In reply to Question 2, it is said that in his position in Kemnitz and Kattowitz, in the year 1939 and 1941, he had to transport prisoners to Auschwitz for imprisonment and execution. This refers to a period of time before my assuming office and the purely executive power over those offices, which I was never given to carry out and which offices and functions I never took over. He, therefore, cannot have acted as my deputy.
He says in Question 3 that he was present when proceedings against internees were taking place; in other words, that the SS Stangericht often not and that he was present during executions. "In the year 1942, and again in the year 1943, the Commandant of Auschwitz, on orders of Mueller, showed you extermination installations, and you know of such installations; that Jews were to be sent for executions to this camp."
In my opinion, I could perhaps be incriminated on one point; that is, through the question: "Did Mueller once in the year 1943 see such installations or through his presence participate in shootings." First of all, the prosecution did not show whether this one time took place before I assumed office or whether this one time took place after I assumed office.
QWill you please be a little briefer?
AYes, Dr. I have to be able to refute each individual word.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Kauffmann, we do not want the witness to argue upon this document. If he has anything to say about the facts, then he can do it, but not an argument upon it.
DR. KAUFFMANN:Yes, that is my opinion, also. BY DR. KAUFFMAN:
QI am asking you, witness, about an especially important and incriminating point, which seems to be Question 3. Just a minute, I will read it.
"Is it true that all orders for special executions come from the RSHA; and was the regular channel for executions from Himmler, through Kaltenbrunner to Mueller, and then to the concentration camp commandant?"
To that the answer is "yes". Please answer briefly.
AI have already testified today that the power of execution applied only to the Minister of Justice and to Himmler. In the entire Reich no one also had the possibility or the authority. The official channels were not Himmler, Kaltenbrunnger, Mueller; never did such an order from Himmler come to me; but those orders could only have come from Himmler to Mueller. To put this question to Mueller is for that reason incorrect because Mueller was not with no and cannot know whether I over received such an order from. Himmler. It is just a conclusion which he draws from the entire diagram of authority.
THE PRESIDENT:You are not looking at the words. What he is asked is, "Was the regular channel--?" That is the question. "Was the regular channel for orders from Himmler to you and Mueller?"
A Your Lordship, I have already stated this morning how the competence of Himmler's was arranged.
Then, if he referred to June of 1944, when Heydrich was dead, from that day on in all written orders it was to be published publicly that Himmler was in charge of the entire RSHA end took over all spheres of influence which had been Heydrich's. Then I was made Chief of the RSHA in January. Then all executive powers and competent jurisdiction of the Amt-IV were to remain with Himmler and there was no change in that connection, and Mueller and Nebe were directly under Himmler. For that reason the organizational scheme which applied at the time of Heydrich, did not apply in my time for Ant-IV and V.
QNow, Question 3-4. There it says, "And did Dr. Kaltenbrunner know about the conditions in the concentration camps?" Of course, we are not told just what is meant by "conditions" there; but it is most likely to be interpreted that these conditions which have been attested to by witnesses are meant. The witness said "yes".
ADr. Kauffmann, you are overlooking a very important sentence. In the Last one here the Prosecution asks, "Did the WVHA have supervision over all concentration camps in administration for the utilization of labor and maintenance of discipline?" This sentence is tremendously important and for the following reasons: The guilt far the destruction of human life is taken from the WVHA to the sphere and the competence of the RSHA, and, if the High Tribunal-
THE PRESIDENT:Just a minute. This is again a long argumentative speech. The only question which arises, it seems to me, upon this Question 3-A, is, "Did conference take place between Kaltenbrunner, Pohl, and the Commander of the Concentration Camps?" If he says that they did not, then that is an answer that he makes to the affidavit; that is the only question of fact.
DR. KAUFFMANN:Yes, that seems to be the vital point, and that is my opinion, also. BY DR. KAUFFMANN:
QPlease answer yes or no to the question which was just put to you. Did such conferences between Pohl, Mueller, and yourself take place?
A With Pohl and Mueller? No, I never had conferences with them.
I had conferences with Pohl semi-annually because he was the Chief, the Wirtschaft und Verwaltungshauptamt of the WVHA. He was in charge. My entire intelligence service had to receive all its reports from Pohl or from the Reich Finance Office.
QNow, please answer one further question. The administration of concentration camps, the general treatment, food, etc., who was charged with that responsibility?
AThe entire competence and jurisdiction in concentration camps, from the moment that an internee stepsinside the gate until his release or until his death in the concentration camp or until the end of the war, at which time he was liberated, was exclusively under the jurisdiction of the WVHA.
QOne further question to give a complete picture of it. I am assuming that those things were with this special WVHA and were separate from the RSHA. Is it correct that on the basis of activities of the secret police, its protective custody orders, this interning could take place, is that right?
AThere is no doubt that that is correct, and especially as a result of special protective custody orders. I have already said that. But some of these were contrary to law. In general, this procedure did not go through the RSHA, but from the occupied territories.
QThen those offices were concerned with thetaking--they were the police?
ANo, not alone.
QDid they participate or did they collaborate?
AThe order of the State Police were also orders by the Court.
QNow, a further statement. Will you please tell me, in response to Question 5, the action in Denmark?
THE PRESIDENT:Have you dealt with Question 4 yet?
DR. KAUFFMANN:Not yet, Mr. President. I have not dealt with Question 4. BY DR. KAUFFMANN:
QI go over to Question 4. Isn't it a fact that in July or August, 1944, an order was issued to the commanders by Hitler through Kaltenbrunner as Chief, according to which the members of all Anglo-American Commando Groups should be turned over to the SIPO by the armed forces?
Mr. President, this question I wanted to treat comprehensively at a later time but, if you wish me to, I can deal with it now.
THE PRESIDENT:I do not care how you deal with it. I thought you were taking him through this document.
A I would like to answer the question now, please. The answer to this question is very simple.
The Prosecution itself, through a document, put up the contention in a completely different form that the state police had infringed in that it had forged the fact. In that document the Prosecution said that Mueller gave the approval, but here the deponent is told from Himmler through Kaltenbrunner as chief of the Sipo and SD. And that document, as far as I recall--I do not know the number--is signed by Mueller.
QI will submit that document to you. It is document 1650-PS and USA 246. This document is signed--the heading in Gestapo of Koeln and Aachen. It is dated the 4th of March, 1944. It is top secret. It deals with measures against escaped prisoners--against officers, with the exception of British and American prisoners of war.
THE PRESIDENT:Surely that hasnothing to do with it. This is a document of March and the document that the question refers to is in July or August.
DR. KAUFFMANN:I can't hear.
THE PRESIDENT:The document you have now put forward is a document in March 1944. The question No. 4 relates to a document in July or August 1944.
DR. KAUFFMANN:July or August 1944? I have no document to that effect, your Honor. Perhaps the Defendant can tell us now whether such an order by Himmler existed and whether such an order by Himmler was transmitted through you, yes or no.
AI heard about the existence of this order for the first time here. I believe it is a mistake on the part of the Prosecution that the question was put to Mildner as July or August. I believe the Prosecution means the document of the 4th of March, 1944.
QThen you are saying that this order is not known?
AI did not know this order nor did I know about it during my term of office.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Kauffmann, it is perfectly obvious, isn't it, that the document to which you are referring has nothing to do with this question at all, because this document of March concerns measures to be taken against captured escaped prisoners of war who are officers or noncommissioned officers, except British and American prisoners of war.
That is the document.
DR. KAUFFMANN:I do not have that document--one of July or August 1944.
THE PRESIDENT:I don't know whether there is a document of July or August 1944 at all; what I am saying to you is that the document which you put to the witness now, of March 1944, can't be the document referred to in Question No. 4, for it deals with an entirely different subject.
DR. KAUFFMANN:Yes. That is right, your Honor. I believe I can explain this, Mr. President. I assume that the testimony by the witness refers to the commando order of Hitler of October, 1942, and that an effect of this order is meant here. I believe it is that way.
THE PRESIDENT:Colonel Amen, can you tell us whether the Prosecution in putting this question were referring to a document of March 1944, or whether they were referring to a document of July or August 1944?
COLONEL AMEN:We, Your Lordship, were not referring to any document that was brought up by the witness. But since that time we have confirmed from another document--which I think we have here at the table, referring to this same document or a document of that same date. Now, the witness' feeling was that that document had been destroyed after reading. But that there was such an order apparently is borne out by another document which we have here which has not come before the Tribunal in any way at all. In other words, this document was brought up in the first instance by the witness himself.
THE PRESIDENT:But has the document to which Dr. Kauffmann has referred of March 1944 got anything to do with it?
COLONEL AMEN:That is not the document and has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
DR. KAUFFMANN:Then shall I pass on to the next question, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
BY DR. KAUFFMANN:
QWe are concerned with the Jewish persecution in Denmark. Please give your statement to that.
AThe statement in the affidavit of Mildner read by you this morning is correct.
QIs that your statement?
A I was never concerned with the removal of Jews from Denmark.
I was never concerned with that matter at all, and that such an order could only have been given by Himmler and was given as such was attested to by Mildner.
QPoint C of the question said that shortly after your return to Copenhagen you--that is, the witness Mildner--received a direct order by Himmler sent through Kaltenbrunner as chief.
AI never had a report like that come through my hands. I never received an order like that from Himmler, and it is quite impossible, since Denmark had its own higher SS and police leader who was the direct representative of Himmler right there, who was immediately subordinate to him and was not responsible to RSHA.
I could not organizationally give orders to Denmark.
QNow let us turn to question 6: Is it not a fact that the action of special action Eichmann was not a success and that Mueller ordered you, Mildner, to make a report explaining the causes for the lack of success, and that this report went directly to the chief of the Sipo and SD, Kaltenbrunner?
The witness Mildner said yes to that. Is this report from Denmark known to you?
AI not only do not know this report, but I know with certainty I didn't speak to Himmler--not once but a dozen times.
Every report of Eichmann's was received by Himmler direct, and that is shown -
QAs far as Hoettl's affidavit is concerned, let us turn to that--that no vital changes are contained from the affidavit given me.
Does the high Tribunal wish for me to put questions on that matter?
Then let us turn to question 5B, that orders for commitments into concentration camps and releases from them came from the RSHA is known to me.
That such orders originated with the RSHA I did not know.
As far as orders for executions from the RSHA are concerned, I have no knowledge.
What can you say to that?
AOrders for execution through RSHA could only have come if Himmler or Mueller transmitted or ordered the transmission of these orders, but I do believe that took place only in isolated cases and chiefly then if Mueller previously had a judgment by a court of law and had made this known to Himmler.
QMr. President, the Defendant asked me several minutes ago to be able to give a statement to the document 1063.
He disputes the signature on that document, and I believe that he wishes to say now that his signature was actually his own.
It is the document of the RSHA of the 26th of July, 1943.
It is 1063B-PS.
THE PRESIDENT:Have you got the original there?
DR. KAUFFMANN:I have only a photostatic copy; not the original, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, what is the question?
QAre you ready?
AYes. There is a mistake on your part, Dr. Kauffmann.
I did not dispute my signature. I did say that I had to assume that I received knowledge of this order after it had been pub lished and that the original document or order did not presumably have my signature.
But I do remember, through members of my office that it was an order the original of which was signed by me, and I further gather from the first few words of the decree--"The Reichsfuehrer SS had decreed, etc."
--that this order refers to a personal communication which I gave to Himmler, and that this order is based on that personal communication, and that on the 26th of July, 1943, I approaches him for the first time for the easing or relaxation or changing of conditions, that in such cases in which up to now people were, committed to concentration camps that they would not be committed any longer, They were minor cases. They were to be committed to labor education camps and there was to be a differentiation between concentration camps and labor education camps. Therefore, in my opinion it was the result of ray first speaking with him against the system of concentration camps.
I would also like to point out that this decree has Roman No.20. It is not a decree which came from the police executive offices but from the administrative level.
QWe are quite satisfied with this explanation.
The Prosecution is accusing you for the commitment of racially undesirabl elements. Now many concentration camps, after your appointment to chief of the RSHA, did you know of?
AAt the time of my appointment I new three concentration camps.
QAnd which were they?
AAt the end of my official activity in the whole of the Reich there were twelve.
QHow many were there in all?
AThere was a thirteenth. That was the SS punishment camp at Danzig. But in total there were thirteen concentration camps in the Reich.
QHow can you explain the chart which you saw which contained many red dots which were alleged to be concentration camps?
AThat picture is completely misleading. I saw this chart hanging on the wall. There must be all of those armament centres, factories, etc., in which internees from concentration camps were used for manpower purposes. These must have been characterized as concentration camps on this chart. As for as the deluge of red dots is concerned, I cannot explain it any other way.
Q Did you differentiate between the smaller camps and the rgular concentrat-
ion camps and if so, why?
AThe difference is very obvious and for the reasons that any worker who worked in armament industries, that is, each internee worked in the same enterprise, in the same concern as every other German or foreign worker. The differentiation of difference consisted only that the German worker at the conclusion of his working hours, at the end of the day, returned to his family, but the internee of the labor camp returned to the camp.
QYou are accused, that you established Mauthausen, that you inspected and visited this camp regularly. The witness Hoellriegel testified having seen you in this camp and further testified having seen you at the inspection of gas chambers and while these gas chambers were in operation. There is an affidavit of Zutter's, which has already been mentioned today, who also allegedly saw you at Mauthausen. The Prosecution therefore concludes that you knew about the conditions which were beneath the human dignity and that you knew about them. I am asking you now, are these pieces of evidence correct or wrong? When did you inspect these camps, and what observations did you make?
AThe testimony is wrong. In the after years, until 1943, I did not establish any concentration camp. Beginning 1943, I did not establish a single concentration camp in the Reich. Every concentration camp in the Reich, of which I know, and has been shown here, they were established by Himmler thorough Pohl; this also applies to Manthausen and also I must especially emphasize this, the latter, camp Manthausen, about the establisment of this camp, every Austrian office or department was excluded but they were surprised because neither the coception of a concentration camp was known in Austria, in that sense, nor the necessity for establishing concentration camps anywhere in Austria.
QAnd now, in Germany, in the old Reich.
AWhat do you mean by that?
Q I am asking regarding your knowledge of conditions there.
AAs far as conditions in concentration camps are concerned, I heard gradually step by step and, of course, by way of intelligence through the Reich I heard about these things.
QBid you testify that you saw gas chambers in operation?
ANever, neither while they were operating nor at any other time did I see a gas chamber.
THE PRESIDENT:You are going too fast. Make pauses between your questions and answers and don't speak too fast. He said that he had gradually by way of intelligence, heard of the concentration camps in the Reich. Is that right
DR. KAUFFMANN:Yes. BY DR. KAUFFMANN:
QTell us, step by step, about conditions that you had knowledge of in the concentration camps.
AYes.
QDo you recall my last question?
ANo.
QWhether you saw the gas chambers inspection and operation?
AYes, I already answered that never did I see a gas chamber, either in operation or at any other time.
I did not know that they existed at Mauthausen and testimony to that effect is entirely wrong. The detaining center at Mauthausen, I never set feet in it. I was at Mauthausen but not at this camp, but in the labor camp. The total complex of Mauthausen, as I remember it today, extends over an area six kilometers and within, there is a space of perhaps five or perhaps four and a half kilometers of working centers. There are granite quarries, the largest granite quarri in Austria, and they were owned by the City of Vienna.
Q A picture has been shown, according to which, together with Himmler and Ziehreiss, you were shown.
AI was just coming to that. The quarry belonged to the City of Vienna and the City of Vienna had a vital interest in this quarry, to use granite to pave their city and they did not want to be excluded from the use of this and according to a Reich law, as I knew later, with the WVHA, Pohl, this large quarry was expropriated from the City of Vienna and through it the City of Vienna was excluded from the suppy of granite. Now, the city turned to me, that I should approach Himmler on this, and that is how it came about, that when Himmler was visiting and inspecting Southern Germany, he visited Mauthausen and Austria and asked me to accompany him and in that way, it came about that I was with Himmler at this quarry, and whether I was photographed at that time, I don't know. At any rate, I have not seen the picture and I couldn't identify my person, anyway. I might add something. Himmler, neither at this time nor at any ether time did Himmler ever take me into a concentration camp or suggested that I do so and as I learned later, he had certain reasons for his not doing so, but I would not have attended such an inspection for I knew very well that as far as I was concerned, he would do with me like he did with others, people whom he invited to such visits, show them imaginary things like "Potemkin villages" and not conditions as they actually were; there were just a few people in the WVHA, who knew how things really were in concentration camps.
QNow, as far as my question is concerned, you are speaking about a handful of men. You did not belong to this group?
ANo, I did not. This handful was Himmler, Pohl, Mueller and Gluecks, and the camp commanders, as far as concentration camps at Mauthausen is concerned.
QAs far as Camp Mauthausen is concerned, there is a document to which we would like to have your views, 1560-PS, which has already been submitted, dated March 1944, the so-called "Kugel Erlass" (Bullet Decree). It deals with the Camp III. "Measures against recaptured prisoners of war, officers and non-commissioned officers, with the exclusion of British and American prisoners of war."
This document is known to the Tribunal in its contents. I do not believe that I need to read it. The defendant Kaltenbrunner is to give a statement, whether he knew.
THE PRESIDENT:I didn't hear the reference to it, the number.
DR. KAUFFMANN: 1650-PS, US 246.
THE PRESIDENT:Perhaps that would be a good time to break off for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHALL: May it please the Tribunal, a report is made that the defendant Goering is absent from this session of the Court.
BY DR. KAUFFMANN:
QHave you yet the document 1560-PS, and have you read it?
AYes, I have read it.
QThis, as emphasized, is the famous Decree Bullet. When did you hear of this?
AI did not know the actual decree; this must have been a decree made long before I came into office. And this copy here, of a teleprint, I have not seen either.
QI am now drawing your attention to the signature. What is it?
AMueller. Actually, the man was entitled to give such a signature if such a decree did in fact exist. But I would like to say, to supplement my statement, that in 1944-1945 the liaison officer between Himmler and Hitler, who was Fegelein at the time, attended a meeting when I made a report to headquarters, and I heard him mention the name "Decree Kugel", which is "Bullet". The word, as such was absolutely strange, and so I asked him what it was. He replied that this was a Fuehrer order and that he knew no more than that, except that he had heard that this was a special typo of prisoner of war.
I was not satisfied with that reply, and so, on the same day, I sent a teleprint message to Himmler in which I asked him to look into an order of the Fuehrer which was called "Bullet". At that time I did not know either that the State Police had concerned themselves with the Decree Bullet.
Then, once more, a few days later, Mueller came to see me, on Himmler's behalf, and he gave no a decree to read which did not come from Hitler, however, but from Himmler, and in which Himmler stated that he was transmitting a verbal Fuehrer order in this connection. Consequently, I replied to Himmler that this Fuehrer decree was once more indicating to no that the most primitive principles, or the most basic principles, of the Geneva Convention were being infringed, that this was goi ng back to a time long before my activities, and that there had been other violations following that.
I asked him to intervent with the Fuehrer, and I attached to this letter the draft of a letter from Himmler to Hitler, in which Himmler is asking the Fuehrer (a) to cancel that decree, and (b), at any rate, to inform subordinate departments, or rather, to relieve then of that considerable burden on their soul.
QWhat was the success of that?
AIt was positive. The Decree Bullet was not cancelled, nor were a number of other equally depressing orders, but, as I said, it was positive inasmuch as in February 1945 there was the first ease where Hitler permitted a contact with the International Red Cross to be made. I know that it had been strictly prohibited before.
QThis action on the part of the Red Cross was started by you? And did this action refer to the inspection of concentration camps?
AIn that connection I must answer yes and no. The timing did not coincide with the request made in turn by the Rod Cross and its President Burckhardt. He had requested immediate contact. Both attempts, I think, coincided, more or loss.
But please don't misunderstand me. Apart from that, there were, of course, numerous attempts to got in contact with the Rod Cross. I would almost like to say, behind Hitler is back. I am thinking, for instance, of the continuous contact the Foreign Office had with them.
QIf I understand you correctly, you are referring to Burckhardt's request to visit, or rather, the request put to Burckhardt-you are citing that so as to alleviate your position?
AYes, hut I should like to talk about that in greater detail. However, I don't want to do it at this stage.
Q The prosecution have stated that during the time you were in office two concentration camps had been newly established, Lublin, and Herzogenbusch.
Did you hear anything about that? Who could have ordered the establishing of these two camps?
ARegarding the date when these two camps were started, I am not informed about that. First, Lublin, and second, Herzogenbusch, so far as orders were concerned, were subordinate to the Chief of Economic Administrative Division, and were under the Higher Police SS Fuehrer, so that in Berlin we had nothing to do with them.
QNow, will you please answer this question with "yes" or "no"?
Had the concentration camp at Auschwitz been known to you as such?
ANo, I didn't know about it until November of 1943.
QSimultaneously with the gaining of the knowledge that the camp existed, did you also learn of the significance attached to this camp, namely, that it was distinctly an extermination camp for Jews delivered there by Eichmann?
ANo, and it couldn't have been known to anybody as such since the question put to Himmler, why such a large camp was being installedthere, was always answered by him "because of the proximity of the large armament works." And I think he mentioned some.
At any rate -- and I think this must be emphasized -- there was such a complete secrecy regarding the facts connected with Auschwitz which he arranged for, that the statement, not only of the prosecution but by anybody else who might have been asked by the Americans "That do you know?"-he could answer with no such statement which might be called credible.
QOne of the most atrocious events is connected with this camp I have mentioned, Auschwitz. This affair Auschwitz was under the spiritual leadership of the infamous Eichmann. I am asking you, when did you meet Eichmann?
AI knew Eichmann from my home town, Linz. The prosecution have stated -- and they have tried to construct this in an affidavit--that I was a friend, or at least a close acquaintance of Eichmann. I would like to make the following statement on this, with particular reference to my oath. My conception of a close acquaintance or friendship is different.
I knew of Eichmann's existence in Linz, because his father, the director of the electrical construction company at Linz, had to consult my father in his capacity as a lawyer, and they knew each other.
And, of course, he, as his father's son, attended the same school which was attended by my brothers.
However, the atatement of Hoettl, for instance, that I had met him in an SS platoon at Linz, is wrong.
When I joined the SS, Eichmann had long gone into Germany, or had escaped into Germany, as I heard later.
The prosecution state that I met him for the first time in 1932, Possibly I saw him once in Linz in 1932, but the second time I saw him was in February or March of 1945. Therefore, for 13 years I did not see him at all. And after that last meeting I didn't see him again either, So, on the strength of two meetings, I can drawthe conclusion that I was neither a friend of his nor were we closely acquainted.
It is true that on that second occasion he accosted me and said, "Obergruppenfuehrer Eichmann is my name; I come from Linz too." I said, "Pleased to meet you. How are things back home?" There was no official contact.
QWitness Lammers stated yesterday that in the RSHA there was a conference regardin the so-called "final solution." Did you know about it?
ANo. I think that the witness hammers, and an other witness too, stated that Eichmann, possibly under my name, had called a meeting at the RSHA in Berlin, during February or March 1943, a so-called discussion of department chiefs. I have to say to that, to begin with, that I did nominally commence my services on the 30th of January, but that in fact, until May, I was not in Berlin except for certain official visits. I was down in Vienna, where I was creating the basis of an intelligence service, which I was going to take to Berlin on bloc.
QOne further question here. when did you hear for the first time that the camp at Auschwitz was an extermination camp?
AHimmler told me that in 1944, in February or March,
QWhat was your attitude?
AThat is to say, he didn't tell me, he admitted it,
QAfter you hoard this, what was your attitude in that respect?
AI did not hear the question.
QWhat attitude did you adopt when you heard about it.