There was a special police court for them.
In one sentence I can characterize this system by saying that on the whole the sentences were more severe and passed more often than in a regular civil court.
QIt has been asserted that for an offense, because he had taken some matters from sone one, that he had to serve in the penitentiary. Was that true?
AYes, he did receive that sentence.
QDo you know was came to the concentration camp Danzig-Matzgau?
AIn that concentration camp, which was an SS punishment camp rather than a concentration camp, every one who was taken there was sentenced by SS or police courts.
QCould Gestapo members, especially of a higher rank, visit a concentration camp?
AOnly with the express approval of Pohl or Gluecks.
QIs that also true of the higher SS and police leaders for the camps which were under your jurisdiction?
AI could not say that with assurance or certainty, but I think they could apply to make these visits.
QDo you know the so-called "severe measures of interrogation", and can you find those in other states?
AI was present at the International Criminal police Commission, and I had the opportunity in the fall of 1943 at a session to speak about this topic, and from my reading in the foreign press. I gathered that each police system of each state has such measures.
QCould a state -
THE PRESIDENT:What happened at some international police commission does not seem to be relevant to anything in this case.
DR. MERKEL:I only wanted to question the defendant on whether these severe measures of interrogation were in existence not only in Germany but also in other states.
THE PRESIDENT:We are not concerned with that.
DR. MERKEL:The more severe measures of interrogation are used as an incriminating statement for this witness.
Q Could a state police officer who had given a protective custody order which was limited in time think of corporal punishment or death at the commitment of the internee?
ANo, not with an order of that kind.
QWas there a so-called Haftpruefungsverfahrung, an investigation? Did that apply to the inmates of the concentration camps?
A Yes, in peace and in war. Three times in peace and twice in time of war, and that was applied to every protective custody internee.
This investigation was not just a matter of the State Police. This result had to be received from the camp commandant, and these reports had to be given to the Inspector of the Concentration Camps. He, in turn, had to deal with the State Police about this matter and about this internee.
QThe Prosecution talked about mistreatment in the occupied western countries, France, Holland, Belgium, Norway, and has brought evidence to that effect. Were there any instructions from the RSHA as far as torturing was concerned?
ANo, certainly not.
QHow do you explain the fact of this mistreatment?
AThe mistreatment with which the State Police is charged--I have never heard of that. In my opinion, the excesses of individuals might be involved, but a decree to that order certainly was never issued.
QDo you know that in the occupied countries, members of the resistance party and criminal elements masqueraded as members of the German State Police in order to facilitate their tasks?
AThat has been repeatedly stated, but I do not remember any such thing or having seen anything like that.
DR. MERKEL:I have no further questions. BY DR. HAENSEL (Counsel for the SS):
QWitness, in the year 1932 you entered the Austrian SS, according to the testimony.
AYes.
QWas there a difference between the Austrian SS and the German SS, or was it a unified group?
AThere was a certain organizational similarity, but that took place after the Anschluss. Up until the time of the Anschluss, the SS in Austria can not be differentiated from the SA or from the Party.
QTell me, as far as members are concerned, the numbers of the Austrian SS, to which you belonged; first of all, before the Anschluss in 1938 and at the time at which you entered.
What was the difference in numbers, and how did the development take place?
THE PRESIDENT:Too fast.
QHow, as far as figures were concerned, did the development of the SS, to which you belonged, take place?
AI believe that at the time of the Austrian Anschluss, the maximum membership was perhaps 7,500.
QDid that group in Austria play the role of a fifth column? Is "fifth column" a concept as far as you are concerned?
AYes, "Fifth column" became a concept to me through the statements of the enemy, but to term the Austrian SS a fifth column is entirely wrong. The Austrian SS never had the task of being an intelligence unit or a sabotage unit. It never had any task like that.
QIn the Austrian SS, to which you belonged, was the intention through force to bring about the annexation of Austria to Germany to be seen, or should this be brought about through plebiscites, through legal measures?
AThere was not a plan of annexation by force. There was never any necessity for any such step, for the Anschluss movement was very strong in itself.
QIt has been asserted that the SS Standarte 86-
AThat might have been the one at Vienna.
Q Do you mean the standarte which appeared at the Dolfuss Putsch? Can you tell me something about that?
Did the work of this standarte have any connection with the assassination of the Austrian Chancellor?
AI consider that incorrect. I must say that this standarte did not have the number 86, but 89.
Point 2, the group which had entered the Chancellory on the 21st of June of 1935 was not a group of the SS, but a group of former members of the Austrian Army who, because of National Socialist activity, had been discharged from the Army.
In that connection I do not know of anything further, but that at that time highest Austrian Police Leader, Dr. Skubl, should be able to give you information about that. I believe he has been asked for as a witness in another case, and I ask that you question him about this matter.
QSo far as the entry of the troops on the night of the 11th of March, 1938can you remember that date? Which troops, according to your recollection, did march in? Here they SS units, or were they other units? Were they regular Army units, or were any SS units at all connected with that? What is your recollection?
AMy recollection is such that, first of all, they were Wehrmacht units, and there was one regiment of the Waffen SS, I can't recall which one, perhaps the Standarte Deutschland.
QWhich of these units took part, and what is the proportional figure between the Wehrmacht and the Standarte Deutschland? That is, approximately.
AThe Standarte Deutschland at that time, perhaps, had 2800 men. So far as the Wehrmacht is concerned, I don't know how many units there were.
QIn order to establish the relationship, according to your idea, what is the entire figure of SS men? I would like to make it a little easier for you..I have seen a letter in which it is stated that in all a membership of three quarters of a million to one million men existed. Is such a figure correct?
AOne million is much too high. With all parts of the SS together, including the Allgemeine SS, the General SS and the Waffen SS, including the SSmembers in police activity, I believe the figure is 720,000 to 750,000 men. Out of that number, at least 320,000 to 350,000 men died in action.
These losses might even be a little higher then what I have just stated, but I believe the exact figure might be found, out from one of the defendants of the Wehrmacht.
QAs far as this entire membership is concerned, how many men do you believe so far as you are able to determine, were connected with concentration camps; that is, with the supervision, administration, and so forth? Can you give me any figure as to just how many were so connected?
AThat is a question that is rather surprising to me, and I am sorry I cannot answer it immediately. In order to make calculations, I would have to have pencil and paper.
QCould you, through your own Knowledge-
AOf course, only a small fragment of the entire figure would be concerned in these duties.
QDid those SS members--no matter how many or how few they were-- who were not connected with the administration of concentration camps have any idea of administrative conditions or of things that took place?
ACertainly not.
QHow can you tell me that with such certainty?
AI know that as to concentration camps, because of the delimitation by Himmler or through his organization, no information could got out.
QAs to the officials of Security Amt which you headed, were those officials recruited from the SS?
ANo, not at all. So far as confidential men and collaborators of the Security Police in Germany itself were concerned, the ratio of members-
that is, those belonging and not belonging to the SS--was 5 to 100.
QTherefore, for 100 officials there were 5 who had come through the SS?
AYes.
QAccording to your knowledge were there regulations, as far as the physical mistreatment of concentration camp internees was concerned, which included this mistreatment, and was that known?
AYes, from each of the police offices. They were printed instructions, and every SS man knew of these regulations;they were laws.
They were punished heavily if anything like that was reported or appeared to have taken place.
I do not know in what scope the SS camp Danzig-Matzgau came into the hands of the enemy, but I am convinced that those who were there, who were punished severely so far as mistreatment of concentration camp internees was concerned, can give informa tion about that.
DR. HAENSEL:I have finished, Your Honor.
THE. PRESIDENT:Does the prosecution wish to cross-examine?
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY COLONEL AMEN:
QDefendant, in order to shorten as much as possible the time of this cross-examination, I want to be sure that we under stand each other as to just what your position is as to several specific items.
Now, first, you concede that you held the title of Chief of the RSHA and Chief of the Security Police and SD from the end of January 1943 up to and including the end of the war.
Is that correct?
AYes; it applies with those limitations which I enumerated yesterday as far as my limitation of power was concerned.
QAnd when you speak of those limitations, you are referring to this supposed understanding with Himmler?
Is that correct?
A It wasn't a supposed understanding with Himmler, it was something which existed.
It was a fact which existed from the first day, that I had the task of establishing an intelligence service, and that he would retain the, command in the other sectors.
QWell, in any event, you concede that you held that title, but you deny that you exercised some of the powers?
Correct?
AYes.
QAnd this title which you held was the same title which was previously held by Heydrich, who had died on the 4th of June, 1942?
Is that correct?
AYes.
QThere was no change in title?
ANo.
QAnd you testified that you assume responsibility for all of the things which you did personally or knew about personally.
That is correct, is it not?
AYes. I would like to add that my title received an expansion on the 14th of February, 1944, when the Military Intelligence Service of the OKW, Abwehr, was transferred to Himmler by Hitler, and then my title as Chief of the entire Reich Intelligence Service was known in other departments.
And I might add also, perhaps, that the capacity of a man or of an office, which not only took in the whole of the Reich but abroad also--that is, anything like that is not pub licized.
I might refer to England, where the Chief of the Secret Service over there-
QDefendant, will you please try to confine yourself to answering my question "yes" or "no" whenever possible, and making only a brief explanation, because we will come to all these other things in due time.
Will you try to do that?
AYes, very well.
Q Did you have any personal knowledge or anything personal to do with any of the atrocities which occurred in concentration camps during the war?
ANo.
QAnd therefore you assume no responsibility before this Tribunal for any such atrocities?
Is that correct?
ANo, I do not assume any responsibility in that regard.
QAnd, in that connection, such testimony as has been given here by Hoellriegel, for example, to the effect that you witnessed executions at Mauthausen, you deny?
Is that correct?
AYesterday I was accused, and was told of the testimony of Hoellriegel.
I declared his testimony wrong, or false, that I at any time ever saw a gas chamber, either in operation or at any other time.
Q Very good. You had no personal knowledge of and did nothing personal about the program for the extermination of the Jews, is that correct, except to oppose them?
ANo. I was against this program, of course; but from the moment when I knew of this as facts I objected with Hitler and Himmler, and the result was that they were stopped.
QAnd therefore you assume no responsibility for anything done in connection with the program for the extermination of the Jews, right?
AYes.
QAnd does the same thing apply to the program for forced labor?
AYes.
QAnd the same thing applies, does it not, to the razing of the Warsaw ghetto?
AYes.
QAnd the same thing applies to the execution of fifty fliers in connection with Stalag Luft 3?
AYes.
QAnd the same thing applies to the various orders with respect to the killing of enemy fliers, correct?
AYes.
QAnd, as a matter of fact, you made all of these same denials in the course of your interrogations before this trial, correct?
AYes.
QAnd you still make them today?
AYes. But as far as the preliminary interrogations are concerned, I would like to make a statement to that in cross examination.
QWell, when we come to the proper place let us know.
Is it or is it not a fact that the Gestapo, Amt IV, RSHA, prepared reports on concentration camps which were submitted to you for signature and then passed on to Himmler?
ANo. I do not recall any such reports. The normal channel was that Mueller reported to Himmler direct.
QDo you likewise deny -
AI might like to add that of course certain matters existed in which I had to be informed for several reasons.
The domestic proceedings, such as the attempted assassination of July, of course I knew about that, but not through Amt IV.
QI am speaking of the general course of activity and not of any special exceptions, you understand.
AYes.
QYou likewise deny that Mueller, as chief of AmtIV, always conferred with you with respect to any important documents?
AYes. I not only deny it but the facts speak against it. He had direct authority from Himmler. He had no reason to discuss this matter with me before.
QI ask that the defendant be shown a document, L-50, which will become USA Exhibit 793.
THE PRESIDENT:Hasn't this been put in before?
COLONEL AMEN:No, Your Lordship, I am told it has not.
QBy the way, were you acquainted with Kurt Lindow, who makes this affidavit dated 2 August 1945?
ANo.
QAlthough he was an official in the RSHA until 1944? Let's read together paragraphs 2 and 4 only. I won't take the time of the Tribunal to read paragraphs 1 and 3. Two, you will note, reads as follows:
"On the basis of general experience as well as of individual cases I can confirm that the Gestapo (office IV) wrote, reports about practices of the administrative authorities in the concentration camps and that these were given by the chief of office IV to the Chief of the Security Police for signature and were submitted to the Reichsfuehrer Himmler."
AMay I reply to thatimmediately?
QYes.
AIt might be proper perhaps to read paragraph 1 also.
QPlease make it as brief as you can.
AParagraph 1 seems to be important, for in paragraph 1 it says that the witness Lindow, from 1938 until 1940, was in this department in which such reports were written -- that this man worked in this Department. In 1940-41 he was in counter-espionage; in 1942 and 1943 for the combatting of communism; and later in the department for education of office I. I believe, therefore, that his testimony in paragraph 2 that he knew of the activity of the Gestapo, that thorugh the chief No. IV reports were submitted to Himmler about happeneings in concentration camps, only the time 1938 to 1940 is involved.
The later period of time, from his own testimony, he has no personal experience and observations.
QWell, in other words he is not telling the truth as it was at the time when you were active in RSHA, correct?
AI have not read that much.
QI am calling your attention to two paragraphs. We have already covered 2, and now we will read 4:
"To my knowledge no chief of office or any of the officials of the RSHA authorized to sign had the right to sign in any fundamental affairs of particular political significance without consent of the Chief of the Security Police--not even during his temporary absence. From own experience I can furthermore declare that particularly the chief of office IV, Mueller, was very cautious in signing documents concerning questions of general nature and in some cases of greater importance, and that he put aside events of such nature in most cases for the return of the Chief of the Security Police, whereby alas often much time was lost.
"Signed: Kurt Lindow,"
AYes. I would like to make two statements: First, this assertion is contrary to the testimony of several witnesses who know of the extraordinary authority and independence exercised by Mueller, who testified to his independence and authority.
Point 2: The description of Lindow is applicable to that period of time in which Heydrich was active--that is, the time between 1938 and 1940, in which Lindow could observe things. But this does not apply to the period in which Himmler gave direct orders to Mueller, and it was Himmler's prerogative, for my tasks were of such scope that it was almost impossible for one man to handle the work that I did.
QI don't want to spend too much time on it now, Defendant, but the paragraphs which I read you conform to the testimony of Ohlendorf before this Tribunal, do they not?
AThe testimony as given by Ohlendorf was shown to me yesterday by my Counsel. But the testimony as given by Ohlendorf leads us clearly to see that any executive order or power, even for protective custody--and he used the term "up until the last washerwoman"--that Himmler was competent for all of these things, and he delegated this authority only to Mueller.
He did add, however, he did not know that such a limitation of power was so in my case and whether perhaps I might not have had powers, but with assurance and certainty he could not state that. And the rest of his testimony contradicts my ever having such broad authority.
QWe all know what Ohlendorf's testimony was. I merely want to ask you if you accept the testimony of Ohlendorf. You told us in the course of interrogations that you had the most contact with Ohlendorf and that you would trust him to tell the truth before any of your other associates, is that not correct?
AI do not recall the last statement. The first statement, that he was one of my chief collaborators, is of course true and justified and is proved by the fact that he was chief of the intelligence within Germany, which was a part of my intelligence service. All domestic political reports--reports about German spheres of life-I received from this Amt III. That is besides the other departments which I worked out myself.
QShortly after Easter 1934 you were under arrest in the Kaisersteinbruch detention camp?
AWhat year was that, please?
QThirty-four.
AYes; from the 4th of January until the beginning of May.
QDid you ever, in company with other GS functionaries, make an inspection of the Mauthausen camp?
AWith other SS officials? No. To my recollection I went there alone and reported to Himmler; and as I stated, yesterday he was conducting a visiting tour through Germany.
QAnd you only went in the quarry? Right?
AYes.
QWere you acquainted with Karwinski, the state secretary in the Dollfuss and Schuschnigg cabinets from September 1933 to October 1935-Karwinski?
A I saw Karwinski once. I believe at that time through the hunger strike.
He visited us at this camp. I have never seen him since or at any other time. It might be that one of his representatives visited us. That I can't say exactly.
Q I ask that the Defendant be shown document No. 3843-PS, which will be USA Exhibit No. 794.
I would like to say to the Tribunal that there is rather objectionable language in this exhibit but I do feel that in view of the charges against the Defendant, I do feel it is my duty to read it nonetheless.
If you will turn to Page 3.
AOn page 3 there are just a few lines. May I read the entire document now, please?
QIt would take much too much time, Defendant. I am only interested in the paragraph which is on page 3 of the English text, and commences, "Shortly after Easter". Do you have it?
AYes, I have the place.
Q "Shortly after Easter 1934 I received the news that the prisoners in the Kaiser-Steinbruch detention camp had gone on hunger strike. Thereupon I went there myself, in order to inform myself about the situation. While comparative calm and discipline prevailed in most of the barracks, one barrack was very disorderly. I noticed that one tall men seemed to be the leader of the resistance. This was Kaltenbrunner, at that time a candidate for attorneyat-law, who was under arrest because of his illegal activity in Austria. While all the other barracks gave up their hunger strike after a talk which I held with representatives of the prisoners, the barracks under Kaltenbrunner persisted in the strike. I saw Kaltenbrunner again in the Mauthausen camp, when I was severely ill and lying on rotten straw with many hundred other seriously ill persons, many of them dying. The prisoners, suffering from hunger edema and from the most serious intestinal sicknesses, were lying in unheated barracks in the dead of winter. The most primitive sanitary arrangements were lacking. The toilets and the washrooms were unusable for months. The severely ill persons had to relieve themselves on little marmalade buckets. The soiled straw was not renewed for weeks, so that a stinking liquid was formed, in which worms and maggots crawled around. There was no medical attention or medicines. Conditions were such that 10 to 20 persons died every night. Kaltenbrunner walked through the barracks with a brilliant suite of high SS functionaries, saw everything, must have seen everything. We were under the illusion that these inhuman conditions would now be changed, but they apparently met with Kaltenbrunner's approval for nothing happened thereafter."
Is that true or false, defendant?
AThe document which is an obvious surprise to me I can refute in every point.
QI ask just -- first, I ask you to state whether it is true of false?
AIt is not true and each detail I can refute.
QMake it as brief as possible.
AIt is important for me to make it longer than what we have here. I have to refute each word which is incriminating me.
QJust a moment. Perhaps you will wait until I have read to you two more exhibits I have along the same line. Then perhaps you can make your explanation of all three at the same time. Is that satisfactory to you?
AYes, of course.
QI ask that the defendant be shown document No. 3845-PS, which will become Exhibit No. USA-795. You have already denied, I believe, having visited or going through the crematorium at Mauthausen, correct?
AYes.
QDo you know Tiefenbacher, Albert Tiefenbacher?
ANo.
QIf you have the document you will note that he was at Mauthausen concentration camp from 1938 until 31 May 1945 and that he was employed in the crematorium at Mauthausen for three years as a carrier of dead bodies. You note that?
AYes.
QNow, passing to the lower half of the first page, you will find the question:
"Do you remember Eigruber?" Answer: "Eigruber and Kaltenbrunner were from Linz."
"Did you ever see them in Mauthausen?
"I saw Kaltenbrunner very often.
"How many times?
"He came from time to time and went through the crematorium.
"About how many times?
Answer: "Three or four times."
Question: "On any occasion when he came through, did you hear him say anything to anybody?"
Answer: "When Kaltenbrunner arrived most prisoners had to disappear, only certain people were introduced to him."
Is that true or false?
AThat is completely incorrect.
QNow I will show you the third document and then you can make a brief explanation.
I ask that the defendant be shown document No. 3846-PS which will become Exhibit No. USA-796.
I might ask you, witness, do you remember ever having witnessed a demonstration of three different kinds of executions at Mauthausen at the same time?
Three different kinds of executions?
ANo, certainly not.
QAre you acquainted with Johann Kanduth who makes this affidavit?
ANo.
QYou will note, from the affidavit, that he lived in Linz; that he wan an inmate of the concentration camp at Mauthausen from 21 March 1939 until 5 May 1945; that besides the work in the kitchen, he also worked in the crematorium from the 9th of May, and he worked the heating for the cremation of the bodies.
Now, if you will burn to the second page,at the top.
Question: "Have you ever seen Kaltenbrunner at Mauthausen on a visit at any time?"
Answer: "Yes."
"Do you remember when it was?"
"In 1942 and 1943."
"Can you give it more exactly, maybe the month?
"I don't know the date" "Do you remember only this one visit in the year 1942 or 1943?"
"I remember Kaltenbrunner three times."
"What year?"
"Between 1942 and 1943."
Question: "Tell us, in short, what did you think about these visit as of Kaltenbrunner which you described?
That is: what did you see, what did you do, and when did you see that he was or was not present at such executions?"
Answer: "Kaltenbrunner was accompanied by Eigruber, Schulz, Zeireis, Bachmaier, Streitwieser and some other people.
Kaltenbrunner went laughing into the gas chamber.
Then the people were brought from the bunker to be executed and then all three kinds of executions:
hanging, shooting in the back of the neck, and gassing, were demonstrated. After the dust had disappeared, we had to take away the bodies."
Question: "When did you see the three different kinds of executions? Were these just demonstrations or regular executions?
Answers: "I do not know if they were regular executions, or just demonstrations. During these executions, besides Kaltenbrunner, the bunkerleaders 'Hauptscharfuehrer' Seidel and Duessen were also present. The last named then led the people downstairs.
"Do you know whether these executions were announced for this day or if they were just demonstrations or if the executions were staged just for pleasure of the visitors?
"These executions were announced for this day.
"How do you know that they were set for this day? Did somebody tell you about these announced executions?
"Hauptscharfuehrer Roth, the leader of the crematorium, always had me called to his room and said to me: 'Kaltenbrunner will come today and we have to prepare everything for the executions in his presence.' Then we were obliged to heat and to clean the stoves. " Is that true or false, defendant?
AUnder my oath, I wish to state that not a single word of these exhibits is true. I might share with the first document.
QCould you note, defendant, that none of these affidavits were taken in Nurnberg, but that they all appeared to have been taken outside of Nurnberg in connection with an entirely different proceeding or investigation. Did you note that?
ANo, but it is irrelevant for the testimony, as far as I am concerned.
QYes, go ahead.
AThe witness Karwinsky states having seen me in the year 1934 in connection with the hunger strike in the detention camp Kaiser-Steinbruch. He singles out the barracks in which disorderswere taking place in which a tall man, meaning myself, was present. According to him, I was interned there because of my illegal activity.
As far as these accusations are con-
cerned, up to now, they are completely wrong.
First of all, I was not interned because of National Socialistic activities, but because of the report which we had received and Karwinsky, who was then State Secretary, and who would be familiar with this report, had said to perform National Socialistic activities at that moment was prohibited and all prohibited activities had been charged to me. Then, further, when Karwinsky came, the hunger strike was in its 9th day. We had not -
QMay I interrupt you just a moment, defendant, I am perfectly satisfied if you answer that these statements are false. If you are satisfied, I am perfectly satisfied with that answer. I do not need an explanation of all of these paragraphs when we have no way of verifying what you say.
AMr. Prosecutor, I cannot be satisfied if the High Tribunal and the world is presented with testimony and documents which are pages long and of which you contend that they are the truth, and then you incriminate me in the most grave manner. I must have the opportunity to answer with more than yes or no. I cannot just say ----
THE PRESIDENT:You'd better let him go on. We do not want to argue about it. Go on, make your comments on the document.
THE WITNESS:Karwinsky arrived on the 8th or 9th day of the hunger strike. He did not come into the barracks in which we were, but we were brought on stretchers into the administrative building. None of us were even able to walk any more. And for this fact, there are many more witnesses --490 internees who had been confined in these barracks with me were in this administrative barracks. Karwinsky talked with us and stated that if the hunger strike were to stop the government would be willing to consider a liberation or a dismissal of the internees. We had been interned without having committed any offense at all, and thegovernment had given their promise to release us three times, and prior to that, never kept the promise.
Also, we requested a written statement from Karwi nsky, either signed by hom or signed by others. We wanted this statement so that we could believe and if we could be shown it, then we would end the strike.