The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-11/tgmwc-11-107.03

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-11/tgmwc-11-107.03
Last-Modified: 2000/01/13

COLONEL AMEN: So I think it was sent to the prosecution for
the very purpose for which I am now endeavouring to utilise

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel. Amen, apart altogether from the
question of privilege

                                                  [Page 335]

between counsel and his client, how do you say that this
document which is a letter apparently from a private
individual addressed to Dr. Kauffmann, copy of which is sent
you, is evidence at all?

COLONEL AMEN: Because, your Lordship, there is included in
this defendant's Document Book a letter which is on
precisely this same point. In other words, this defendant
has raised this point in his own defence. He did not read
the letter -

THE PRESIDENT: That is not quite the point. This letter to
Dr. Kauffmann, of which you have a copy, is not, as I
understand, a sworn statement.

COLONEL AMEN: It is not sworn, no sir.

THE PRESIDENT: How does it become evidence then? The witness
is not here.

COLONEL AMEN: It has the same probative value that many
letters introduced here in evidence have. In fact, I think
it has considerably more than many of them because it is a
letter from an official, from the mayor, who has conducted
an inquiry and has ascertained what I consider to be one of
the most important matters in the case, namely whether -

THE PRESIDENT: No, I do not want to hear at the moment what
is in the letter.

COLONEL AMEN: I cannot think of a thing that was more
pertinent than this letter or more important to be brought
out at this trial, particularly when it - well, you do not
want me to go into that, particularly when it is something
which the defendant has sought to interpose as his own
defence and which now turns out -

THE PRESIDENT: But he has not sought to introduce it for his
own defence.

COLONEL AMEN: Well, I say he has sought to introduce that
issue by the letter in his Document Book so that even were
it not otherwise perhaps relevant it surely becomes so when
the defendant has raised that precise issue in his own
documents. But even aside from that it seems to me that it
is one of the most important issues in this case.

I will not characterise it in words since your Lordship does
not wish me to but I can hardly think of anything more
pertinent than the matter set forth there in the form of an
official communication.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, the only question I was asking
you was how the particular document which is an unsworn
document came to be competent evidence. Has it been seen by
the witness who is under cross-examination?

COLONEL AMEN: Well, as an official communication, sir, in
the course of the discharge of his official duties as a
mayor, to defendant's counsel. It is a part of his job.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kauffmann.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, I do not wish to speak now
about the question of procedure. I merely want to mention
that this letter -

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute -

DR. KAUFFMANN: I do not want to deal at great length with
the question of procedure, which we touched upon just now,
but I wish to emphasise that these two documents have
nothing to do with the case of Kaltenbrunner as such. As I
have just said, anyone may look at the document, but, since
this document has nothing to do with Kaltenbrunner, it has
from the first no value as evidence.

COLONEL AMEN: Well, it has even further probative value,
your Lordship, in that if the matters referred to in this
letter were known, as described in the letter, to the people
in Oranienburg, surely the person who occupies the position
as Chief of the R.S.H.A. in Germany must certainly have the
knowledge which the smallest local civilian appears to have.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

(A recess was taken.)

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal rules that the document is

COLONEL AMEN: That was to have been my last document, your
Lordship, so that concludes the cross-examination, except
for one point. There is a witness

                                                  [Page 336]

named Hoess, who is called on behalf of the defendant, and
through whom I would like to introduce two exhibits. It he
is not to be called, however, then I would like to introduce
those exhibits through the defendant. So I am wondering
whether we could obtain a definite statement as to whether
or not the witness Hoess is actually to be called by the

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, are you proposing to call



COLONEL AMEN: I have no further questions to put to the

THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I did not hear what you said,
Colonel Amen.

COLONEL AMEN: I have no further question.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the defendant can return to his seat.
Wait a minute.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, we have a few questions to
put to the defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, we understood the other day
that the counsel for the prosecution had agreed that there
should only be one cross-examination of the defendant

COLONEL SMIRNOV: We wish to request the Tribunal to allow us
to put a few questions to the defendant, which will not take
very long, but which are quite indispensable for further

THE PRESIDENT: In the opinion of the Tribunal, counsel ought
to settle before-hand what questions are indispensable and
then have them put by the counsel who cross-examine. That is
the whole object of the scheme.

Sir David, when we saw you on this subject, did you not tell
us that all the prosecutors had agreed that so far as this
defendant was concerned he should only be cross-examined by

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that was the position. I
understand that the Soviet Delegation have some special
points, and they were going to ask, as a matter of grace of
the Tribunal, whether they could put them. That is what my
Soviet colleagues have informed me.


M. DUBOST: My explanation will be very brief, Mr. President.
In principle the prosecution entrusts one man to ask all
these questions. However, it is impossible for the entire
investigation and examination to be carried out by one
member of the prosecution only, because we do represent four
different nations which have, not divergent, but certainly
individual interests. The only person qualified to speak in
the interests of a nation is the representative of that
nation. I think, therefore, that the Tribunal should permit
us to ask questions from time to time when we ask to be
allowed to do so.

THE PRESIDENT: M. Dubost, you aren't applying now, are you,
for leave to have a third cross-examination - you are just
speaking on general principles?

M. DUBOST: Mr. President, it is a question of principle. The
prosecution has limited itself in order to economise on
time, but it requests the Tribunal for authorisation to
intercede, when it is necessary to do so, in order to
represent the interests of a country.

I will not ask any questions which might have occurred to me
following the interrogation by my colleague of the United
States; I do not wish to retard the proceedings. However, I
think that the Tribunal could tell us that, in principle, we
remain free to ask questions which concern our countries,
especially so, since we alone are competent to represent the
interests of our countries and cannot transfer this
confidence to one of our colleagues.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, could you inform the
Tribunal what questions, what points you want to cross-
examine upon?

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yesterday, when the defendant was replying
to Colonel Amen's questions and denying his participation in
the extermination of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, he
stressed that the Chief of Police in occupied Poland,
Kruger, was allegedly directly subordinated to Himmler and
had no connection

                                                  [Page 337]

with Kaltenbrunner at all. In the Polish documents which
have just reached me and in connection with which the Soviet
Delegation has changed the order which it had primarily
intended to observe, in these Polish documents there is ...

THE PRESIDENT: I understand that point. Are there any other

COLONEL SMIRNOV: The second point refers to another document
already submitted by the Soviet Delegation, and this point
has not been covered by the preceding question, but it is of
intense interest from the viewpoint of the documents
previously presented. It is in regard to these two questions
that I wish to examine the defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: You are aware that we are going to adjourn at
half-past twelve for the purpose of dealing with the
documents of the defendant Rosenberg, but you may certainly
cross-examine upon these points if you will do it as shortly
as you can.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: I believe, Mr. President, that we shall be
able to finish the cross-examination in fifteen minutes.



Q. Witness, Colonel Amen yesterday submitted to the Tribunal
a document which disclosed your active participation in the
liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto. Rebutting this accusation
you dwelt at great length on the fact that the Police Chiefs
in the occupied territories were directly subordinated to
Reichsfuehrer S.S. Himmler and had nothing to do with you.
Do you confirm this statement?

A. Yes, but it should be supplemented. I also said yesterday
that the Higher S.S. and Police Chief in the Government
General was subordinate to Himmler and that, in turn, the
S.S. and police leaders of the smaller districts were
subordinate to him.

Q. Perhaps you can tell us to whom the police officials were

A. The commanders of the Security Police, the Public Order
Police and the Waffen S.S. were subordinate to the Higher
S.S. and to the Chief of Police; they were also subordinated
to the Chiefs of Police and S.S. in the smaller districts.

Q. Perhaps you can remember your second statement as well,
when you declared yourself opposed to Kruger's extreme
tendencies to ruthlessness towards the Polish Jews and that
you had even attempted to restrain him?

A. I have stated that I agreed with Frank in favouring the
release of Kruger, that is, his transfer from the Government

Q. I would like to hand Frank's diary to the defendant. Let
him turn to Page 13, where Kruger is mentioned, and then to
Page 16. Read and follow if it has been carefully

   "There is no doubt, says Kruger, that the removal of the
   Jews has had a favourable effect on pacification ... "

A. That passage has not been submitted to me here. I have
Page 13 of the document in my hand.

Q. Well then, we shall show you Page 16, beginning with the
words  "There is no doubt ... " I begin again:

  "There is no doubt but that the removal of the Jews has
  also had a favourable effect on pacification. It was, for
  the police, one of their gravest and most unpleasant
  tasks, but it had to be carried out by order of the
  Fuehrer, since it was essential to the interests of
  One was forced to remove the Jews from the armament
  industries and from any industry connected with the war

I omit one paragraph and would ask you to do the same.

   "We are forced to remove the Jews from the armament
   industries and from all industries and factories of
   military and economic interest unless their
                                                  [Page 338]
   employment was exclusively justified by important
   considerations of a military nature. In such cases the
   Jews will be centralised in the large camps and from
   there sent, by day, to the munition factories. The
   Reichsfuehrer S.S., however, wants these Jews to be
   removed from the factories as well. He had a long
   conversation on this subject with General Schindler and
   is of opinion that this wish of the Reichsfuehrer S.S.
   cannot be carried out in full. There are, among the
   Jewish workers, specialists, skilled mechanicians and
   other qualified artisans who cannot at present be
   replaced by Poles without serious consequences."

I draw your attention to the next sentence:

   "He therefore requests the S.S. Obergruppenfuehrer, Dr.
   Kaltenbrunner, to describe the situation to the
   Reichsfuehrer S.S. and to request him to refrain from
   removing these skilled Jewish workers. The best,
   physically speaking, of the Jews had been retained in
   the industries, the so-called 'Maccabeans' who worked
   magnificently, as well as female workers who had proved
   physically stronger than the male Jews. The same had
   also been experienced in the clearing of the Warsaw
   Ghetto. In any case, these tasks were extremely

I omit a sentence and quote the following:

    "It has been proved that here too the Jewesses, arms in
    hand, had fought the men of the Waffen S.S. and the,
    police to the end."

Does this passage not prove that Kruger considered you as
his commanding officer and that when the majority of Jews
had already been murdered in Poland and only a very small
number of good specialists were left, Kruger appealed to
Himmler, through you - as his Chief - to allow these Jews to
live? Does this not bear witness to the fact that Kruger
considered you as his Chief and acted through you?

A. No, Mr. Prosecutor, this document proves something quite
different. Firstly, he himself says here that the evacuation
of the Warsaw Ghetto had previously taken place; secondly he
says that he begs me to go to Himmler and to remonstrate
with him. What I said to him is not contained in the
document and the fact that, on that occasion I told Himmler
for the first time "Now I know what is going on" and
protested against it, does not appear in this document. But
surely I must be given the opportunity to declare and prove
here that I took steps against this action; and if you cross-
examine Frank or the witnesses -

COLONEL SMIRNOV: One moment, you have already mentioned
this, witness.

A. I have not finished. I have not yet finished this point.
If you question the witnesses on the subject of "Government
General" you will discover exactly how on that occasion I
paid my first and only visit to the Government General and
what I experienced and learned there became the subject of a
discussion with Himmler. You cannot accuse me on the one
hand of knowing of all these things without giving me, on
the other hand, the opportunity to describe what were my
reactions. In the last two years of the war circumstances
placed me in a position where I was able to see what was
happening in the Reich and later on, near the end, also in
the Government General. But you are not giving me an
opportunity to explain how I reacted, I, the man who had the
misfortune to get such a position at the end of the war.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.