure necessary forced labor for the Reich?
AYes, a certain coercion was to be applied; there can be no doubt of that.
MR. ELWYN JONES:There are only two more matters. My Lord, which I feel that it is my duty to put to the witness.
QOn the question of the massacre of the Jewish people, you said in your evidence before the adjournment that you had saved 200,000 Jews yourself. Do you remember saying that to the Tribunal?
A Yes.
QYou sated them from extermination, you meant, I take it?
ANo.
QWhat did you say?
AI saved them from evacuation and from nothing else. Subsequently I found out and nowI know that, as a matter of fact, I really saved them from extermination.
QYou know you have testified -- just a moment -- you have testified to the Tribunal as to a conference which took place early in 1943 where you were invited by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt to send a representative to the conference dealing with the Jewish problem. Do you remember saying that to the Tribunal?
AYes, the matter was discussed.
QThat was a famous conference which Eichmann presided over, do you remember?
AThat I do not know. I was not present.
QThe invitation to a ttend the conference, that came from Kaltenbrunner, did it not?
AThe invitation came from the RSHA.
QNot from Kaltenbrunner personally?
ANo, that I do not know.
QAnd you sent a representative to the conference, did you not?
AA representative from me had to go there and he had specific orders, which my State Secretary who was present will confirm, simply to listen and to take no attitude during the conference, because I wanted to reserve for myself the right to communicate these things to the Fuehrer.
QWas your representative at this conference instructed by you to take no attitude? Was that what you said to the Tribunal?
AHe was specifically ordered to take no attitude. He could not at any rate because no decisions were reached by this conference, but he was not to make any statements on his own initiative because questions such as the Jewish question. I myself wanted to communicate to the Fuehrer. For this reason, I instructed him not to take any attitude.
Q You sent Gottfried Bohle as your representative to that conference, did you not?
AI did net send him; my State Secretary sent him, and he was the competent man.
Just answer my questions, briefly, won't you? Gottfried Bohle made a report to you, did he not?
AI received a short report.
QAnd did that report indicate to you that Eichmann wasplanning extermination?
ANo, there was nothing about that in this report. We also knew nothing about that. At least, I cannot remember that there was anything in it that would have induced me to take any action on my own part.
QYesterday you told the Tribunal that concentration camps were not mentioned in the Reich budget. Do you remember saying that?
AI did not understand the question.
QYesterday -
AI did not read it. I do not know.
Yesterday you told the Tribunal that nothing was mentioned in the Reich budget about concentration camps.
AI neither read nor found anything on that subject. These finan cial matters did not interest me much anyway.
You are saying now that yon do not know whether there were any references to concentration comps in the budget or not?
AI could not say for sure. I can not recall that the concentration camps were mentioned specifically in the budget.
QDoes it surprise you to know that for the 1939 budget for the armed SS and concentration camps in the Ministry ofthe Interior budget, there was a sum of 104,000,000 marks and 21,000,000 marks set out as expenses for those objects? Did you know that?
A. I did not study this budget report in all its details. I didn't read these things through; I was interested only in my immediate job as Reich Secretary.
I didn't concern myself with these things; I had no reason to.
Q.Did you know that there were over 300 concentration camps in Nazi Germany?
A.No, I didn't know that.
Q.How many did you, as head, of the Reich Chancery, know of the existence of?
A.I only knew of a few.
Q.Only a few.
A.Three at the most.
Q.Are you solemnly, on oath-
A.But I did know that others existed.
Q.Are you solemnly, on oath, saying to the Tribunal that you , in the very center of the web of Nazism, didn't know of the existence of more than three concentration camps?
A.Yes, I do want to say so. I didn't stand in the very midpoint of Nazism; I was simply administrative secretary for the Fuehrer. I didn't concern myself personally in these matters. I knew by name of about two or three concentration camps, and I also know that there must be a few others, but more I cannot say under oath.
Q.I put it to you that you knew quite well of this regime of terror but continued to serve in it until the last. Is that not so?
A.What regime of terror are you talking about? The concentration camp system? Yes, I knew that that existed.
Q.But that didn't trouble your conscience, I take it.
A.That they existed? I made my suggestion to the Fuehrer about the concentration camps, and he excluded me from that question as early as 1934, that ,s after I had made suggestions to him on the subject, and he turned the matter over to Himmler. Thereafter I had nothing whatsoever to do with concentration camps except when complaints came to me, which I regarded as complaints that were directed to the Fuehrer, and whenever it was possible I followed through on them and, to some extent, helped people out.
Q.You, of course, were an SS Obergruppenfuehrer. Perhaps you didn't recognize terror when you heard and saw it.
A.I was SS Obergruppenfuehrer, which was an honorary rank, just as I said before was true for Seyss-Inquart. I had no office in the SS, I had no command, no troops, no nothing.
Q.And you profited considerably -- you and your Nazi colleagues -from this regime, did you not? You, as the Comptroller of the Reich Chancellery funds, can probably assist us in that matter.
A.What did I have enormous?
Q.Fu ds, money, Reichsmarks.
A.I had my salary, to be sure.
Q.And you were responsible for directing --
A.Not as an SS Fuehrer.
Q.As Reichschancellor you were responsible for distributing the largess of the Nazis among yourselves, were you not?
A.I was in charge of the moneys of the Fuehrer, and on his instructions I amde the parments that he instructed me to make from those funds. I didn't allocate money here and there wherever I wanted to.
Q.You, as Reichschancellor, delivered a million Reichsmarks to Dr. Ley, did you not?
A.That was a payment that the Fuehrer specifically approved for Dr. Ley. That had nothing to do with me personally.
Q.And Ribbentrop was another recipeint of a million, was he not?
A yes, he received a million in two parts, five hundred thousand each time.
QAnd Keitel was another millionaire, was he not? He received a million, did he not?
AHe received a payment to his estate, because the Fuehrer renewed the old Prussian practice of giving landed estates to its generals.
QAnd you yourself received six hundred thousand marks, did you not?
AI received six hundred thousand marks on my 65th birthday. It was calculated that this was a sum that I had earned in perforating previous functions for which I was not paid; and it also to be considered that I had no private fortune. I was going to buy a little house with this money.
MR. ELWYN JONES:That is all.
If Your Lordship will allow me to clarify the exhibit numbers of the documents I have put in:
3863-PS is GB-220; 2220-PS is USA-175; 686-PS is USA-305; 865-PS is USA-143; 1032-PS is GB-321; 871-PS is GB-322; D-753-a is GB 323; 3601PS is GB-324; 997-PS is RF-122; 1296-PG is GB-325; 1282-PS was USA-225; RF-628, 3819-PS, was GB-306.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Elwyn Jones, have you put in the budget which shows the figures that you gave us?
MR. ELWYN JONES: It is on page 1394 of the 1939 budget. For the purposes of the record, it will be GB-236.
THE PRESIDENT:Thank you.
MR. ELWYN JONES:The prosecution will have an extract made from this vast volume, My Lord, for the purposes of the court document.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal thought that there was only going to be one cross-examination of the witnesses who were not defendants.
COLONEL POKROVSKY:The Soviet Delegation wished to question the witness Lammers.
It was suggested that the questioning be broken into two groups, that part of the questions be asked by the British Delegation, and the other part was supposed to be asked by the Russian Delegation.
MR.ELWYN-JONES: If Your Lordship pleases-
THE PRESIDENT:Was this the one case that was mentioned?
MR.ELWYN-JONES: This is the exceptional case, My Lord, and the agreement was made before the new regime of cross-examination was introduced.
My colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, and I did agree to share the work, and there are very few matters which Colonel Pokrovsky has indicated which he desires to put, and that was in agreement between the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
QOn the 6th of November 1945, you were interrogated by a representative of the Soviet Prosecution. Do you remember this interrogation?
AYes, I do remember an interrogation by a representative of the Soviet prosecution.
QYou testified at the time that Hitler-
AYes.
QYou don't know what I am talking about, so don't hurry.
Now, you testified that Hitler authorized you to render your help to Rosenberg. You remember that, do you not?
AYes, Rosenberg was to take over the political work in connection with Eastern problems.
QWhat was your help to Rosenberg.
AFirst, it consisted solely of my meeting with him, at which time he discussed the plans that he had for an administration that might eventually be introduced. The Fuehrer had asked him to concern himself with the question as to how, in the case of war with Russia, the country that might be occupied would be administered.
QWitness, wait a moment. Wait. I didn't ask you what the Fuehrer asked Rosenberg to do. I am asking you, what did the Fuehrer authorize or ask you to do? You told me, to help Rosenberg. In what particular form was your help to Rosenberg? Did you participate in the development -- wait a moment, please listen to my question. Did you participate in working over a plan about the organization or the administration of Eastern territories? Do you understand me?
AI didnot take part in any expansion of the program of economic exploitation.
QI want you to take a look at a document which is under the number 1056-PS. Do you recall this document now?
AI have to look at it first.
QYes, that is the reason why it was given to you.
AI don't seem to recognize this document, nor do I believe that it was drafted by myself. It is apparently a plan that Rosenberg drew up.
QIn other words, you state that you did not know anything, and you don't knew anything at all about this document?
AIt is possible that Rosenberg gave me a copy of this plan, but at the moment I cannot ascertain, with these 30 pages, whether I ever had it in my hands our not. I don't know.
Q Yesterday you testified before the Tribunal and your testimony was very detailed, in regard to the question of organization plans for the administration of Eastern territories.
How could you give any truthful testimony if you didn't know anything at all about this basic document? This particular document really defines and determines the structure of administration in territories which were under Rosenberg. Do you understand me?
AI can't judge what is contained in that document: I can't read through a document of thirty pages in just a moment here. Please let me have some time with the document so that I can read it through. I do not believe, however, that I ever had this document in my hands. The organization in the East was carried out by Rosenberg. I simply cooperated in a basic decree in which I gave Rosenberg the powers to act in the East. But with the plan itself, I had nothing to do; nor was I interested in it.
QIf your memory has become so weak in regard to this document, then would you please be good enough to look at another document? It is less than thirty pages long. Now, you will be shown a document signed by you. It deals with the question of the Soviet prisoners of war. It is Document USSR-361. There is one place marked in this document, dealing with the fact that the Soviet prisoners of war should be treated separately from other prisoners and theyare to be in charge of the ministry of the Eastern Territories. Have youfound the place? (There was a slight pause.) Witness Lammers, I am asking you -
AI haven't found the place yet, no.
QTake a look at the second page. Yes, yes, in the appendix. For your convenience, the place is marked with a pencil.
AThere is no marked passage in which I have before me now. There is no marked passage in this document that I have.
THE PRESIDENT:Colonel Pokrovsky, the document I have -- if it is the same one -- is in paragraphs. Might you refer him to the paragraphs?
COLONEL POKROVSKY:Just a minute, please.
The extract I have, unfortunately the paragraph is not mentioned in the excerpt I have. However, this place will be shown to the witness exactly.
(An aid indicated on the document in the witness's hands.)
This place is really marked with a pencil. He simply didn't observe it.
Q Did you observe it?
AYes, I have it.
QAnd now you have convinced yourself that it is marked with a pencil?
AYes, the Foreign Office -
QI am not asking you about that. I am interested in another place inhere it says, "Exception from this rule" -- Did you find it?
AYes.
Q --"is the Soviet prisoners of war." That is what I am interested in. --"who are under the charge of the Minister administering occupied territories, since in regard to them," and so forth. Did you find the place?
AYes, I have the place.
QDid you sign this document?
AI did not sign this document, because these are notes from the Foreign Office. I simply signed a letter in which this memorandum of the Foreign Office was sent by me to Minister Rosenberg, so that he could take note of it.
QAlso, with a covering note. You also sent your letter -
AIn the covering note I say that I am taking an attitude toward the memorandum on the part of the Foreign Office. "I herewith put you in cognizance of this memorandum" -
QIn such a way, then, should I understand -
AI did not draw up the memorandum myself, no.
QThen do I understand you in this way, that you actually substantiated the authenticity of this document, the document that went through your hands?
AI can't substantiate the authenticity -
QHow couldn't you say it? You told us you were forwarding it; you gave this document and forwarded it to somebody else. Did you send it to some address?
AI signed that document which accompanied the document I was transmitting. I simply informed Rosenberg of the attitude taken by the Foreign Office. Whether the document is authentic or not, I don't know.
QI am quite satisfied with this answer.
On the 8th of April, here in the Tribunal, you stated that the solution of the Jewish problem Hitler turned over to Goering and Heidrich and later on to Heidrich's successor, Kaltenbrunner.