Is that true or false?
AMr. Prosecutor, I have never given such an order.
QWell, you knew. Were you acquainted with SS Colonel Ziereis,the same person we have just been speaking of?
AYes.
QAnd were you acquainted with Kurt Becher or Becker, a former Colone in the SS?
ANo.
QI ask to have the defendant shown Document No. 3762-PS, which will become U.S.A. Exhibit No. 798.
AYou asked, Mr. Prosecutor, whether I know Colonel Becker, and I answered "No", but the man is Kurt Becher.
QThat's all the better. You do know him then, do you ?
AI know him, yes.
QVery good.
THE PRESIDENT:Colonel Amen, have those documents been translated into all languages?
COLONEL AMEN:I believe they have every one of them, yes. No, I am told that all of them have not; some of them have. This one is in English and German Your Lordship. We did not have time to get them translated into the Russian and French, although it is now in progress.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, then it will be done?
COLONEL AMEN:Yes, sir, it is being done, yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
A May I reply to it?
THE PRESIDENT:In order that the record should be properly complete, the Tribunal would like the Prosecution to state when the translation has been done so that the matter should be thoroughly in order.
COLONEL AMEN:Precisely.
QDefendant, we will now read this document together;
"I, Kurt Becher, formerly a colonel in the SS, born 12 September 1909, at Hamburg, declare the following under oath:
"Between the middle of September and October 1944 I caused the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler to issue the following order, which I received in two originals, one each for SS Generals Kaltenbrunner and Pohl, and a carbon copy for myself:
"Effective immediately I forbid any liquidation of Jews and order that, on the contrary, hospital care should be given to weak and sick persons. ( hold you (and here Kaltenbrunner and Pohl were meant personally responsible if this order should not be strictly adhered to by lower echelons.'
"I personally took Pohl's copy to him at Ids office in Berlin and left the copy for Kaltenbrunner at his office in Berlin.
"In my opinion Kaltenbrunner and Pohl bear the full responsibility after this date for any further killings of Jewish prisoners.
"When visiting the concentration camp Mauthausen on 27 April 1945 at 9:00 a.m. I was told under the seal of strictest secrecy by the commandant in the camp, SS Colonel Ziereis, that 'Kaltenbrunner gave me the order that at least a thousand persons have still to die at Mauthausen each day.'
"The facts mentioned above are true. This declaration is made by me voluntarily and without coercion. I read through them, signed them, and confirmed the statement with my oath."
Is that true or false, Defendant?
AIn part it is correct and in part it isn't. I shall explain it sentence by sentence.
QNo. Suppose you simply tell us what you claim to be false, because we must get on with this.
A I believe that you want to save time, but this is the question of establishing if the guilt in this connection is mine or not, and to do that I must be given an opportunity to state my statement in detail.
Otherwise neither you nor the Tribunal would know the truth, and that is what we want here, isn't it? I am glad that this witness was found and that this statement is available, because it proves, first of all, that in September or October 1944 Himmler was forced to issue this order and that Himmler, about whom it has been ascertained that since 1939 or 1940, and on the largest scale, was a criminal who was responsible for the killing of Jews.
And now we must find out just why in September or October Himmler had given such an order. Before I had seen this document, yesterday and today I have stated that this order, through my intervention, was gotten from Hitler, and obviously this order from Himmler is based on another order which he in turn received from Hitler.
Secondly, it is clear to me that Himmler gave such an order to Pohl as the responsible person for concentration camps, and that he has given the information to me as the person who was Himmler's opponent in this case, and that is this man Kaltenbrunner. As far as Becher is concerned, I should like to go into that a little more.
Himmler has done the worst things in connection with this man Becher which could possibly be done under the circumstances. It is through Becher and the Joint Committee in Hungary and Switzerland that he first of all exchanged for raw materials foreign currency and other goods he received from Jews. I heard about this through the intelligence service and immediately attempted to stop this -- not with Himmler, because I would have failed, but with Hitler. At that moment any personal credit Himmler might have had with Hitler night have been undermined, and this action damaged the reputation of the Reich abroad in the most serious possible manner.
At the same time my efforts in connection with Becher had been going on, and now you can understand why Schellenberg said that he had been told by Himmler "I am afraid; I am scared now. Kaltenbrunner's got me under his thumb. This means that now this man Kaltenbrunner has quite clearly proved what the things were that I was doing in Hungary and he has told Hitler about it."
This order was an attempt to camouflage and was his attempt to get out of the whole thing by pretending before Hitler as if the possibilities were with Kaltenbrunner and Pohl.
And according to this document the responsibility was with Himmler and Pohl, but Kaltenbrunner had to be included and be told about it because otherwise he would continually talk to Hitler about it every day. That is the content of that document.
Please, Mr. Prosecutor, if this witness Becher is in Nurnberg will you confront him with me here. I am perfectly in a position on the strength of that witness to prove to the public just how the matter in Hungary was the beginning of a matter which up to this day Himmler and Pohl were doing this business. And I can prove how I fought against it.
There is yet another accusation in this document, and that is that on the 27th of April I am supposed to have given a strictly secret order to Ziereis that a thousand persons a day had to be destroyed in Mauthausen every day. I am telling you that the witness Hoettl, who is also present here, should be brought in here at once so that I can ask him on what day I had dictated the written order and sent it by courier to Mauthausen in which I stated that the entire camp with all its inmates was to be surrendered to the enemy, and the witness will then confirm it to you that this order was given several days before the 27th of April and that I couldn't have ordered the contrary, the opposite, on the 27th.
I am asking you not to take me by surprise and put me in a situation under which I can collapse, Mr. Prosecutor. I am not going to collapse. I swear it to you and I have sworn it that I am determined to establish what is true.
QDefendant, you have heard evidence at this trial with respect to the meaning of the phrase "special treatment," have you not?
Have you heard that in this courtroom?
AThe expression has been used by my interrogators several times every day.
QIt can only be assumed, although I can't give a detailed explanation, that this was a death sentence, not through an open court but through an order by Himmler.
QWell, the Defendant Keitel testified that, I think, it was a matter of common knowledge. Have you not at all times known what was meant by special treatment? Yes or no, please.
AYes. I have told you an order from Himmler--I am referring you to Hitler order of 1941 and Himmler's order that executions should be carried out without legal procedure.
QDid you ever discuss the application of special treatment to certain individuals with Gruppenfuehrer Mueller of Amt IV? Yes or no, please.
ANo;no. I don't know even if Schellenberg said so.
QI ask to have the defendant shown Document No. 3839-PS which will become USA 799. By the way, were you aquainted with Joseph Spacil?
THE PRESIDENT: Answer the question.
QWere you aquainted with Joseph Spacil?
ASpassp? No.
QHe is the person who makes the affidavit now before you.
AThe name which is mentioned here is Joseph Spacil, and that man I know, ye
QNow, will you look at the center of the first page, a paragraph commencing "In regard to special treatment," Do you have the place?
ANot yet, no. So as to comprehend the document I shall have to read all of it.
QWell, if you have to read all of those documents, Defendant, we would never got through, because the first part has nothing to do with the part which I am interested in or with you.
AI beg your pardon, Mr. Prosecutor. I am sure that you are interested in expeditious procedure, but as Defendants, we are just as interested in our defens and we are just as anxious not to delay the proceedings; but those things which are necessary for my defense--at least I must be able to read a document to which I have to make a statement.
Q But, Defendant, your Lawyer is receiving copies of all these documents, and I am sure that whatever is there which should be brought out on your behalf He will see to it that it will be brought out at the proper time, which will be after I get through asking you these questions.
Isn't that satisfactory?
ANo, that is not enough for me. I must know at any rate what is contained in that document, since you are asking me to make a statement on it now.
QWell, go ahead and read it then.
THE PRESIDENT:Defendant, not only your own counsel will look after your interests but the Tribunal will look after your interests, and you must answer the question, please.
AYes.
QVery well. Now let's read along in the center of the page, commencing with "inregard to special treatment I have the following knowledge:
"On occasion of the meetings of the section heads Gruppenfuehrer Mueller frequently remarked to Kaltenbrunner if the one or the other case should receive special treatment or if special treatment was to be considered. The expressions were the following for example:
"Mueller: Obergruppenfuehrer, please Case B, special treatment or not?
"Kaltenbrunner: Yes, or to be presented to the Reichsfuehrer for decision.
"Or "Mueller:
Obergruppenfuehrer, no answer has arrived from the Reichsfuehrer in regard to special treatment of Case A.
"Kaltenbrunner: To be traced.
"Mueller handed a paper to Kaltenbrunner and requested instructions, as described above.
"If such a conversation between Mueller and Kaltenbrunner took place, only the initials were mentioned, so that the persons present at the table never knew who was involved."
And then the last two paragraphs:
"Mueller as well as Kaltenbrunner have proposed, special treatment, r-e-
s-p, period". I do not know just what that means Your Lordship. "presentation to RFSS for approval of special treatment in my presence for special cases, which I can not identify. I estimate that in approximately 50 per cent of the cases, special treatment was approved."
Is the contents of that affidavit true or false, defendant?
AThe contents, in the interpretation you are giving to the document is not correct. You will see immediately that that tragic expression "special treatment" in the connection will change and be rather funny and humorous. Do you know Winzerstube, Godesberg, which are cases of your so-called "special treatment"? Walzertraum, in the smartest and most fashionable Alpine hotel of the whole German Reich, and the Bergerstube is a very famous hotel. I can not quite remember its name at the moment. It is Godesberg in which international meetings were held. On both these hotles especially qualified and respected personalities were found. I think of M. Ponset, M. Heriot, and many more. They were accomodated there, and they had three times the diplomatic rations, which is nine time the rations of the ordinary German during the war. They were daily given a bottle of champagne. They were allowed to have free correspondence with their families, free personal postal service to their families in France and there were various visits to these detainees, and their wishes and requirements were cared for, and that is what you are understanding to be special treatment in this connection.
I am explaining to you further that Mueller may have talked about this to me since this would interest me to an extreme degree from the point of view of foreign policy and intelligence, whether the Reich was following my tendencies now, which were that humane contacts with foreign persons should now be established, and in that connection Mueller may have talkd to me about it, but Winzerstube and Godesberg are the end goals, the final goals of this special treatment here, and they were special and preferential accomodations allotted to foreign persons,
QDid you have frequent meetings with your section heads, including Mueller, as indicated in this document?
AMr. Prosecutor, I stated yesterday and today that, of course, I had meetings with Mueller when we were lunching together, which we had to do because all our thirty buildings in Berlin had been destroyed by bombs or damaged, and I talked to him, but I talked to him not about matters which are of Department IV, and it becomes clear from this document that these were matters which were extremely interesting to me as intelligence chief, but may I ask you not to leave this document just yet.
It must be a well-known fact before this Tribunal that these two establishments were used for the special--nine times better--treatment which I had desired --nine times better than the treatment allotted to Germans. That is of importance to me for my defence, and I am asking you-- I shall ask you through my solicitor-- that you make detailed inquiries about these two places of accommodation, and I am quoting as the leading one of the French detainees M. Ponset, and I am asking you to inquire from him what the treatment was.
The thing went so far that he, together with a woman, were carrying out language studies in French and they went for walks for hours without being guarded.
QDefendant, did you or aid you not issue instructions to Mueller 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.
AThe Russian army was not very near at that time to Berlin.
I think military persons would be able to give you information as to how things stood at the time.
I do not believe that the evacuation of any camps to a southern location was proposed at that time.
QWere you acquainted with Martin Sandberger, Group Leader VIa of the RSHA?
AHe was the first assistant of this man Schellenberg who has been mentioned often, and he was intermediary between Himmler and Schellenberg.
COLONEL AMEN: I ask to have the defendant shown the document 3838-PS, which will become USA 800.
QI call your attention to the first two paragraphs only of that affidavit:
"In my capacity as group leader VIa at the RSHA, the follow ing became known to me;"In February 1945, I was told by group leader SS Standarten fuehrer Steimle that he had to represent Schellenberg at the daily Section Chief meetings.
On that occasion, Mueller, Section Chief IV presented to Kaltenbrunner a list of names, who were in confinement in or close to Berlin, and Kaltenbrunner should decide if they were to be transported to Southern Germany or if they should be shot, because the Russian Armies were closing in on Berlin.
Steimle did not know who was concerned. Kalten brunner made his decisions in an extremely hasty and super ficial manner and Steimle indignantly turned to me regarding the frivolity of the procedure.
I assumed that Kaltenbrunner had ordered a number of executions because if evacuation would nave been ordered, there would not have been talk about frivolity of the procedure."
Is that affidavit true or false?
AThe statement is not correct, and although it surprises me, I can immediately counter it.
Perhaps I may draw attention to the following points:
The document was prepared at Oberursel on 19 November 1945.
It originated from a witness called Sandberger. In the second half of the first paragraph he states-- No, I beg your pardon.
He states this in the second paragraph, "As I was informed by Schellenberg in September 1945 at an internment camp in England on the occasion of a walk.
.." You can gather from the second part that he, together with Schellenberg, was in an interrogation camp in England in which I was detained for ten weeks as well and that they had detailed discussions, and this is of importance, because something more will have to he said about this man Schellenberg.
Whether Sandberger know Steimle's information before February or whether he got it through Schellenberg in London during that detention, that can only be ascertained by questioning this man Sandberger here, having him questioned through my Defense Counsel, and until then, I must contradict this statement altogether.
QAll right.
ASecondly. No, I have not finished for a long time. Secondly Sandberger states that he had heard from Steimle that this man Steimle had heard. Now, then, if such information were not creditable to me after it has come through three or four persons, then such a statement which has been made by Steimle here would be denied strictly by me. I had not the authority to make such decisions, nor did Steimle, Sandberger or Schellenberg at any time know the facts; namely, that only Himmler personally could have made such decisions as these.
Thirdly, I have never -- or only in one case -- heard of such treatment of detainees and I intervened and stated amongst these so very persons -- and this, incidentally, is the case of Schuschnigg who was in such a camp which was threatened by the Russians. Anyway, on 1 February 1945, as I remember this date very well and it can be confirmed by another defendant here and my reply to this other defendant. He said, "Couldn't we do something for Schuschnigg so he won't fall into the hands of the Russians?" I replied, "Will you or shall I make that suggestion to the Fuehrer, to have him reloaded from detention or at least to take him somewhere where he won't fall into the hands of the Russians but fall into the hands of the Americans." Whereupon, one of us--I can not remember who but probably both, took this proposal to Hitler, and he agreed to it.
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 Mueller 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.
ANo, Your Lordship, Mueller did not submit such a list to me, but I must define my attitude to this document which has just been shown to me for the first time. I do not want to appear to the Tribunal that I can only makes a statement and defend myself after I have been in close consultation with my lawyer for hours. I want to tell the prosecutor at once that this is not true. My credibility is at stake, and in some form I must answer at once on the spot. I cannot make it easier for the Prosecutor by saying that I cannot answer to a matter after he was made himself familiar with a matter for hours. I must be able to tell the Tribunal why those things are untrue.
QDefendant, are you familiar with any of the so-called "bullet" orders that were directed to the Mauthausen concentration camp? Yes or No?
AI have made a detailed statement on this Kugelorder", and I have stated that I did not know that order Q Did you ever issue any orders supplementing the so-called "Bullet" order, you yourself:
Did you ever issue any such?
ANo.
COLONEL AMEN:I ask to have the defendant shown document 3844-PS, which will become USA Exhibit 801.
QWere you acquainted with Josef Niedermayer, defendant? Josef Niedermayer?
ANo. I do not recollect having known that name at that time or knowing it now.
QWell, perhaps this will bring it back to you. Paragraph One:
"From the fall of 1942 until May 1945 the so-called cell-barracks of the Mauthausen Concentration Camp were under my supervision.
"2. During the beginning of December 1944 the so-called 'bullet' orders were shown to me in the political department of the Mauthausen Concentration Camp. Those were two orders each of which bore the signature of Kaltenbrunner. I sawboth of these signatures myself. One of these orders stated that foreign civilian workers who had repeatedly escaped from work camps were to be sent to the Mauthausen Concentration Camp under the 'bullet' action in case of recapture.
"The second order stated that the same procedure was to be followed with officers and non-commissioned 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 basis of this 'bullet' order and the oral instructions of Kaltenbrunner which went with it, 1,300 foreign civilian workers, officers and non-commissioned officers were brought to the Mauhausen Concentration Camp. There they were lodged in block number 20, and fed 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 resulted from the personal oral orders of Kaltenbrunner."
Is that statement true or false, defendant?
AThat is not correct, Mr. Prosecutor. Here once again, I believe that I can deprive this document of its value. May I draw your attention to Page Two. On Page 2, paragraph three, it says in the third line, it says "1,300 foreign civilian workers, officers and non-commissioned officers were brought--". From that word "Civilian workers"-
QDefendant I am primarily interested in paragraph two, which has to do with the fact that the person who makes the affidavit saw to "Bullet orders bearing your signature. Is that, so far as you know, true or false?
A No; I said yesterday, and I repeat it today for the second time, Mr. Prosecutor, that these Kugel orders were not known to me.
However, so as to come to the credibility of the witness and the value of the document, I must be able to raise my arguments in connection with those points which are particularly obvious and where the prosecution is wrong. That is, in the third line of paragraph 3, where the witness--who has a completely different signature than that of the person who has written the rest of the statement, which is a fact which I would like to draw to the attention of the Tribunal--the witness completely forgot that the Bullet Order, which has been read, out here, repeatedly referred to officers and non-commissioned officers, but not to civilian workers. How can he use a wrongfully quoted order when he makes a statement? I can't apply a civilian paragraph, which is 820, RGB, to justify the death sentence for murder; nor can I, on the strength of the Order Bullet, lock civilian workers into a camp. The witness, in his haste and anxiety to oblige, had forgotten these details.
I don't believe, therefore,that this man has ever seen a document which bears my signature, and such a document has never been read out to me either, or put before me.
Once again, of course, I will have to ask that this witness--and I am sure there will be some more referring to the same problems--that this and all these other witnesses should be brought, here and be questioned upon the matter as to just how their statements came about.
QDefendant, do you recall the testimony of the witnessWisleceny with respect to your participation in the forced labor program on the defenses below Vienna?
AI had not quite finished answering your, last question; I still have to say something vital about this matter.
QI thought you were through with that.
AYes, I thought so too, but I have just remembered something important.
Q All right.
AIt is very relevant that I should point out or refer you to what I said about the Kugel Order yesterday, or the Bullet Order. I have stated that in December or January 1944, or 1945, that became known to me, what my reaction was, and how I turned against it. That fact too is an explanation for the fact that I couldn't, shortly before that, have signed that myself.
Apart from that, it is totally unnecessary for a Kaltenbrunner to sign the Decree Kugel, which the prosecution is certain was signed in 1941 by Hitler. For that reason, too, I just wanted to make that final remark about that document.
Now, will you please be good enough to repeat the next question, which I missed?
QI wait to call your attention to the testimony of Wisleceny 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?
ANo.
QWell, I will read it to you. It is very short.
"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 defensive work in Vienna and to work on these fortifications. Mostly women were involved. A small part of these people were put into the work camps on the Lower Danube, and they died through exhaustion. A smaller percentage, perhaps 12,000, were taken to Vienna, the boundary part to the West, and about 3,000 were taken to Bergen and Belsen and then into Switzerland. Those were Jews that had come from Germany."
Now, defendant, do you recall having had any correspondence with the Buergermeister of the City of Vienna with respect to the assignment of this forced labor in the City of Vienna?
AI have never written a single letter to the Buergermeister of Budapest, and I should very much like to ask you to show me any such letter.
QI didn't say Budapest, I said the Buergermeister of the City of Vienna,or I intended to, if I did not.
A The Mayor of Vienna? I can't remember having had any correspondence with him either.
I think perhaps I can explain the matter to you by saying that these fortification works with which we must be concerned, apparently, did not come under the City of Vienna, but the district of the Lower Daube. I did not know Vienna had a joint frontier with Hungary, you know.
QWell, you have already testified that you had nothing to do with participating in this forced labor program; is that not correct?
AYes.
QAll right.
COLONEL AMEN:I ask you to have the defendant shown document 3803-PS USA Exhibit 802 (The document was submitted to the witness).Q(continuing) I call your attention to the first three paragraphs.
You will note that the letter comes from yourself, and reads as follows:
"To: Buergermeister of the City of Vienna, SS Brigadefuehrer Blaschke, Vienna.
"Subject: Assignment of Labor Force to War Essential 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 ship several evacuation transports to Vienna-Strasshof. SS Brigad Dr. Dellbruegge had, as a matter of fact, already written to me concerning th same matter.
"At the present four shipments with approximately 12,000 Jews are pending. They should reach Vienna within the next few days.
"According to previous expedience 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, whereby it shall be understood that they are subject to be removed at any time. It is obvious that only a well guarded, enclosed place of work and a secured camp-like billeting arrangement can be utilized, and this is an absolute prerequisite for making these Jews available.
"Women unable to work and children of these Jews who all are kept in readiness for special action, and therefore one day will be removed again, have to say in the guarded camp also during the day.
"Please discuss further details with the State Police Headquarters in Vienna, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ebner and SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Krumey from the Special Action Command Hungary, who, at the present, happens to be in Vienna.
"I hope that these transports will be of help to you in carrying out these urgent work details of yours.
"Heil Hitler!
"Yours Kaltenbrunner."
Now, do you recall that communication?
ANo.
QDo you deny having written that letter?
AYes.
QWell, I think, defendant that this time your signature is affixed to the original of this letter. Do you have the original?
A Yes.
QIs that not your signature?
ANo, that is not my signature. There is a signature made either in ink or is a facsimile, but it is not mine.
QDefendant, 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.
AI 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.
QWell, 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, USA Exhibit 802?
AThe signatures on the se pieces of paper which are executed in pencil are mine; they are my own.
QAll of them?
AAll three.
QAll right.
ABut not the one in ink.
QVery good (The documents were submitted to the Tribunal)
COLONEL AMEN:Shall I continue, your Lordship?
THE PRESIDENT:One moment, please.
Go on, Colonel Amen. BY COLONEL AMEN:
QDefendant, you have heard the evidence with respect to the establishment of the Warsaw Ghetto and the clearing of the Ghetto.
THE PRESIDENT:Are you passing from this document?
COLONEL AMEN:Yes, Your Honor.
THE TRIBUNAL:We had better adjourn for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken)
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I would like to begin. I do not know whether Document Book 1 was given me.
Will you please also tell me what day and at what time your decision will be made known on that.
(A short pause.)
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal thinks that, subject to anything you have to say, half-past twelve 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.
COLONEL AMEN:If the Tribunal please, I want to revert for a moment to Document 3803-PS, with the signature. BY COLONEL AMEN:
QDefendant, do you have the original of that exhibit before you?
AYes.
QWill you look at the signature and tell me whether you do not find appearing in handwriting, just above the signature, the letters, "D-E-I-N"?
AYes.
QAnd 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?
AIn German there are only two phrases, in concluding a letter -cither "Ihr," "I-H-R," or "Dein," "D-E-I-N." We use the latter, "Dein," if we are on close terms, friendly terms. I am a friend of Blaschke, the Mayer of Vienna.
QNow, 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?
AThat would be nonsensical; I agree with that, without reservation, 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 put down by another hand, the author of this letter -- I couldn't finish before -- as seen from the code in the upper left-hand corner, in Abteilung IV-a and -b, he is to be found in that office and every one in the departments and entire German Reich knew that the Mayor of Vienna, Blaschke, and myself, on the basis of our common activity in Vienna, that is for about ten years, had been on a friendly basis and had used the familiar form of address, "Du." Then, when I was absent from Berlin, and the letter, was urgent, and I assumed such to be the case from the contents, in that case the official would be considered it justified to write this document.