Chapter XII: Front Matter (12)

DR. KAUFFMANN: We now come to another charge preferred against you by the Prosecution. The Prosecution claim that you are the intellectual principal or accessory in the crimes committed when you, as the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, had civilians murdered and ill-treated by the so-called Einsatzgruppen. I am going to quote a few sentences from the testimony given by the witness Ohlendorf here in this courtroom on 3 January 1946. Ohlendorf’s testimony incriminates you. I wish to have your comment on it. Ohlendorf says with reference to the Einsatzgruppen:

“After his entry into service, Kaltenbrunner had to concern
himself with these questions and consequently must have known
the background of the Einsatzgruppen which were under his
authority.”

He goes on to say with reference to the valuables taken away from the executed persons that these had been sent to the Reich Ministry of Finance or to the Reich Security Main Office, and he finally states that the officer personnel for these Einsatzgruppen were recruited from the leading personnel of the State Police and only in a small percentage from the SD. What do you have to say in answer to the question whether or not you knew of the existence and the significance of these Einsatzgruppen?

KALTENBRUNNER: I had no idea of the existence of these Einsatzkommandos as described by Ohlendorf. Later on I heard that they existed, but this was many months later. With regard to this point I want to say the following: It is known to the Tribunal from Ohlendorf’s testimony and from Hitler’s and Himmler’s decrees which have been discussed here that orders for the killing of people had been given. These Einsatzkommandos have never been reorganized during the time when I was in office. These Einsatzkommandos which had been active up to that time were also dissolved or had been put under different commands before I took over the office. I do not know whether the witness Ohlendorf has stated here just when he returned from his Einsatzkommando.

DR. KAUFFMANN: 1942.

KALTENBRUNNER: That is before I came into office. The Einsatzkommandos must later on have come under the charge of the Higher SS and Police Leaders in the occupied territories or, what is even more probable, under the charge of the chief of the anti-partisan units. I cannot answer your question precisely, since I have, as a consequence of my imprisonment for 1 year, no possibility at my disposal for re-examining the organizational scheme.

I think you also asked me whether it is known to me that valuables, which had been taken away from executed persons, had been sent to my office or the Reich Ministry of Finance. I know nothing of such shipments but I do know that Himmler had given an order to everybody—not only to the Security Police but also to other organizations in the occupied territories, be it the Municipal Police or the anti-partisan units or those sections of the Armed Forces which were under his command—saying that all such property was to be surrendered to the Reich Ministry of Finance.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Were these Einsatzgruppen the result of an order from Hitler or of an order from the Reich Security Main Office?

KALTENBRUNNER: It can only be due to an order from Hitler.

DR. KAUFFMANN: You just said that in the course of time you heard about the existence and significance of these Einsatzgruppen. Can you say exactly on which date you gained that knowledge?

KALTENBRUNNER: I assume that this was at the time when I had my first audience with Hitler, or it may have been on the following day when I reported to Himmler, in November 1943.

DR. KAUFFMANN: 1943?

KALTENBRUNNER: Yes.

DR. KAUFFMANN: If you had knowledge at that time of the Einsatzgruppen and their significance, then the question arises what your attitude about them was and, in case you condemned them, what you did to have them abolished? Did you have a possibility to do so or did you not?

KALTENBRUNNER: I said before that an Einsatzkommando was never set up under my direction or my orders. The existence and the previous activities of such Einsatzkommandos became known to me late in the fall of 1943 and I knew that I would have to resist this misuse of the men who were under the Reich Security Main Office. I think on 13 September 1943, I saw Hitler on the occasion of a visit of Mussolini who had just been liberated. However, my attempt to talk to him failed, because of this State visit. Consequently, in November, after Himmler had put it off repeatedly, I had to go again to headquarters to report officially on my activities up to that time. And on that occasion I talked to the Führer about the facts on the Einsatzkommandos which had become known to me; and not only about that, but also I had the first opportunity to approach him about the entire Jewish problem, and about the orders given, by him and by Himmler against the Jews which had also become known to me at that time. However, I would like to make a detailed statement on this subject, if you will go through that problem in detail with me.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I now present...

KALTENBRUNNER: I should like only to add that the Einsatzkommandos no longer came into the picture, so far as I was concerned, because the entire personnel was committed to the anti-partisan fighting or rather to the Higher SS Police Leader, I believe, on exactly the same day when I entered my office in Berlin. I believe I can remember distinctly that Von dem Bach-Zelewski was appointed Chief of anti-partisan fighting on 30 January 1943. This may also be the reason for the fact that I did not see any reports from the Einsatzkommandos themselves.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I am now turning to another document, L-51, Exhibit USA-521. This is an extremely incriminating document on which I want to have your comment.

Zutter is the adjutant of the camp commander of Mauthausen. He reports regarding a...

KALTENBRUNNER: Is this photostat copy the same?

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, it is the same.

He is reporting regarding an execution order, referring to 12 or 15 American parachutists who were captured in 1945. Will you please look through the document and state to the Tribunal whether you have given this order, and whether you had authority to issue such an order?

KALTENBRUNNER: Yes. You have discussed this same document with me only yesterday. Therefore it is known to me. I declare that this incident and this order never did come to my knowledge until this document was put before me or until its presentation by the interrogator.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you know Ziereis?

KALTENBRUNNER: As I have already said once, I have never had authority to sign on my own initiative a so-called order for execution, that is to say a death sentence. Apart from Hitler nobody in the whole Reich had such authority except Himmler and the Reich Minister of Justice.

DR. KAUFFMANN: With regard to this point, I wish to mention that the Prosecution have also presented execution orders which bore the signature of Müller. Do you want to say something about that?

KALTENBRUNNER: If an execution order had Müller’s signature, Müller can have signed it only on the strength of an order from Himmler, or on the strength of a sentence submitted by a court.

DR. KAUFFMANN: It suggests itself to say that if Müller had authority to issue execution orders, then you ought to have had such authority to a much higher degree? Is that right?

KALTENBRUNNER: No, that is not so, because Himmler never gave me such power; also the set-up of the chain of command—the State Police remained under Himmler after Heydrich’s death even after I took office—would have contradicted that.

DR. KAUFFMANN: The incident referred to in this document is of such importance, particularly since foreign parachutists are involved, that one ought to suppose that it was known in the high offices in Berlin, that means also in the Reich Security Main Office. Did you receive no knowledge of the matter afterwards?

KALTENBRUNNER: I want to add the following statement: The incident definitely did not come to my knowledge.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished with Document L-51?

DR. KAUFFMANN: No, I am still concerned with Document L-51, but I am about to leave it.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, ought you not to refer him to the particular incident which is referred to toward the end of the document, where it says, “Concerning the American military mission which landed behind the German front in the Slovakian or Hungarian area in January 1945”? It goes on, then, to say that the—I think it was adjutant of the camp said, “Now Kaltenbrunner has approved of the execution. This letter was secret and had the signature, ‘signed, Kaltenbrunner.’”

I think you should put that to him.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, certainly. He knows the document, and I believe he knows every single word of this document, but I will put it to him again.

[_Turning to the defendant._] It says here:

“I estimate the number of those persons captured to have been 12
or 15. They were wearing a uniform which was either American or
Canadian, brown-green color, and blouse and beret. Eight to 10
days after their arrival, the order for their execution was
received by means of a radio message, or a teletype.
Standartenführer Ziereis—that is the Camp Commandant—came to
see me in my office and said: ‘Now Kaltenbrunner has approved of
the execution.’ This letter was secret and had the signature,
‘signed, Kaltenbrunner.’

“These men were then shot on the spot, and their valuables were
given to me by Oberscharführer Niedermeyer.”

Would you, very briefly, go into this?

KALTENBRUNNER: It is completely out of the question that this incident was ever brought to my knowledge, or that it happened with my participation. This is not only plainly a crime against the laws of warfare, but it is, in particular, an action which could or necessarily had to produce the most serious foreign political consequences.

Certainly, in such an incident it is out of the question that Müller or even I, myself, as Müller’s superior, could have taken action; but in such a case thorough discussions must absolutely have taken place previously between Himmler, himself, and the Führer.

It is to be assumed, furthermore, that quite definitely someone—maybe the competent section for international law—would have been consulted on the subject first, and that such an action, of course, would have been decreed either by the Führer or by Himmler. In any case, it would have been an order from one of these two personalities. However, even that is unknown to me.

If, therefore, this man Zutter relates here that the order bore my signature, then this can only have been an order which, as I have described before, bore my name falsely since I never had authority to issue an order for execution. Therefore, the signature should have been “Himmler” or “By Himmler’s order, Müller.”

DR. KAUFFMANN: So that you attribute this signature also to a misuse?

KALTENBRUNNER: No, I believe that it does not concern my signature at all here, but that Ziereis should have said “Himmler.” It cannot be assumed that Müller would have signed his or my name in such a way.

DR. KAUFFMANN: We are now coming to another subject. I am referring now to Document 1063(b)-PS, Exhibit USA-492, which is a letter from the Reich Security Main Office, dated 26 July 1943. It has the signature, “Signed, Dr. Kaltenbrunner,” and the letter is addressed to all Higher SS and Police Leaders. It refers to the establishment of correctional labor camps.

Will you please look through the letter? The Prosecution charges you with the establishment of correctional labor camps. Please explain what your attitude really was, and state whether that letter originated from you.

KALTENBRUNNER: With regard to this point I have to make the following statement: I conclude from the fact that my name is typewritten that this order had not been shown to me before it went out: otherwise I would have signed it in handwriting.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Do you know of a Himmler order?

KALTENBRUNNER: As far as I can remember, I learned of it afterwards.

DR. KAUFFMANN: What is a correctional labor camp? Is it identical with a concentration camp?

KALTENBRUNNER: No, correctional labor camps were camps in which men were put if they were Germans, if they had dodged the compulsory labor service in spite of repeated reminders, or foreign workers who had left their place of work without permission and had been arrested, or workers who were caught during round-ups on trains, railway stations, and roads, and who had no permanent labor contract. Confinement to such correctional labor camps covered a period of 14 to 56 days.

DR. KAUFFMANN: It says in this letter that these correctional labor camps, so far as administration and orders were concerned, are under the State Police offices and, furthermore, under the commanders of the Security Police and the SD. Did you have knowledge of that?

KALTENBRUNNER: A so-called breach of labor contract in the Reich or an evasion of the Compulsory Labor Service by a German citizen is an offense which actually could have been dealt with by the law courts just as well. The law had provisions to that effect but because of the enormous number of workers employed in the entire Reich—not only Germans, who amounted to 15 or 20 million, but also 8 million foreign workers—it would have been impossible to start hundreds of thousands of proceedings in courts, in hundreds of thousands of cases, for failure to work or breach of contract, or willful desertion from the place of work, _et cetera_. It goes without saying that furthermore the police departments had no kind of prison accommodations extensive enough to give short-term sentences in such cases. For these reasons such correctional labor camps were established at the headquarters of the State Police or Criminal Police offices.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you, in principle, approve of the establishment of such correctional labor camps?

KALTENBRUNNER: Yes, in principle I approved of them although I myself did not participate in issuing this order. I did, however, learn of it later and considered it proper in view of the labor shortage and the conditions then prevailing in the Reich.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you have knowledge regarding the treatment of the internees: for what period of time they were confined to these camps, what their food ration was, and how they were employed?

KALTENBRUNNER: As I said, these correctional labor camps were designed to impose confinement for a period not exceeding 56 days. Even this, I believe, was possible only after a man had previously been sentenced for 3 similar offenses. Normally, confinement to correctional labor camps...

THE PRESIDENT: The question was whether you knew the condition in the camps? You are not answering it at all.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Will you please answer my question?

KALTENBRUNNER: I think you asked me...

DR. KAUFFMANN: I asked you whether you knew anything regarding the treatment, the food, and the employment of the internees in these correctional labor camps?

KALTENBRUNNER: I knew only that correctional labor camps had the task of doing labor for public works, that is, in public construction work like roads, railroad maintenance, and, in particular, for repair of damage due to air raids. The internees of correctional labor camps have been seen by the entire population when so employed. The impression which the appearance of these internees made...

THE PRESIDENT: He still is not answering the question.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I put three exact questions to you. I want exact answers to these questions. Do you know anything about the treatment, the food rations, and the employment? Did you have any knowledge of this, “yes” or “no”?

KALTENBRUNNER: I said with regard to the employment...

DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you have knowledge?

KALTENBRUNNER: Yes, I did. The other two factors I did not know from personal observation.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Did officers of Amt IV ever report to you on this?

KALTENBRUNNER: Not officers of Amt IV; but this problem has, of course, been discussed repeatedly within the political home intelligence service, namely, about the utilization of such labor for emergency work.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you see no cause to interfere?

KALTENBRUNNER: I had no cause to interfere with these camps for any misuse, since no case of abuse of camp internees was known.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I am now coming to another document, Document Number 2542-PS, Exhibit Number USA-489. This is a statement, an affidavit by Lindow. He states that until the beginning of 1943, and by order of Himmler, Soviet Russian political commissars and Jewish soldiers were taken out of prisoner-of-war camps and transferred to concentration camps, to be shot. Furthermore, he states that Müller, the Chief of Amt IV, had signed the execution order. If the Tribunal so desire, I shall quote a few sentences from this document.

[_To the defendant_.] What is your statement with reference to this document?

KALTENBRUNNER: This order of Himmler’s was not known to me, and may I point out that it was used from 1941 until 1943, which means, in the main, during the time when I was not in Berlin.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I am now reading a particularly incriminating passage—Paragraph 4. Will you please make a statement regarding the question whether this report on these facts also refers to the time after 1943 or to the time before 1943, or whatever you may be able to say about the date.

KALTENBRUNNER: I know the passage.

DR. KAUFFMANN: “In the prisoner-of-war camps at the Eastern
Front, there were small Einsatzkommandos which were led by
members of the Secret State Police of lower rank. These
Kommandos were attached to the camp commandant and had the task
of selecting those prisoners of war who were to be executed in
accordance with the orders issued, and of reporting their names
to the Gestapo office.”

KALTENBRUNNER: About this, I...

DR. KAUFFMANN: One moment. From Paragraph 2, I am quoting the last paragraph: “These prisoners of war were first of all discharged as a matter of form and then taken to a concentration camp for execution.” Now I am asking you what knowledge did you have of these facts?

KALTENBRUNNER: I had no knowledge of these facts. Moreover, it is impossible that I could have gained knowledge of them, of orders which were issued in 1941 and which, as this witness says, continued to be actually in force until the middle of 1943; it is impossible that, in order to stop the execution of these orders, during the last days, I could have in time...

DR. KAUFFMANN: But actually, it cannot be denied that within the Reich Security Main Office there was a Section IV A 1, that is, a part of the Gestapo, and that this section functioned from 1941 until the middle of 1943, and that it carried out such orders. It can be assumed obviously that you, too, must have been informed about this extremely grave situation, which was inhuman and prohibited by international law, does it not?

KALTENBRUNNER: I was not informed of it.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I am now turning to the subject of concentration camps and the responsibility of the defendant in that sphere.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_ Afternoon Session_

MR. DODD: Dr. Kauffmann has told me that he had an opportunity to read two cross-interrogatories which we wish to submit—the cross-interrogatories of Dr. Mildner and Dr. Höttl. I told Dr. Kauffmann that it might be well, in order not to disquiet the Defendant Kaltenbrunner, if they were read before he completed his examination.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you agree that it would be better that this cross-examination should be read now, so that the defendant can deal with any points he wishes to deal with?

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, that will be satisfactory.

COLONEL JOHN HARLAN AMEN (Associate Trial Counsel for the United States): The first affidavit, if it please the Tribunal is the affidavit of Dr. Rudolf Mildner:

“I, the undersigned, Dr. Rudolf Mildner, made the following
affidavit in answer to cross-interrogations by representatives
of the Office of United States Chief of Counsel, relating to my
affidavit of 29 March 1946, made in response to questions by Dr.
Kauffmann for presentation to the International Military
Tribunal:

“Question Number 1: Confirm or correct the following
biographical data:

“Answer: In December 1939 I became Chief of the Gestapo Office
in Chemnitz; in March 1941 I became Chief of the Gestapo Office
in Katowice; in September 1943 I became Commander of the Sipo
and SD in Copenhagen; in January 1944 I became Inspector of the
Sipo and SD in Kassel; on 15 March 1944 I was made Deputy Chief
of Groups IV A and IV B of the RSHA; in December 1944 I became
Commander of the Sipo in Vienna; in December 1944 I became
Deputy Inspector of the Sipo in Vienna.

“All of these appointments after January 1943 were made by
Kaltenbrunner as Chief of the Security Police and SD.

“Question Number 2: Is it not true that while you were Gestapo
leader at Katowice you frequently sent prisoners to Auschwitz
for imprisonment or execution; that you had contacts with the
Political Department (Abteilung) at Auschwitz during the time
that you were Chief of the Gestapo in Katowice with regard to
inmates sent from the district of Katowice; that you visited
Auschwitz on several occasions; that the Gestapo ‘SS
Standgericht’ frequently met in Auschwitz and you sometimes
attended the trial of prisoners; that in 1942 and again in 1943,
pursuant to orders by Gruppenführer Müller, Chief of Gestapo,
the Commandant of Auschwitz showed you the extermination
installations; that you were acquainted with the extermination
installations at Auschwitz since you had to send Jews from your
territory to Auschwitz for execution?

“Answer: Yes, these are true statements of fact.

“Question Number 3: With respect to your answer to Question
Number 5 in your affidavit of 29 March 1946, did all orders for
arrest, commitment to punishment, and individual executions in
concentration camps come from RSHA? Was the regular channel for
orders of individual executions from Himmler through
Kaltenbrunner to Müller, then to the concentration camp
commandant? Did the WVHA have supervision of all concentration
camps for administration, utilization of labor, and maintenance
of discipline?

“Answer: The answer is ‘yes’ to each of the three questions.

“Question Number 3-a: Is it true that conferences took place
between SS Obergruppenführer Kaltenbrunner and SS
Obergruppenführer Pohl, Chief of the WVHA and Chief of
Concentration Camps? Was Dr. Kaltenbrunner acquainted with
conditions in the concentration camps?

“Answer: Yes, and because of these conferences and on the
occasion of discussions with the two Amt chiefs—Gruppenführer
Müller, IV, and Gruppenführer Nebe, RSHA, the Chief of Sipo and
SD—SS Obergruppenführer Dr. Kaltenbrunner should be acquainted
with conditions in concentration camps.

“I learned from SS Gruppenführer Müller, Chief of Amt IV, that
regular conferences took place between RSHA and Amt Group D of
WVHA.

“Question Number 4: Is it not a fact that in July or August of
1944 an order was issued to commanders and inspectors of the
Sipo and SD by Himmler through Kaltenbrunner, as Chief of the
Sipo and SD, to the effect that members of all Anglo-American
Commando groups should be turned over to the Sipo by the Armed
Forces; that the Sipo was to interrogate these men and shoot
them after questioning; that the killing was to be made known to
the Armed Forces by a communiqué stating that the Commando group
had been annihilated in battle; and that this decree was
classified top secret and was to be destroyed immediately after
reading?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question Number 5: With respect to your answer to Question
Number 7 of your affidavit of 29 March 1946, is it not a fact
that:

“a) After you sent a telegram to Müller requesting that the
Jewish persecution be stopped, you received an order by Himmler
that the Jewish actions were to be carried out?

“b) That you then flew to Berlin for the purpose of talking with
the Chief of the Sipo and SD, Kaltenbrunner, personally, but
that since he was absent you saw his deputy, Müller, Head of
Office IV of the RSHA, who, in your presence, wrote a message to
Himmler containing your request that the persecutions of the
Jews in Denmark be stopped?

“c) That shortly after your return to Copenhagen you received a
direct order by Himmler sent through Kaltenbrunner as Chief of
the Sipo and SD, stating that ‘The Anti-Jewish actions are to be
started immediately’?

“d) That for the purpose of carrying out this action the
Sonderkommando Eichmann, which was under the Gestapo, was sent
from Berlin to Copenhagen for the purpose of deporting the Jews
in two ships which it had chartered?

“Answer: Yes, to each question—a), b), c), and d).

“Question Number 6: Is it not a fact that the action of
Sonderkommando Eichmann was not a success; that Müller ordered
you to make a report explaining the causes for the lack of
success in deporting of Jews; and that you sent this report
directly to the Chief of the Sipo and SD, Kaltenbrunner?

“Answer: Yes. That is right.

“I have read the above questions and answers as written and
swear they are true and correct....”—_et cetera_.

And now, may it please the Tribunal, the cross-affidavit of Wilhelm Höttl...

THE PRESIDENT: [_To the defendant._] Did you want to say something?

KALTENBRUNNER: I wanted to ask the High Tribunal for permission to reply immediately to this interrogatory, so that I...

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you will have an opportunity in a moment. The purpose of having it read now was that your counsel might ask you any questions with reference to it, and then you can make any comment that you want to. Colonel Amen will go on and read the other cross-interrogatory, and then your own counsel will continue your examination-in-chief. Do you understand?

KALTENBRUNNER: Yes, I understand. I merely wanted to suggest, since these two matters are treated separately and concern two different spheres, that I may first express my views and then later...

THE PRESIDENT: We cannot have the matter interrupted in that way. You will be able to deal with it in a moment.

Go on, Colonel Amen.

COL. AMEN: The affidavit of Dr. Mildner dated 9 April 1946 will become Exhibit Number USA-791 and the affidavit of Wilhelm Höttl which I am about to read, dated 10 April 1946, will become Exhibit Number USA-792.

“I, the undersigned, Dr. Wilhelm Höttl, make the following
affidavit in response to cross-interrogation relating to an
affidavit executed by me on 30 March 1946 answering questions
put by Dr. Kauffmann for presentation to the International
Military Tribunal.

“1) With respect to question Number 3: Please give the following
information:

“a) Explain the basis of your statement that when persons
belonging to the SD were transferred to the Einsatzkommandos of
the Sipo and SD they resigned from the SD. Your attention is
invited to the fact that Ohlendorf, the head of the SD, has
testified to the contrary.

“b) Explain the basis for your statement that Einsatzkommandos
had nothing to do with executions. Your attention is invited to
the fact that your testimony in this regard is likewise in
direct conflict with the head of the SD, Ohlendorf.

“c) What was Hitler’s so-called ‘Commissar order’ and when did
you first acquire knowledge of this order?

“With respect to 1a): In my affidavit I did not speak of a
permanent separation from the SD but of a leave of absence for
the time of activity with an Einsatzkommando. By that was meant
that they did not exercise their SD functions during this time;
that this function was inactive.

“With respect to 1b): My affidavit appears to have been
misunderstood concerning this point. I did not state that
Einsatzkommandos had nothing to do with executions but only that
not all Einsatzkommandos were concerned with executions. I
mentioned as an example the Einsatzkommandos in Africa, Hungary,
and Slovakia. In connection with that, I said that these
Einsatzkommandos had nothing to do with executions; by that I
meant not directly with the actual executions.

“With respect to 1c): I, myself, do not know the so-called
‘Commissar Order’ of Hitler. Dr. Stahlecker, who commanded an
Einsatzgruppe of the Sipo and the SD in Russia, told me in the
summer of 1942 that the executions of commissars and Jews were
carried out on the basis of the Commissar Order which covered
the extermination of the Jews under the reason of their being
bearers of Bolshevism.

“2) With respect to question Number 4: Is it not a fact that
Heydrich, as Chief of Sipo and SD, gave the initial instructions
to Eichmann concerning the extermination of Jews; that in the
RSHA Eichmann’s immediate superior was Müller, Chief of the
Gestapo; that Müller was first the deputy of Heydrich and later
of Kaltenbrunner?

“With respect to 2): Yes, I heard from Eichmann, probably in
August 1944, that Heydrich had given him these directives. It is
also correct that Müller, Chief of the Gestapo, was Eichmann’s
immediate superior. As far as I know, Müller was the deputy of
Heydrich and later of Kaltenbrunner only in the field of the
Gestapo, as likewise were the other office chiefs in their
respective fields.

“3) With respect to question Number 5: Is it not a fact that you
know from your discussions with Kaltenbrunner and with Eichmann
that they came from the same community in Austria and were
exceptionally close friends; that Eichmann always had direct
access to Kaltenbrunner and that they frequently conferred
together; that Kaltenbrunner was well pleased with the manner in
which Eichmann carried out his duties; that Kaltenbrunner was
very interested in the extermination work performed by Eichmann;
that you personally know that Kaltenbrunner went to Hungary for
the purpose of discussing the extermination program in Hungary
with officials of the Hungarian Government and with Eichmann and
other members of his staff in Hungary? Please confirm or correct
these statements and make any statement necessary to clarify
your answer.

“With respect to 3): I heard from Eichmann that he knew
Kaltenbrunner from Linz and that they served there together in
1932 in an SS Sturm. I do not know that they were particularly
close friends or that Eichmann always had direct access to
Kaltenbrunner and that they conferred frequently.

“I do not know the details about their official relationship. I
do not know whether Kaltenbrunner also had conferences
concerning the program of extermination of Jews in Hungary
during his stays in Hungary in the spring of 1944. Winkelmann,
the former Higher SS and Police Leader in Hungary, must know
exactly about that, since, according to my knowledge, he,
together with Kaltenbrunner, visited persons in the Hungarian
Government.

“4) With respect to question Number 6:

“a) Is it not known to you that Müller, Chief of the Gestapo,
always conferred with Kaltenbrunner on matters of importance
relating to the functions of his office—particularly with
respect to executions of special inmates?

“b) Did you know that Kaltenbrunner was the Higher SS and Police
Leader and State Secretary for Security in Austria after the
Anschluss until his appointment as Chief of the RSHA, a period
of 5 years, during which time his attention was devoted
exclusively to police and security matters?

“c) What is the basis of your statement that the intelligence
service took up the main part of Kaltenbrunner’s attention and
all his interest?

“With respect to 4a): Details concerning the official
relationship between Müller and Kaltenbrunner are not known to
me. However, I could note on several occasions that Müller was
with Kaltenbrunner to report about the work of his department.

“With respect to 4b): Kaltenbrunner was not exclusively occupied
with police and security matters during his activity as Higher
SS and Police Leader in Austria or as State Secretary for
Security respectively. Without a doubt he had political
interests besides, since the Higher SS and Police Leaders were
the representatives of Reichsführer SS Himmler in all matters.

“With respect to 4c): I could note that by virtue of my official
relationship with him. Members of other departments also
frequently expressed themselves in the direction that he favored
and furthered Amt III, and particularly Amt VI and the Mil
(Military Amt).

“5) With respect to question Number 7: Answer the following:

“a) What did you personally have to do with concentration camps
and what, therefore, is the basis for your answer to this
question?

“b) Did you know that all orders for commitments to, releases
from, and executions in concentration camps came from the RSHA?

“c) Did you know that the RSHA gave direct orders to commandants
of concentration camps? State such orders of which you have
personal knowledge.

“d) What are the atrocities committed in concentration camps to
which you refer in your answer to this question, and when and in
what manner did you acquire knowledge that atrocities were
committed in concentration camps?

“With respect to 5a): Personally, I had nothing at all to do
with concentration camps. However, I liberated a number of
persons from concentration camps and therefore know the
difficulties that were made by the concentration camp staffs who
always called attention to orders of the WVHA of the SS in such
cases since the inmates were needed for the armament industry.

“With respect to 5b): It is known to me that orders for
commitments into concentration camps and discharges therefrom
came from the RSHA. I did not know that all such orders came
from the RSHA. I have no knowledge of orders for executions by
the RSHA.

“With respect to 5c): I do not know any details and do not know
personally any orders concerning this. In the cases in which I
intervened for discharges I addressed myself either to
Kaltenbrunner directly or to Amt IV. When the processing was of
long duration, I received the answer several times from
officials of Amt IV that difficulties had come about through the
WVHA of the SS.

“With respect to 5d): When Hungary was occupied by German troops
in March 1944, several of my Hungarian acquaintances went to
concentration camps. After I had achieved their liberation, they
told me of bad treatment and atrocities in the Mauthausen
Concentration Camp. At that time, I sent an official
communication concerning this to the director of the Linz
Gestapo Office, with the request to inquire into this matter
with the concentration camp commandant Ziereis. Ziereis,
however, denied this, as I was informed in the reply. In August
1944 Eichmann told me that there were extermination camps
(Vernichtungslager) besides concentration camps.

“6) With respect to question Number 9: What is the basis for
your opinion that Kaltenbrunner opposed Hitler and Himmler on
the program for the physical extermination of European Jewry?

“With respect to 6): Kaltenbrunner told me after his conference
with representatives of the International Red Cross in March
1945 that he was against Hitler’s and Himmler’s program on the
question of the extermination of the European Jews. In my
response to Question 9, that Kaltenbrunner had given no orders
for killing of Jews, the words ‘according to my knowledge’ are
missing.

“7) With respect to question Number 11: Who was the American
whom you told Kaltenbrunner that you had contacted in a neutral
country in 1943? Did Kaltenbrunner agree to travel to
Switzerland with you to meet a representative of the Allied
Powers with whom you were in touch through the Austrian
Resistance Movement; and, if so, whom?

“With respect to 7): The American liaison man in 1943 was a
member of the United States Legation in Lisbon. I am no longer
familiar with his name. The connection via the Austrian
Resistance Movement with an American organization in Switzerland
existed only from the beginning of fall 1944. Kaltenbrunner
agreed to travel there with me about 20 April 1945.

“8) With respect to question Number 12: On what date did
Kaltenbrunner order the commandant of Mauthausen Concentration
Camp to hand over the camp to approaching troops? At whose
insistence did Kaltenbrunner issue this order, and for what
reason?

“With respect to 8): I cannot state the exact date of
Kaltenbrunner’s order to the commandant of Mauthausen
Concentration Camp to hand over the camp to approaching troops.
It should have been during the last days of April 1945. It is
not known to me at whose insistence and for which reason he gave
this order; possibly this was connected with his discussions
with SS Standartenführer Becher whom I met with him at the time.

“The above statements are true; I made this declaration
voluntarily and without compulsion...”—_et cetera_—“Dr.
Wilhelm Höttl.”

DR. KAUFFMANN: Do the High Tribunal wish the defendant to state his position or reply to these two documents?

KALTENBRUNNER: Yes, I request that I may do so right away.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Then please give us your views first on the Mildner document. I shall call your attention, perhaps, to question Number 2 which seems relevant to me. It says:

“Is it not true that...in 1942 and again in 1943, pursuant to
orders by Gruppenführer Müller, the Commandant of Auschwitz
showed you the extermination installations...?”

It would seem from this that the Chief of Amt IV knew about these matters.

KALTENBRUNNER: Dr. Kauffmann, may I interrupt you.

As far as I could notice in the last sessions a procedure of so-called surprise affidavits is being employed against me. This surprise affidavit is applied for the first time in my case. In spite of that I am glad and grateful, even without having had the opportunity to see this affidavit before, to express my views on the whole and on each point of this affidavit.

As to Dr. Mildner—question Number 1: He is asked about his position which he held in the Security Service. He enumerated the positions which he held from 1939 to 1944. During the time I was in office he served as an inspector of the Sipo and the SD in Kassel, as a deputy in Amt IV, as a deputy inspector in Vienna in 1944, and as a commander of the Sipo in Vienna also in 1944. He said, “All of these appointments after January 1943 were made by Kaltenbrunner as Chief of the Security Police and the SD.”

That is incorrect. I never appointed anybody to high positions such as these held by Mildner.

Were Mildner asked about this before this Tribunal, he would have to confirm that. He was apparently not questioned on that by the Prosecution. In case of an appointment of an official for the Security Police and the SD I was simply asked and notified in each case of such an appointment of a functionary of the Security Police and SD, because as an inspector of the SD and of the Security Police he had to have in this capacity a strong intelligence section, that is, a subdivision of Amt III and IV which were at my disposal as far as intelligence was concerned, so that as Chief of the intelligence service I had to know who was inspector of a subdivision in Vienna, Kassel, or in Copenhagen. Later he also had to have my intelligence orders for his groups. That was the only reason why I had to be notified of such appointments. It was not within my competence to appoint any official of the Sipo; that is a definite misrepresentation arising from this affidavit of Dr. Mildner.

In reply to Question 2, if it is said that in his positions in Chemnitz and Katowice, in the year 1939 and 1941, he had to transport prisoners to Auschwitz for imprisonment and execution, then, in the first place, this falls into the period before I had assumed office, and, secondly, this was purely an executive measure of those agencies of which I was never in charge and never took over. He therefore can never have acted here as my deputy.

As to question Number 3, here the Prosecution accuses him:

“...That the Gestapo ‘SS Standgericht’ frequently met in
Auschwitz and you sometimes attended the trial of
prisoners;”—in other words that he attended the
executions—“that in 1942 and again in 1943, pursuant to orders
by Gruppenführer Müller ... the Commandant of Auschwitz showed
you”—that is Mildner—“the extermination installations; that
you were acquainted with the extermination installations at
Auschwitz since you had to send Jews from your territory to
Auschwitz for execution.”

In my opinion, I could perhaps only be incriminated on one point. The question is this: “Did Mildner once, in the year 1943, see such installations or did he attend the shootings?” First of all, the Prosecution did not show whether this “one time” took place before or after I assumed office.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Will you please be a little briefer and more to the point.

KALTENBRUNNER: Excuse me, Doctor, but I have to be able to refute every single 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 argue on it.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, that is my opinion, also.

[_Turning to the defendant._] I am asking you—an especially important and incriminating point, it seems to me, is question Number 3; explain if you will, I read: “...did all orders for arrest...”—_et cetera_—“individual executions from the RSHA”; and then: “Was the regular channel from Himmler through Kaltenbrunner to Müller, and then to the concentration camp commandant?” And then the answer, “yes.”

Please answer briefly.

KALTENBRUNNER: I have already explained today that the authority and power to order executions rested only to a small extent with the Minister of Justice, and with Himmler. Nobody else in the entire Reich had the possibility or the authority to order that. Further, despite the official channels—Himmler, Kaltenbrunner, Müller—such an order from Himmler was never forwarded to me; these orders must have gone from Himmler to Müller. To put this question to Mildner is wrong for the single reason that the man was not with me and cannot know whether I ever received such an order from Himmler. It is only a conclusion which he draws from the normal organizational set-up.

DR. KAUFFMANN: That is a matter for the Defense later on; you need not talk about that.

THE PRESIDENT: You are not looking at the words. What he is asked is, “Was the regular channel...?” That is the question. What is the regular channel for orders from Himmler to you and Müller?

KALTENBRUNNER: Your Lordship, I have already explained the question how Himmler himself ruled on the competencies. Just think of June 1942, of Heydrich’s death. From that day on—it is a written order and was announced publicly—Himmler took charge of the entire RSHA and assumed all the duties which had been Heydrich’s. In January 1943 I was appointed Chief of the RSHA, after it had been announced that the executive power and competence of the State Police and Criminal Police remain with Himmler, no change was to be made, and the Chiefs of Amt IV and V, Müller and Nebe, would continue to be directly under Himmler. For that reason the organizational scheme as it existed at the time of Heydrich was no longer applicable for Amt IV and V when I joined the staff.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Now, Question 3-a: There it says, “Was Dr. Kaltenbrunner acquainted with conditions in the concentration camps?” Here also it is not explained just what is meant by “conditions” in concentration camps, but it is most likely to be interpreted that those conditions which have been attested by witnesses are meant. The witness said, “Yes.”

KALTENBRUNNER: Dr. Kauffmann, you are overlooking a very important sentence, the last one, on Question Number 3. Here the Prosecution ask: “Did the WVHA have supervision of all concentration camps for administration, the utilization of labor, and maintenance of discipline?” This sentence is tremendously important for the following reasons: The Prosecution endeavor to shift the entire guilt for the destruction of human life from the WVHA to the RSHA, and, if the High Tribunal want to find the truth...

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 a conference take place between Kaltenbrunner, Pohl, and the chief 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 was not the question; I am of the same opinion.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Please answer “yes” or “no” to the question which was just put to you. Did such conferences between Pohl, Müller, and yourself take place?

KALTENBRUNNER: I never had conferences with Pohl and Müller. I had to have semi-annual conferences with Pohl because Pohl was, as Chief of the WVHA, the Finance Minister for the entire SS and Police and the funds for my entire intelligence service had to come from Pohl insofar as the Reich Finance Ministry did not provide for all the personnel.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Now, please answer one further question: Who was responsible for the administration of concentration camps, the general treatment, food, _et cetera_?

KALTENBRUNNER: The entire competence and jurisdiction in concentration camps, from the moment an internee stepped through the gate of a concentration camp until his release or his death in the concentration camp, or—the third possibility—until the end of the war at which time he was liberated, rested exclusively with the WVHA.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Now another question for the complete clarification. I am assuming that these things were exclusively under the jurisdiction of the WVHA, which had nothing to do with the RSHA. But it is correct, is it not, that only through measures of the Secret Police—by issuing orders for protective custody—that internment in these camps could take place. I just want to define clearly these limitations.

KALTENBRUNNER: There is no doubt that that is correct in respect to individual internments on the basis of individual orders for protective custody which, I admit, were partly based on illegal reasons, as I have already stated. However, most of the internments did not take place on orders from the RSHA but came from the occupied territories—and from there came, for instance, the big transports which Fichte mentioned in the first document.

DR. KAUFFMANN: But then these are, without doubt, the offices which were in charge of internments: the Gestapo offices or the Gestapo regional head offices.

KALTENBRUNNER: No, not alone.

DR. KAUFFMANN: But they did participate?

KALTENBRUNNER: No, not alone. One way for internment was the order for protective custody by the Gestapo, another one was the order for protective custody by the Kripo or the courts.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Now, a further statement. Will you please make a statement to Question Number 5, the action in Denmark?

THE PRESIDENT: Have you dealt with Question Number 4 yet?

DR. KAUFFMANN: Not yet, Mr. President.

[_Turning to the defendant._] I go over to Question Number 4. “Is it not a fact that in July or August of 1944 an order was issued to commanders...by Himmler through Kaltenbrunner, as chief...to the effect that members of all Anglo-American commando groups should be turned over to the Sipo by the Armed Forces?”

Mr. President, I wanted to deal with this question comprehensively at a later time and by means of documents, 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.

KALTENBRUNNER: High Tribunal, may I perhaps answer it right away? The answer to this question is very simple. The Prosecution itself, through a document, has, in a completely different form, charged that the State Police had incriminated themselves by falsifying the facts. In that document the Prosecution states that Müller gave the approval; but here the deponent is told, “issued...by 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 Müller.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I will submit that document to you. It is Document 1650-PS, Exhibit USA-246. This document is headed, “Gestapo office, Cologne; Branch Office Aachen.” It is a teletype and dated “4 March 1944; top secret”:

“Subject: Measures against escaped prisoners of war who are
officers or nonworking, noncommissioned officers, with the
exception of British and American prisoners of war.”

THE PRESIDENT: Surely that has nothing 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 cannot hear.

THE PRESIDENT: The document you have now put forward is a document in March 1944. The Question Number 4 relates to a document in July or August 1944.

DR. KAUFFMANN: July or August 1944? I have no such document, Your Honor. Perhaps the defendant can tell us now whether such an order by Himmler existed and whether such a Himmler order was transmitted by him—“yes” or “no.”

KALTENBRUNNER: I heard about the existence of such an 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 4 March 1944.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Then you are saying that this order from July is not known to you?

KALTENBRUNNER: I 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 a document 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 Number 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 so-called Commando order of Hitler of 18 October 1942, and that a result 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 1942?

COL. 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?

COL. 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.

DR. KAUFFMANN: It is the question of the persecution of Jews in Denmark. Will you make a statement to that?

KALTENBRUNNER: The statement in the affidavit of Mildner which was read by you this morning is alone correct.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Is that your statement?

KALTENBRUNNER: I never had anything to do with the removal of Jews from Denmark. Such an order could have been given only by Himmler; and that this was a direct order given by Himmler was confirmed by Mildner.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Point c) of the question Number 5 says, “That shortly after your return to Copenhagen you”—that is, the witness Mildner—“received a direct order by Himmler sent through Kaltenbrunner, as chief...”

KALTENBRUNNER: I never had an order like that go through my hands and I never received an order like that from Himmler. It is also absolutely impossible, because Denmark had her own Higher SS and Police Leader who was the direct representative of Himmler right there, and who was immediately subordinate to him and not to RSHA. This Higher SS and Police Leader was at the same time Commander of the Sipo. Organizationally I could not give such an order to Denmark.

DR. KAUFFMANN: In Question Number 6 it is asked: “Is it not a fact that the action of Sonderkommando Eichmann was not a success; that Müller ordered you”—that is Mildner—“to make a report ... directly to the Chief of the Sipo and SD, Kaltenbrunner?”

The witness Mildner answered that in the affirmative. Is such a report from Denmark known to you?

KALTENBRUNNER: I not only do not know this report, but I know with certainty—I spoke to Himmler not once but a dozen times about this—that he received every report from Eichmann directly, in many cases without informing Müller.